Ivanka Trump testimony takeaways: Donald Trump’s daughter can’t recall much

Court has been adjourned for the day and Ivanka has left the courtroom.

The defense is expected to begin presenting their case in chief tomorrow.

As the judge reviews the schedule for tomorrow, loud cheers can be heard outside the courtroom. Trump lawyer Chris Kise hears it too and alludes to it, suggesting it was for Ivanka.

Ivanka is now off the stand, with no further cross from other Trump lawyers and no redirect from the attorney general’s office. The attorney general’s office is now doing clean-up with respect to admitting recordings that were already shown in court.

Suarez is discussing with Ivanka the renovations she and Kushner did on their leased apartment. Those renovations, she acknowledged, cost $7.5 million, a massive figure by any measure, but especially so for a property one does not even own.

Suarez asks, “How do you feel about the work that you did for your family’s business?”

“I feel incredibly proud of the work that I did for the Trump Hotel Collection,” and the Doral and Old Post Office properties specifically, Ivanka testifies. That she did not talk more extensively about the Trump Org., however, and limited her pride to her redevelopment work specifically, should be noted.

Team Trump desperately wanted to show Ivanka a document reflecting GSA’s impression that Mazars qualified Trump’s financial statements as non-compliant with GAAP. But there’s a key problem: The document was internal to the GSA, and there is no proof that she ever saw it.

The document doesn’t come into evidence, but over objections by the attorney general’s office, Engoron allows Ivanka to testify that she has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the GSA’s observation.

The fallout from Ivanka’s testimony doesn’t thus far appear to have led her father to violate his New York gag order for a third time. But his Washington, D.C., lawyers just filed an appellate brief in the federal election interference case, challenging his other gag order there. They’re complaining that it violates the First Amendment.

The filing brings to mind Trump lawyer Alina Habba’s funny comment on Monday that she wouldn’t try to limit her client’s free speech in the face of his unhinged New York testimony. It also serves as a reminder that this civil fraud trial, while cutting to the heart of everything that is Donald Trump, is far from his only legal challenge ahead. 

Ivanka testifies to remembering that around 20 agencies were involved in the bidding process for the Old Post Office property — and she says that her family's “labor of love” to bring their vision of a luxury hotel to fruition paid off through their recent sale.

Suarez asks whether Deutsche Bank understood that vision and if the bank was excited about it. Ivanka says it was an “incredibly special and iconic” building that Rosemary Vrablic told them was “the crown jewel” in their real estate portfolio. Still, she said once the terms of the loan were negotiated, she turned her attention to the development of the asset itself, and others took over communication with Deutsche Bank.

Overall, Suarez seems to be suggesting that Deutsche Bank had legitimate reasons for lending to Trump on such favorable terms: the uniqueness of the assets, a belief in the Trump Org.’s ability to transform assets, and a desire to cement a long-term, multi-pronged relationship with a famous, high net worth family.

Suarez is trying to counter a dominant theme of today’s Ivanka testimony with one of his own: The Trump family could have self-financed the Doral project in Florida or obtained loans from any number of other financing sources.

Ivanka testifies that Doral was chosen, interestingly, because Trump had a deep "sentimental" attachment to it: He had been there with his own father as a child; he had visited its once-world-class spa with her mother, Ivanka; and she even believed he had taken her there when she was small.

Ivaka is talking at length about the renovation of the hotel and spa. "My father has a particular affinity for golf and a vision for it,” so she focused on the resort while he focused on the hotel, she says.

Ivanka, for all her lack of recall, says she does remember a meeting she attended between her father and then-Deutsche Bank co-CEO Anshu Jain in 2013.

She testifies that it was an “introductory meeting” that Ivanka characterizes as “a sales call” to encourage further partnership between the Trumps and the bank. After that meeting, Jain sent Donald Trump a fawning letter that said, “It was a pleasure to see your delight in the buildout of your family holdings and your justified pride in having your children in the business.”

Suarez, despite Team Trump's constant complaints about documents that predate the inception of the statute of limitations, is showing Ivanka a 2012 email in which a Deutsche Bank banker invited her to a lunch to learn about investing in SoftBank.

Ivanka says she does not remember it. She also says it’s possible, although she doesn’t remember, that Deutsche Bank wanted to highlight the Trump family’s involvement through a promotional video. She is then shown a 2012 email through which Vrablic asks her to participate in such a promotional video.

Suarez is hammering at a theme: Deutsche Bank wanted to make money, and the favorable loan terms they extended to Trump were part and parcel of an overall strategy to make money from their relationship with the Trumps. Not only did the bank offer them other investment opportunities or banking services, but seemed to have believed publicity from the Trump relationship would benefit the bank.

Donald Trump wasn’t cross-examined on Monday by his lawyers, though he and his co-defendant adult sons could be called again to the stand by the defense when it presents its case after the state rests.

Ivanka, however, isn’t a defendant in the case and isn’t on the defense witness list, so that could be at least part of why the Trump side wants to question her while they have her there.

Ivanka is now being cross-examined by Trump attorney Jesus Suarez, who has her reiterate that she had zero involvement in preparing or reviewing the statements of financial condition or valuing assets.

And now they are moving on to her relationship with Rosemary Vrablic, from Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management group. Ivanka describes Vrablic as “formidable.”

Suarez is trying to demonstrate that Vrablic’s decision to give the Trump Org. advantageous loan terms was part of an overall strategy to make money from the Trump family, as one would expect any banker to do.

Solomon is now walking Ivanka through a document showing that each of the adult kids had an LLC established in relation to the Old Post Office project that became a vehicle for their participation in the profits from the project. Ivanka does not cast doubt on this.

Ivanka testifies that she may have had a revocable trust at some point, but is not sure it is active. Solomon then asks her whether her revocable trust ever owed her father an interest so that he could satisfy his guarantee in connection with the Old Post Office loan.

Ivanka says she does not believe so, but Solomon whips out a document with signatures from each of her, Eric and Don Jr., on behalf of their respective revocable trusts. And that document, contrary to Ivanka’s recollection, pledges to make “prompt and unconditional payment” of their defined “proportionate share” of the guarantee for the Old Post Office loan.

Solomon is now reviewing with Ivanka a term sheet for the Old Post Office loan, which she negotiated. She has now testified to the low interest rates and that her father agreed to certify his statements of financial condition. She also said a host of Donald Trump’s financial information — including a current balance sheet, a bank or brokerage statement to verify liquidity, a real estate portfolio summary, and a cash flow statement — was a condition precedent to receiving the loan proceeds.

She testified that she understood the personal guarantee was a condition of the loan, but that she did not understand the loan to require documents with this level of specificity.

This is wild. Not only did Ivanka ask for Kushner’s help in approaching other potential sources of lending, but her colleagues at the Trump Org. sent him internal drafts of presentations with a note that they planned to “remove management fees from the income statement.”

Ivanka testifies that she did not have a view as to whether that was appropriate.

We are back in session, and before Ivanka returns to the stand, Engoron is showing his work and ruling that Ivanka and Kushner’s email chain, which was over their respective work accounts, waived any privilege.

The judge cites a New York State case squarely on point. State attorney Lou Solomon then adds another for the proposition that “no marital privilege attaches … to ordinary business communications,” which is an exception to the spousal privilege.

Trump attorney Christopher Kise — despite this — is now asserting the privilege belongs not to Ivanka but to the absent Kushner. What he seems concerned with, however, is communications beyond the document itself, including her testimony about those communications. Stay tuned.

As the lunch break nears its end, I am back in the courthouse and reflecting on what we’ve seen so far. Notwithstanding her failure to recall events or core deal terms, Ivanka has been cooperative, gracious and controlled. And maybe most importantly, she has not contested much in the way of the attorney general’s team’s reading of the documents.

Yes, she quibbled with one draft term sheet, explaining that the terms she read there weren’t the ultimate terms on which she recalled agreeing. But unlike her father, who steadfastly insisted his financial statements were largely irrelevant to the banks, despite language to the contrary in lending agreements, Ivanka seems content to let documents speak for themselves, even when the overall implications for her dad and brothers aren’t helpful.

Lisa Rubin explains the "devastating series of documents" discussed during the first part of Ivanka's testimony today.

It's been a less volatile though nonetheless illuminating day of testimony for Ivanka as compared to her father's time on the stand earlier this week.

The court is taking its lunch break and will return in roughly an hour.

Solomon has shown Ivanka a 2013 email between Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, as produced by the Trump Org. If anyone wondered whether these two talked business, they absolutely did.

“I made the below deal with him: DB private bank and Cap One total carve out/ 150 flat-fee for Wells and Natixis/4 percent for everyone else,” Ivanka told her husband.

Kise, the Trump attorney, has, perhaps predictably, objected strenuously that this is covered by spousal privilege and that there is no exception for business discussions; rather, communications between husband and wife are usually privileged.

But Engoron rules the privilege as to the email itself is waived — and that matters because the email reflects that the Trump Org. explored financing through Capital One, which Kushner noted was deeply embedded in his own business. Kushner later advised her that he could help her obtain more favorable financing from Natixis, another bank, and as state attorney Solomon asks why she was talking to Kushner about Trump Org. loan terms, Kise’s renewed objection about spousal privilege causes Engoron to call for the lunch break.

There has been some hot back and forth between the lawyers about Ivanka’s lack of recollection of GSA’s concerns about her father’s statements of financial condition.

Seeming almost apologetic, not combative, she reiterated that she only remembers one in-person meeting and that it took place at the beginning of the process.

Solomon is visibly frustrated that Ivanka appears to remember details about construction, for example, but not about the GSA’s perception of deficiencies in the Trump Org. bid.

While Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka is on the stand, Judge Engoron said Trump lawyer Chris Kise is “starting to sound like your client.” 

Fortunately for Kise, that was apparently in reference to the lawyer’s laudatory remarks about Trump-related real estate (the Old Post Office property that’s the subject of Ivanka’s testimony), rather than, say, an apparent suggestion that the lawyer was in danger of violating the gag order that Trump has been found to violate twice and has been extended to his lawyers as well.

Lisa Rubin, who is observing the proceedings from the courtroom, said Engoron’s comment struck her as more light-hearted than contentious.

As expected, we are now discussing Ivanka’s involvement in the bid for the Old Post Office lease, a process spearheaded by the General Services Administration. But just as Lou Solomon, the state attorney, tries to ask Ivanka about the involvement of Colony Capital in equity financing for the Trump Org.'s bid, Team Trump attorney Christopher Kise objects on the grounds that a 2012 bidding process is so far afield from the issues at hand that there is no “possible connectivity.”

Ivanka has been excused so the lawyers can hash out whether the testimony Solomon is trying to elicit is relevant.

Engoron notes some of the loans, if not most, require certification into the future. Solomon adds that Colony Capital’s contribution to the submission lays out what an appropriate interest rate would be, based on their 25 years' worth of experience, but instead, Deutsche Bank became the lender on the basis of false and fraudulent financial information.

We are now reviewing the proposed refinancing terms of two loans associated with Donald Trump’s Chicago building. The attorney general's office is showing that the interest rates associated with the proposed refinancing of these loans by Deutsche Bank’s commercial lenders were high and while complicated, involved the addition of 800 basis points — or 8% — plus a LIBOR rate. (LIBOR stands for London Interbank Offered Rate, a benchmark interest rate.)

By contrast, as with the Doral loans, the 2012 loans ultimately agreed upon for Trump Chicago’s residential and commercial components respectively through the private wealth management group had — surprise! — much more favorable terms of LIBOR plus 3.35% or LIBOR plus 2.25% (or an alternative involving a swap). As before, Donald Trump had to personally guarantee the principal and operating expenses of the collateral on each loan.

Moreover, as evidenced by a 2012 email between Ivanka and Rosemary Vrablic, the pricing was later adjusted to be even more favorable to the Trump Org., dropping the origination fees and the rates.

After Ivanka Trump began to give potentially damning testimony implicating the family business this morning, her father returned to Truth Social with a post that’s mostly untrue or misleading.

He wrote: “No Victims, No Defaults, Conservative Financial Statements, 100% Disclaimer Clause, Corrupt A.G., Trump Hating Judge = NO CASE!!!”

Obviously, that’s an imprecise equation. For one thing, it reflects a different understanding of the broad law at issue than was evident in Trump’s post last month, in which he wrote, among other things: “NY Executive Law 63 (12) does not require a victim[.]”

Though she’s been testifying more calmly than her co-defendant family members, one can see why they fought to keep Ivanka off the stand — and why the N.Y. AG James fought to put her on.

Even if she’s saying she doesn’t recall certain details, as Lisa Rubin points out, the government may nonetheless be using her testimony to tell a devastating story about the family business, including through an email in which Ivanka wrote that terms offered by Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management group were as good as it gets.

One can see why the Trump defense team has been objecting and complaining about Ivanka having been “dragged” into court (echoing Donald Trump’s Truth Social rant that kicked off the day).

Judge Engoron ordered a 15-minute recess around 11:30 a.m. ET. When the proceedings resume, it will be another hour or so of testimony until lunch break, which is expected to begin around 1 p.m. ET

As predicted, Solomon is now asking Ivanka about her leased penthouse apartments at 502 Park Avenue, a building owned by the Trump Org.

As part of her leases, Ivanka obtained options to purchase each apartment, and she has now testified that her signature appears in multiple places in the lease agreement and amendments thereto.

So, why does this matter?

One hour in, Ivanka’s testimony has already been effective for the attorney general, but not because of what has come out of her mouth per se. Indeed, she remembers almost none of the deal terms or negotiations and is not refreshed by seeing contemporaneous emails.

Right now, for example. she is testifying that she does not recall seeking an additional, unsecured Doral loan in 2016, notwithstanding email communications to the contrary. But because she both sent and received various communications with Deutsche Bank, she is a vehicle through which documents can be admitted into evidence.

Some of those documents, as I have already noted, are damning, especially Ivanka’s admission in an internal Trump Org. email that the terms offered by Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management group were as good as they get, even if concerns about Trump’s ability to satisfy the bank’s covenants were in doubt.

The thrust of Solomon’s examination, which might seem hyper-technical, if not dull, to the outside eye is clear to close watchers of the case. He is using Ivanka, weak memory and all, to submit documents that collectively establish a story.

That story goes like this: Unable to find financing with acceptable interest rates, Ivanka was rescued by Rosemary Vrablic, who offered an interest rate that was almost too good to be true in exchange for two key variables: a personal guarantee from Donald Trump and a minimum net worth of $2-3 billion, exclusive of the estimated value of his brand. These were not incidental to Deutsche Bank’s decision to lend; they were, in fact, instrumental to that decision.

Solomon, the state attorney, is now zeroing in on what he really wants to highlight: The Trumps turned to Rosemary Vrablic of Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management group because they could not secure financing from commercial lenders, including Deutsche Bank’s own commercial real estate group, which was willing to lend only on terms “substantially different” than those offered by the private wealth management group.

Ivanka says she does not recall seeing the commercial real estate group’s proposal nor does she remember, apart from the written proposal, that the terms of their proposal were different from those from the private wealth management group.

But by December 2011, the implication is that Ivanka — who was captaining the redevelopment of a “rundown” Doral — had run out of financing options, and she and her father set up a meeting with Vrablic. She doesn’t recall that specific meeting but recalls meeting often with Vrablic and her colleague Dominic Scalzi.

Ivanka’s testimony is just getting underway, but, as predicted, she’s already a more mature witness than her father was on Monday — not that that’s saying too much — and even than her brothers were last week.

That should make it easier to focus on the substance of her testimony, as the state’s lawyer dives into the details of her involvement in and knowledge of the family business.

Lou Solomon of the N.Y. attorney general’s office is reviewing a series of 2011 emails between Ivanka and representatives of other potential lenders and partners for the Doral project, through which she received at least two draft term sheets.

You might be wondering why these are relevant, especially given Ivanka’s lack of recall of the terms under discussion, such as the specific interest rates at issue.

This matters, however, because the attorney general's office is working up to a point about Deutsche Bank: After a series of failed conversations with multiple other banks and private equity firms (including Tom Barrack’s Colony Capital) in the market, the Trumps turned to the private wealth management group at Deutsche Bank because they could not obtain favorable terms from any commercial real estate lender or equity from a satisfactory partner.

We have now entered a line of questioning I predicted: Ivanka’s role in maintaining the relationship with Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management group, including through Rosemary Vrablic, to whom she was introduced through Jared Kushner.

Ivanka says she did not think about whether the private wealth group would offer them a loan for the Doral project in Florida on different terms than the commercial real estate group.

Ivanka has testified that her understanding of GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) is largely limited to what she learned at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennslyvania — and beyond remembering seeing a document about GAAP at her investigative interview, she says she does not recall encountering GAAP in her professional career.

She affirms that she has not worked for the Trump Org. since leaving the White House but acknowledges having a financial interest in the proceeds from the Old Post Office project in Washington, as well as a financial interest in a consulting agreement with TTT Consulting, through which she received distributions.

Asked whether she has received any other payments from the Trump Org. since January 2017, she says no.

Ivanka has taken the stand and is in the course of reviewing her educational and professional history with Lou Solomon of the AG’s office. She explains how her duties were “varied and evolved” as she gained experience in the family business, first under Eddie Weiss, the head of development and construction.

As she “proved herself,” she gained more responsibility, she testifies.

If you happen to come across Trump’s rambling Truth Social post from early this morning — which he just “ReTruthed” — you might wonder what he meant when he wrote that Judge Engoron “viciously ruled against me before the trial even started.”

Whatever it means to “viciously” rule, that apparently refers to Engoron having found Trump and his civil co-defendants liable for fraud before — as Trump wrote — the trial even started, implying that the pretrial ruling signals something untoward on Engoron’s part, rather than a judgment of how obvious that part of the case is, according to the judge.

Of course, there are still several counts at issue at the trial, in addition to the crucial question of how much money they’ll have to pay. But it’s true that the Trumps started the trial on weak footing, which Trump’s own testimony hasn’t helped.

We are in session now, and Lou Solomon of the attorney general’s office has called his next witness, Ivanka Trump.

Engoron asks, “Who’s she?”

The courtroom groans softly.

Ivanka's eldest brothers, Don Jr. and Eric, already testified last week. The two co-defendants deflected blame and denied any wrongdoing.

Eric, who was deeply involved in the Trump Org.'s operations, testified that he wasn't involved with the financial statements on assets the New York AG says were fraudulently inflated. But the AG's office presented evidence they said suggests otherwise, including a decades-old email in which Eric was asked for information for one of his father's financial statements.

Though defense lawyers didn't cross-examine Donald Trump on Monday or his sons last week, don't think their time on the witness stand is over. The AG's office is expected to rest its case after Ivanka's testimony. Expect one or more of the Trumps to be called back to testify when the defense presents its case in chief.

The judge’s principal law clerk just approached the table of lawyers for the N.Y. attorney general, asking if they received the promised witness list for next week from Team Trump. It’s not clear whether that list was sent either to the court or the attorney general’s team.

With roughly 20 minutes to go before the trial day starts, New York AG James is in her customary front-row seat in the gallery directly behind the plaintiffs’ lawyers table. As the courtroom gets progressively more full, but still far from jam-packed, James is surrounded by staff, including her chief of staff and principal spokesperson.

The attorney general’s lawyers are also ensconced at their table and preparing for the day ahead; lawyer Colleen Faherty, who examined Don Jr., appears to be in good spirits and is talking now with James.

Still, there are no signs of any of Team Trump within the courtroom itself.

As we already know, Ivanka, a former executive vice president of the Trump Org. with broad responsibility across its real estate and hotel management portfolios, was dismissed from the case over the summer.

An appeals court found that, because she did not return to the Trump Org. after she left the White House, she could not legally be bound by an agreement between the Trump Org. and the New York AG's office to extend the statute of limitations for all Trump Org. entities as well as those who were then officers and employees. As a result, she could not be liable for any transactions beyond 2014, the court ruled.

But it is a mistake to believe Ivanka’s testimony will be relevant only to the extent that she can implicate others. Rather, as a former officer of the Trump Org., her own complicity in the alleged fraud can be imputed to the corporate entities themselves during periods of time for which she herself can’t be liable. And her knowledge of and involvement in the valuation of certain assets and of the importance of her father’s statements of financial condition are more robust than most understand.

Ivanka has entered the chat.

Some people outside the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan shouted "crime family" as she arrived minutes ago. She was escorted into the building by multiple law enforcement agents.

In his late night/early morning Truth Social rant in which he complained about, among other things, Ivanka having to testify, Trump also continued to grumble about not having a jury in this case — specifically, how Judge Engoron “wouldn’t even consider a Jury.”

That’s true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far at all in context. The reason there isn’t a jury is not only that Trump’s own counsel didn’t push for one, but more importantly, as Trump’s team previously urged Engoron to make clear on the record, because this sort of case doesn’t have a jury. So there wasn’t anything for Engoron to “consider.”

Donald Trump lashed out during his testimony on Monday that was substantively bad for him, as Lisa Rubin explained. We don’t expect the same sort of outbursts from Ivanka that her father displayed, but will her testimony prompt Trump himself to further freak out? 

Recall, Judge Arthur Engoron has twice fined Trump for violating the gag order on statements about the judge’s law clerk. Trump kicked off the day with a Truth Social post just after midnight, complaining about, among other things, how “they are trying to bring Ivanka into the case.”

While we watch Ivanka’s testimony unfold, we’ll be watching how it affects her unhinged father as well.

Though Trump's ranting and raving on the stand Monday created quite a buzz, some of his key admissions may have flown under the radar.

As Lisa Rubin wrote on Monday:

Attorneys for the state have shown, for example, that despite having no memory of telling a Wall Street Journal reporter that a particular building was valued at $600 million, a contemporaneous email from his son showed Trump, in fact, did exactly that.

They’ve shown that despite much lower, and sometimes even negative net revenue from leasing that same building, Trump told a Forbes reporter — on tape — that the same building “threw off” between $50-60 million per year, another conversation Trump did not recall.

Read two other ways his testimony held the New York AG below:

Dive into the 222-page complaint against Donald Trump; his eldest sons Don Jr. and Eric; the Trump Organization and others. As we previously mentioned, Ivanka was initially listed as a defendant but was later dismissed from the case.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking $250 million in penalties for the overinflating of the Trumps' assets for financial gain.

Ivanka Trump, a former Trump Organization executive, was initially listed as a co-defendant in the New York attorney general's $250 million complaint. An appeals court dismissed the case against her in June, finding the claims against her were "time-barred," or too old.

But the president's eldest daughter wasn't able to get out testifying — though she tried. An appeals court rejected her claim that she would suffer "undue hardship" if she were compelled to testify this week.

“Ms Trump, who resides in Florida with her three minor children, will suffer undue hardship if a stay is denied and she is required to testify at trial in New York in the middle of a school week, in a case she has already been dismissed from, before her appeal is heard,” her lawyers had argued.

The state appeals court disagreed.