Donald Trump Threatens 'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter, Claiming His 'Disloyalty' Somehow Amounts To Defamation
from the slappity-slapp-slapp dept
Earlier this week there was a fascinating piece in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer, interviewing Tony Schwartz, who is credited as the co-author to Donald Trump's first and most famous book, The Art of the Deal (Schwartz is interchangeably referred to as the ghostwriter or co-author -- his name appears on the book as the much smaller type-faced co-author, which is unlike most ghostwriters -- but Schwartz claims he really wrote the book after just following Trump around for a bit and getting some ideas from him). The interview with Schwartz is great storytelling and focuses on his belief that Trump would be a disastrous President (and the fact that The Art of the Deal was exaggerated reality).Despite the fact that the Republican National Convention happened this week, where Trump was officially nominated as the Republican Party candidate for President, Trump apparently found the time to have his lawyer dash off a ridiculously stupid cease and desist letter. It's the kind of cease and desist letter that we tend to see from complete cranks, rather than serious businessmen, let alone the official nominee for President from a major political party. Everything about the letter is flat out ridiculous (and at points, contradictory). Throughout it, Trump's Chief Legal Officer, Jason Greenblatt, keeps saying that Schwartz's statements are defamatory, but fails to name a single one. As has been pointed out many times, if you're screaming "defamation" but fail to point to a factual statement that is defamatory, you're just making noise.
The letter also claims that Schwartz is attempting to "rewrite history" and even starts out suggesting that Schwartz's claim of writing the book is an exaggeration, because the contract was merely to "provide certain services." But, rather than actually follow through on that line of argument, Greenblatt then more or less admits it, while arguing something totally different: that the book was successful because of Trump's association with it, not because of Schwartz. But Schwartz never argued otherwise, and that's completely besides the point.
Mr. Trump hired you to provide certain services in connection with the preparation of the Book. Although it has long-suited you to dramatically overstate your work on the Book in order to further your own career, (for example, telling George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America that, "I wrote every word of [the Book], Donald Trump made a few red marks when I handed him the manuscript, but that was it."), let me set the record straight about the origin of the Book: Mr. Trump was the source of all of the material in the Book and the inspiration for every word in the Book. You would not have had access to any of the information that appeared in the Book without Mr. Trump. He was the mastermind behind the deals described in the Book, and he provided you with the facts and facets of each of these deals in order for you to write them down. What's more, Mr. Trump is wholly responsible for the great success of the Book, not you. It was his ingenuity that made the deals described in the Book happen, and it was his promotion of the Book that made it a runaway success.Again, so what? That's got nothing to do with Schwartz's point and is nowhere near defamatory. Greenblatt also goes on to weirdly attack the one claim from Schwartz that he's pretty sure that many of the things in The Art of the Deal are false. Greenblatt wastes many perfectly good English words arguing that the book contract gave Schwartz the right to make changes to the book to make sure it was accurate, and somehow suggesting that his failure to change things proved that he didn't actually believe things in the book were false. Of course, again, this is not what Schwartz was arguing. He was saying that the stuff Trump told Schwartz, which Schwartz then crafted into the narrative of the book, were lies told by Trump. That should be obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.
Also, the above accusation is doubly weird, because just a page earlier in the letter, Greenblatt was arguing that Schwartz was a mere conduit and was basically just hired to scribble down Trump's words of wisdom. If he played such a minor part, then isn't that more or less admitting that Schwartz would have no say in correcting falsehoods in the book? The letter also tries to claim that Schwartz has been begging Trump for more work for decades and recently signed an agreement for royalties on the audiobook version of it. Schwartz, for his part, denies ever asking Trump for more work and says he actually turned down the offer to work on the sequel. The agreement on the audiobooks may be true, but it's difficult to see how that matters. Schwartz now speaking out against Trump, if anything, would likely diminish the interest in the book, and would impact Schwartz's own royalties (for which Schwartz has pledged to charity for any works purchased this year).
Even more hilariously, Greenblatt ends the letter by demanding Schwartz not only shut up, but also return all the royalties earned over the years from the book, including his half of the $500,000 advance.
Thankfully, Schwartz had lawyer Elizabeth McNamara at Davis Wright Tremaine respond to the letter, calling bullshit on it. The whole thing is worth a read (it's really only two pages), but here's a snippet:
Your letter alludes vaguely to "defamatory statements," "outright lies" and "downright fabrications," but you do not identify a single statement by Mr. Schwartz that is factually false, let alone defamatory. Instead, it is self-evident that Mr. Trump is most concerned with Mr. Schwartz's well-founded expressions of his own opinion of Mr. Trump's character, as well as Mr. Schwartz's accurately taking credit for the writing of The Art of the Deal, which you pointedly do not contest. Also, in Mr. Trump's eyes, Mr. Schwartz has been "very disloyal" in speaking out on these issues, as he is quoted saying to Mr. Schwartz in the recent New Yorker article by Jane Mayer.Of course, as we've noted in the past, this is kind of par for the course for Trump. When people say mean things about him, his lawyers tend to go ballistic, threatening (and sometimes suing for) defamation, even when there clearly is no defamation at all. This is why it's so ridiculous when Trump talks about "opening up" libel laws to go after those who write or say mean things about him.
The fact that Mr. Trump would spend time during the week of the Republican National Convention focused on settling a score with and trying to censor his co-author on a thirty-year-old book is, frankly, baffling, but only further underscores the very basis for Mr. Schwartz's criticisms. In any event, the demands you make in the letter are without any foundation in law or fact. Mr. Schwartz will not be returning any of the advance or royalties from the Book, and he has no intention of retracting any of his opinions about the character of the Republican nominee for the presidency, nor does he have any obligation or intention to remain silent about this issue going forward.
Being so thin skinned and willing to at least threaten to drag an author to court for stating his opinion hardly seems particularly Presidential.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: art of the deal, cease and desist, co-author, defamation, donald trump, ghostwriter, jane mayer, jason greenblatt, slapp, threats, tony schwartz
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Twumpkins
He'll probably still sue, just to cost the guy money in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The letter also tries to claim that Schwartz has been begging Trump for more work for decades and recently signed an agreement for royalties on the audiobook version of it. Schwartz, for his part, denies ever asking Trump for more work and says he actually turned down the offer to work on the sequel."
Uh huh. Sure. There's more to this.
"but Schwartz claims he really wrote the book after just following Trump around for a bit and getting some ideas from him"
So if he wrote the book, then the falsehoods are on him then, no?
Oh... and... Trumps an ass... stop acting surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least partially. This is what the author says and why he says he is remorseful about writing it.
"Oh... and... Trumps an ass... stop acting surprised."
An Ass as president might ruffle a few feathers, but voting in a vindictive sociopath means you guys have really gone off the rails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why shouldn't a vindictive sociopathic country have a matching president?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, Trump as himself doesn't seem very presidential or even a business man, just a semi rich brat.
(Donald, go ahead and sue me, try to prove calling you a rich brat is defamation!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you familiar with the term "lèse-majesté?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate Mike Wont Like It ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Now let's see how well you handle it."
Commence Schwartz-saber fight!
"I hate it when I get my Schwartz twisted!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Character
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What will it take for his campaign to implode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
Sure I voted for him, but I didn't think he'd get enough votes to win.
Hmm, maybe I better do a Google search to see what might happen if Trump becomes president. Oh, gee, that looks bad. I probably shouldn't have voted that way. Can we get a do-over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
(And if the GOP wasn't mostly falling into line behind him regardless of previous claimed unwillingness to do so. Trump may be running an opportunistic scam -- but a substantial portion of the public seems eager to believe whatever convenient claims and promises he spouts, and overlook the less agreeable, contrary ones... and that's a human proclivity that scammers have long found quite useful.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
I am not a Trump fan, but I can say that I would take my chances on him before I ever cast a vote for Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
What will it take for [Trump's] Campaign to implode???
Wait for the debates. That's all there is to it. Just be patient, and wait for these debates to shatter Trump's ego; world, and Family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
In what way have Hillary's criminal "issues" been "resolved"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary's absolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't 'restore' what was never lost
For all the talk through history about equal treatment under the law and justice being blind, it has always been the case that the scales of 'justice' are influenced by station and/or wealth, the only difference is the extent that the influence applies and that at times it's hidden better.
These days, not so much. The facade is paper-thin at best, to the point that only the naive or insanely optimistic expect equal treatment under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't 'restore' what was never lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary's absolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
Wow. That was one quick trial. I never even heard of it. Could you provide a link, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?
Still, it is not absolution. Based on the publicly revealed evidence, much less the stuff the FBI didn't reveal, I'd say she's guilty as hell. Only an acquittal in a fair trial would convince me otherwise at this point. Too bad she doesn't seem to want her "day in court" to establish her claimed innocence.
A prospective employer cannot ask if I have ever been arrested, only if I have been convicted.
Prospective landlords and employers alike often ask if an applicant has ever been arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US courts can't be trusted to ajudicate anything.
Would you trust the acquittal of a police officer charged for the murder of a suspect on the field?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to Alan Garten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alan Garten, part 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, I think I just realized who Trump really is. He's Spaceballs The Politician. Or maybe Spaceballs The Blowhard. If he gets elected, we'll have a real-life President Skroob on our hands. Somebody should check the combination to his luggage—it's probably 1-2-3-4-5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lawyer named Greenblatt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One might even say that they try......
*puts on sunglasses*
To go nuclear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the ROOT of the problem
um, this stupid book ain't an issue to me. Treason is however. And so far Trump has not commit TREASON like the alternative HAS.
First off issues for me is Rotten officials in California hate the Constitution, and proved it with their unconstitutional gun control horseshit. Cause I live in California. That's MY ISSUE out here, not the programming propaganda shit you hear on your fucking TV's. This is from the fucking STREET where Reality happens, nobody wants em, mark my words democrats of 30+ years are going to dump that fuckin party--I dumped that fuckin party. There's nothing there anymore. They USED the Gays (gays caught on now -- see milo), just like they fuckin used me, go spend 18 hours a day reading bills, you'll see the fucking land grabbers (shall this be a national monument, shall this be a national park=nogozoneattheendoftheday), the building renamin billz, the immigration vs national security ball dropping, the retarded fracking, problems with military and SEX. The Farm vs Globalist bills, the Water Wars, These fucking Foreign banksters controlling We The People's Currency vs the Senate with the Constitution regulating the Monetary SYSTEM!, it just goes on and on and fuckty on.
This book flap is simply the latest childish fairy tale hand holding "look over here at this shiny object it's sparkling" we have the story you want to be talking about all day long--by the 30 year experienced drooling progressive snakes who control the public spectrum and flood it with fascist commercial interests and United Nations agenda 2030 turds (hat tip to pbs mission creep), middle finger to FCC POTUS appointee--fire em all and hire engineers to allocate the spectrum in the best way with the goal of the public interest number one.
I don't see grown-up's talk serious, when there are oath breaking traitors holding office. What specifically do you do to get them the fuck out?
I am looking for someone who will uphold the Rule of Law, not break it.
Otherwise, a book isn't going to do shit but be fuel for cooking SHTF beans in the bunker after martial law.
So How many books do you want to sell me and for how much?
What you dumbsters who didn't serve in the US is that if you or I lost that fucking data.
The ACTIONS of government on this were a parting away from the RULE OF LAW.
That means when you find yourself in ANY situation you must consider yourself already dead, knowing this, only one thing left to do, STOP THE BAD PEOPLE FROM ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS SEND THE DUAL CITIZENS ("israel first") packing the fuck out with their faux US loyalty. and In ISRAEL's case -- RACISM won't work with the RULE OF LAW.
So yeah, slap trump around and get him on track. Yes' he's the alternative to Hillary's treason, but NO he's probably not the best president because he goes off on shit sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the ROOT of the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the ROOT of the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the ROOT of the problem
It must be an acronym for something. See how it's in ALL CAPS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the ROOT of the problem
Are you high? maybe drunk? Because that'd explain lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the ROOT of the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you would like to see where all this is heading take a look at whats going on in Turkey right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facts v. lies and truth
"Stop telling the truth or else I'll sue you for it!"
Although it sure would have been fun to have heard from the ghostwriter far earlier in this entire episode-but I'm sure the Trump fan club would have not heard it then, either.
I fear for this country when such a demagogue is actually considered a viable candidate for the Presidency.
I thought we'd learned something from the 1930's...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts v. lies and truth
We learned that winning the war meant that we could get away with being hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts v. lies and truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...baffling..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dispute? What dispute?
However, Mr. Schwartz is setting the record straight that he is the Writer of the 'Book', and Trump is not. That's clear English. What I believe Trump's Lawyer states as disloyal, is that Mr. Schwartz did not sign a Release or NDA, and that really pisses Trump off; the truth coming out at election time. It is very much like Ted Cruz's failure to endorse a candidate that has spent countless hours attacking Cruz' family, and Ted Cruz did not follow through on his statement that he would endorse Trump, more disloyalty - in Trump's view. A statement is not a signed document or truly legally binding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to have sex with your own daughter AND still be a republican presidential candidate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Posibilities
1) Telling the truth is somewhat hard to believe since no one else has come forward with similar views about Mr. Trump being a "sociopath". It is the Democratic Party that has been spinning this narrative about Mr. Trump. Trumps family, friends, employees, or business associates certainly would be jumping onto this bandwagon if it were true (look what happened to Bill Cosby. The reason I believe much of the hearsay reported about Bill and Hillary Clinton is because multiple source report the same thing. Even after they have denied the hearsay from others, more and more facts seems to come out making it true in my mind.
2) Not telling the truth is a possibility if the ghostwriter was bought by a Democratic Super Pac or other. The ghostwriter has been quiet since 1987 while he was collecting large royalties and was trying to get more business with Mr. Trump. He was clearly looking to further enrich himself. It is possible that a Super Pac formulated the idea to damage Mr. Trump's image when the ghostwriter first tweeted that "he not Trump had written the book". The tweet was a natural response of any ghostwriter when they see their words being bragged about by the author. I myself have had the very same reaction in a similar situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Posibilities
Even his kids.
Considering that Trump is super sensitive and likes to throw around lawsuits, it's not surprising that there are few stories.
So far there isn't a single reason to vote for him, except to vote against Hillary. And while I'd be inclined to vote against Hillary, I don't want to do so if it means voting for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Posibilities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Posibilities
I'm curious what other conspiracies you believe in. Your post smacks of the mindset, with looking for nefarious hidden motives rather than the obvious and perfectly plausible stated ones. 9/11 was an inside job? Aliens at Roswell? Illuminati?
It's strange that you would tend to credit Trump, a known blatant and perhaps even pathological liar, over this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
Now he's everything wrong with the world.
Hahah how gullible can liberals be?
Is there any amount of bullshit they won't swallow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]