8/20/2019 Cruz Response Letter
1/2
www GOBERGROUP com
February 17, 2016
VIA E ‐MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Jeffrey L GoldmanDonald J. Trump for President, Inc.c/o
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP270 Madison AvenueNew York,
NY 10016
RE: Cease and Desist Demand
Dear Mr. Goldman:
I represent the Cruz for President campaign, as well as Ted
Cruz, Chad Sweet, and Jeff Roe. I
received your letter to my clients, dated February 16, 2016, in
which you complain onbehalf of Mr. Donald Trump that our campaign’s
television advertisement, “SupremeTrust,” “misrepresents to the
public that Mr. Trump is ‘pro‐choice.’” I take it that Mr.
Trumpdoes not share our enthusiasm for the ad.
Contrary to your flimsy assertion, the ad was not an attempt to
mislead the public. Theobjective of the ad was precisely the
opposite: to provide the voters of South Carolina withimportant and
accurate information so that they can make an informed decision
when theygo to the polls. More specifically, the ad informs the
voters of South Carolina that Mr.Trump cannot be trusted with the
solemn presidential duty of naming Justices to theUnited States
Supreme Court any more than he can be trusted to exercise the
other
constitutional powers of the Office of the President in
conformity with the conservativevalues of the people of South
Carolina.
Your letter broadly claims that the part of the ad stating that
Mr. Trump is pro‐abortion are“outright lies” and “downright
fabrications.” I urge you to view the ad again, more carefully.You
will see and hear that every statement in the ad concerning Mr.
Trump’s pro‐abortionviews comes from Mr. Trump’s own mouth. After
all, the ad simply displays video footageof Mr. Trump stating:
“I am very pro‐choice. I am pro‐choice in every respect.”
The ad even includes the captions on the screen so that Mr.
Trump’s spoken words can beclearly understood and to preempt any
notion that anyone, other than Mr. Trump himself,was putting words
in his mouth.
Your true objection seems to be that the video of Mr. Trump’s
admission that he “is verypro‐choice” is out‐of‐date and now
inconsistent with his campaign statements that he isnow pro‐life.
But one obvious point of the ad is that we do not believe Mr.
Trump’s recentcampaign claim that he is pro‐life is credible and,
more importantly, the voters should not
8/20/2019 Cruz Response Letter
2/2
www GOBERGROUP com
find it credible either. Notably, your letter fails to provide
any explanation whatsoever forwhy Mr. Trump’s continued support of
pro‐abortion organizations, candidates, andofficeholders does not
accurately portray his long‐held position on the issue. While tens
ofmillions of voters and spectators have come to expect Mr. Trump’s
grandiose protestationswithout the slightest bit of detail, our
campaign holds details in high regard. Therefore, I
have included a few below for your consideration.
As recently as Saturday, February 13, 2016 – four days ago at
the Republican Debatesponsored by CBS – Mr. Trump said Planned
Parenthood “does do wonderful things.”Planned Parenthood is the
leading abortion provider in the country. Being pro‐life
andsupporting Planned Parenthood are incompatible. Moreover, Mr.
Trump has recentlydonated political contributions to many
pro‐choice candidates and officeholders, includingChuck Schumer,
Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner, and Rahm Emanuel. Do you, on behalf
ofyour client, deny that these contributions were used to help
elect pro‐choice candidates tooffice? Indeed, before the 2008
election cycle, Mr. Trump donated $303,600 to Democrats,many of
whom are pro‐abortion. Mr. Trump also donated to the New York
StateDemocratic Party, whose platform is pro‐choice, and he has
donated to pro‐choicecandidates as recently as 2014. Suffice it to
say, there is ample evidence casting gravedoubt about the
truthfulness of Mr. Trump’s campaign claims that he is truly
pro‐life.
Mr. Trump and his campaign are certainly free to disseminate
information as they see fit torespond to the statements and
advertisements from opposing campaigns. It is an entirelydifferent
matter, however, to threaten a defamation action against an
opposing candidatefor simply using your client’s own words and
actions. In fact, it is laughable. Are youseriously suggesting that
the voter should not be allowed to hear what Mr. Trump has saidor
know what Mr. Trump has done? Since I suspect your client might
answer in theaffirmative, I suggest you advise him that the courts
are not in the business of censoringpolitical debate. See
e.g.,
New
York
Times
Co.
v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (“Thus, weconsider this case
against the backdrop of a profound national commitment to the
principlethat debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and wide‐open, and that it maywell include vehement,
caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on governmentand
public officials”).
In conclusion, I would be remiss if I didn’t explicitly state
the obvious: The truth is anabsolute defense to a defamation claim.
Therefore, your client has no legal basis to demandthat our
campaign cease airing the ad, and your demand for “prompt written
assurances”that we have pulled the spot will not be forthcoming. To
the contrary, we now plan to air
the ad with greater frequency.
Sincerely yours,
Chris K. Gober
