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