February

17, 2016


VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Mr. Jeffrey L Goldman
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
c/o Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New 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 on
behalf of Mr. Donald Trump that our campaigns television advertisement, Supreme
Trust, misrepresents to the public that Mr. Trump is prochoice. I take it that Mr. Trump
does not share our enthusiasm for the ad.

Contrary to your flimsy assertion, the ad was not an attempt to mislead the public. The
objective of the ad was precisely the opposite: to provide the voters of South Carolina with
important and accurate information so that they can make an informed decision when they
go 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 the
United 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 conservative
values of the people of South Carolina.

Your letter broadly claims that the part of the ad stating that Mr. Trump is proabortion 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. Trumps proabortion
views comes from Mr. Trumps own mouth. After all, the ad simply displays video footage
of Mr. Trump stating:

I am very prochoice. I am prochoice in every respect.

The ad even includes the captions on the screen so that Mr. Trumps spoken words can be
clearly 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. Trumps admission that he is very
prochoice is outofdate and now inconsistent with his campaign statements that he is
now prolife. But one obvious point of the ad is that we do not believe Mr. Trumps recent
campaign claim that he is prolife is credible and, more importantly, the voters should not

www.GOBERGROUP.com

find it credible either. Notably, your letter fails to provide any explanation whatsoever for
why Mr. Trumps continued support of proabortion organizations, candidates, and
officeholders does not accurately portray his longheld position on the issue. While tens of
millions of voters and spectators have come to expect Mr. Trumps grandiose protestations
without 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 Debate
sponsored by CBS Mr. Trump said Planned Parenthood does do wonderful things.
Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the country. Being prolife and
supporting Planned Parenthood are incompatible. Moreover, Mr. Trump has recently
donated political contributions to many prochoice candidates and officeholders, including
Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner, and Rahm Emanuel. Do you, on behalf of
your client, deny that these contributions were used to help elect prochoice candidates to
office? Indeed, before the 2008 election cycle, Mr. Trump donated $303,600 to Democrats,
many of whom are proabortion. Mr. Trump also donated to the New York State
Democratic Party, whose platform is prochoice, and he has donated to prochoice
candidates as recently as 2014. Suffice it to say, there is ample evidence casting grave
doubt about the truthfulness of Mr. Trumps campaign claims that he is truly prolife.

Mr. Trump and his campaign are certainly free to disseminate information as they see fit to
respond to the statements and advertisements from opposing campaigns. It is an entirely
different matter, however, to threaten a defamation action against an opposing candidate
for simply using your clients own words and actions. In fact, it is laughable. Are you
seriously suggesting that the voter should not be allowed to hear what Mr. Trump has said
or know what Mr. Trump has done? Since I suspect your client might answer in the
affirmative, I suggest you advise him that the courts are not in the business of censoring
political debate. See e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (Thus, we
consider this case against the backdrop of a profound national commitment to the principle
that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen, and that it may
well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government
and public officials).

In conclusion, I would be remiss if I didnt explicitly state the obvious: The truth is an
absolute defense to a defamation claim. Therefore, your client has no legal basis to demand
that 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

www.GOBERGROUP.com