Retired Generals warn segments of the military could support a future coup
by Mary Louise Kelly
NPR
December 29, 2021, 4:51 PM ET
Transcript
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with retired Major General Paul Eaton about the possibility of another insurrection after the 2024 election.
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
As we approach the first anniversary of the January 6 Capital riot, three retired U.S. generals are warning that another insurrection could occur after the next presidential election in 2024. And they are sounding the alarm that next time, it could come from the military. They made their case in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
And joining us now is one of the authors - retired Army Major General Paul Eaton. General Eaton, welcome.
PAUL EATON: Mary Louise, thank you very much for having me.
KELLY: So the scenario that you imagine is that after 2024 election, a losing candidate could - what? - could contest the results, claim to be commander in chief and some members of the military might take orders from them?
EATON: Mary Louise, the real question is, does everybody understand who the duly elected president is? If that is not a clear-cut understanding, that can infect the rank and file or at any level in the U.S. military. So if you have that kind of confusion around the 2020 election, it is not outlandish to consider that you're going to have a little bit of confusion and that confusion could slip into the ranks of the U.S. military.
KELLY: And to understand exactly what you're concerned about, are you more worried about rank-and-file soldiers who might sympathize with anti-democratic views, are you more worried about officers giving their units orders that would be unconstitutional, what?
EATON: Frankly, it could be a little bit of all of the above because we saw it in 2020. And the concern is to ensure that we have a very clear understanding of the support and defend the Constitution of the United States part of our oath and that everybody in the U.S. military truly understands how that oath works and how to understand the civilian leadership of the U.S. military.
KELLY: You said it's not outlandish to contemplate a scenario like this, but I - it is outlandish. I mean, this is the United States of America. As you noted, we have civilian control of the military. It's required by law. On a scale of 1 to 10, how worried actually are you about the possibility of a military insurrection following a contested result in 2024?
EATON: I see it as a low probability, high impact. I hesitate to put a number on it, but it's an eventuality that we need to prepare for. In the military, we do a lot of war-gaming to ferret out what might happen. You may have heard of the Transition Integrity Project that occurred about six months before the last election. We played four scenarios. And what we did not play is a U.S. military compromised; not to the degree that the United States is compromised today as far as 39% of the Republican party refusing to accept President Biden as president, but a compromise nonetheless. So we advocate that that particular scenario needs to be addressed in a future war-game held well in advance of 2024.
KELLY: It sounds like you're sounding an alarm bell saying I hope this doesn't happen; I think it's low probability that this will happen, but if there's any chance, we need to work now to ensure that everything that could possibly be done to prevent things going so far off the rails gets done now. Is that right?
EATON: That's a good assessment.
KELLY: So what do you recommend the military do to ensure this scenario does not unfold?
EATON: I had a conversation with somebody about my age who - we were talking about civics and the development of the philosophical underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. And I believe that bears a reteach to make sure that each and every 18-year-old American truly understands the Constitution of the United States, how we got there, how we developed it, what our forefathers wanted us to understand years down the road. That's an important bit of education that I think that we need to readdress. The fact that we were caught completely unprepared militarily and from a policing function on January 6 is incomprehensible.
KELLY: When you talk about civics classes, when you talk about war-gaming, that all sounds reasonable. It sounds smart. It also sounds like a very weak tea to stave off potential insurrection by the military.
EATON: A component is that beyond that, unsaid, is that we all know each other very well. And if there is any doubt in the loyalty and the willingness to follow the oath of the United States, the support and defend part of the U.S. Constitution, then those folks need to be identified and addressed in some capacity. But when you talk to a squad leader, a staff sergeant, a nine-man rifle squad, he knows his men and women very, very well.
KELLY: Paul Eaton, retired U.S. Army Major General, thank you.
EATON: Mary Louise, thank you very much for having me.
Copyright © 2021 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at http://www.npr.org for further information.
**************************************
Excerpt from Play Democracy!
by Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader Radio Hour
January 1, 2022
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233. ... script.pdf
Steve Skrovan: So, Ralph, I started by talking about having an interview with John Larson just before he went to the Capitol where the insurrection happened. You wanna tell us about an op-ed that you read in the Washington Post by a couple of generals who are speaking to that and the possibility of insurrection in this country?
Ralph Nader: Indeed. Actually, three generals--Paul Eaton, Antonio Taguba, and Steven Anderson. This is an extraordinary op-ed titled “The military must prepare now for a 2024 insurrection.” And it's not what you might think it is. It's basically an article showing that the Pentagon cannot wait. They have to prepare to educate their people about the Constitution, the oath of the Constitution, about their proper role. And the quote is, “All service members take an oath to protect the Constitution. But in a contested election, with loyalties split, some might follow orders from the rightful commander in chief, while others might follow the Trumpian loser. Arms might not be secured depending on who was overseeing them. Under such a scenario, it is not outlandish to say a military breakdown could lead to civil war.” And what they say is that the Pentagon has got to be prepared for all of this to prevent a breakdown of discipline. And it's really quite a bold position.
The other quote in the article is, “But the military cannot wait for elected officials to act. The Pentagon should immediately order a civics review for all members--uniformed and civilian--on the Constitution and electoral integrity. There must also be a review of the laws of war and how to identify and deal with illegal orders. And it must reinforce “unity of command” to make perfectly clear to every member of the Defense Department to whom they answer that no service member should say they didn’t understand whom to take orders from during a worst-case scenario.” And then they go into how to head off the signs of an insurrection to overturn the 2024 election. This is quite remarkable. And I think people who are interested should just pull it down and read it [from the] December 21st, 2021, Washington Post. And the lead author is retired General Paul Eaton [that’s] EATON.
Steve Skrovan: Well, that really is scary because we have always depended on the ethic and the code of conduct of our military, which has historically been different than most other countries and regimes where there is that acceptance of civilian control. And you have these three generals now who are saying that is not a rock solid guarantee.
Ralph Nader: And to fortify what you just said, Steve, is another quote in the article. “The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines--from the top of the chain to squad level--is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” “commander in chief” cannot be dismissed.” So this is what's going on here. And it's quite clear that these three retired generals are not alarmists. They understand the potential. They're recently retired. So they know what's going on in the Pentagon all the way down to the squad level. So, this is a good sign that they are standing firm as they did in the 2020 election.
Imagine even having to discuss something like this, but then imagine having somebody like Trump coming back with his cohorts and his version of American fascism. Some people think, well, that's too strong a word. No. One of the first characteristics of fascism is that they automatically say ahead of time that if they lose the election, it's because it's stolen. Right there. That's the first indicia of a fascistic political system.
Steve Skrovan: The messaging here is really interesting because I was actually talking to president of Public Citizen, Robert Weissman, yesterday about the mail that they receive. And you can see it on Twitter. You can see it on all the social media, where especially in terms of vaccine mandates, and I get these Heritage Foundation emails. I somehow got on their mailing list, and I don't unsubscribe because I kind of wanna know what they're talking about. And they use the language of authoritarians. They’re fighting authoritarianism. In other words, a public health mandate is taking away your freedoms. It really is an Orwellian use of the language where these fascistic elements are saying, “No, we're the ones fighting fascism. It's these other people who want to take away your freedoms.” And if they can convince enough people of that; it's like both sides are fighting the same concept of authoritarian fascism, but one is fascist and one isn't.
Ralph Nader: Yeah. Which side is suppressing votes, purging voters, harassing voters in discriminatory manner, state after state? And which part of this equation is trying to defund the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] and aid and abet tax evasion by the rich and the powerful? What's emerging here, Steve and David, is basically a new kind of fascistic oligarchy wanting to take over the political system and doing the bidding of an existing extraordinarily powerful corporate plutocracy. So, this is what Trump actually did when he was president. He spread suppression of regulation for health and safety and tried to turn the government into a profit center for his cronies. But at the same time that he was violating all kinds of criminal statutes-- the Hatch Act, the Antideficiency [Act] law, shoveling around money without congressional authority, defying over 120 congressional subpoenas, engaging in a dozen clear impeachable offenses day after day--he was open about it. He was a brazen unlike [Richard] Nixon hovering in a corner, saying he's not a crook. At that same time, he was making peace with his other interests, which is his corporate pocketbook and he was deregulating. Wall Street loved that. He was giving them huge tax cuts. Wall Street loved that. And he was getting rightwing corporatist judges throughout the federal judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court and Wall Street liked that. So, what we're seeing here is a merging canopy over American democracy of the older corporate plutocracy, which is basically strategically planning about everything that we do in this country right down to the commercialization of childhood as well as planning our tax system, our healthcare system, our food processing system, our land planning system zoning, our control, our disposition of resources on the public lands. You just go on and on; there isn't anything they're not strategically planning.
And on the other side of the canopy is emerging this new authoritarian fascistic oligarchy. And what that spells, if it's not stopped, is a very deep-rooted corporate state. It’s the end of the democracy! In reality, it’s the end of our republic. And it's Wall Street merging with Washington under the influence of the new American fascists and basically taking over any kind of potential opposition and dissent and labeling them as communists, socialists, terrorists--all the language that Trump has already used.
Now, this all can be prevented because we still have our basic institutions and they gotta be taken over like Congress and state legislatures by the people who sent them there, by the people who they're supposed to vote for. And so, while we have to be very vigilant about worst-case scenarios, as this article in the Post pointed out, we know that the power constitutionally is still in the hands of the people--we, the people. And we also know that people have enormous assets in terms of the commons, the public lands, the public airways, all the money that built all these industries through research and development from various departments and agencies of Washington, from NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] to the Defense Department, National Institutes of Health. And of course, we've got the vote. The corporations don't have the vote.
So, we've got to be levelheaded about this. We can't wallow on hopelessness and say, “Oh, what can we do? And I give up. I'm gonna play video games.” We need 1% of the people to get very serious, as we've said ad infinitum on this program, district by district, focusing on the Congress. That's the great fulcrum that we have available to turn our country into frontiers of justice, opportunity, renewability and protection of posterity. It's the Congress because of the way it's authorized by the Constitution to engage in the tax power, the spending power, the nomination power, the public information power, and above all, the war declaration power, which has been shoved over to the shelf, allowing presidents to start wars on their own say so.
David Feldman: Ralph, I’d like to ask you about framing all this. Because I remember earlier this year, Georgia passed some very restrictive voting rights laws. Delta [Air Lines], which is headquartered there and Coca-Cola spoke out against Georgia. It was a branding exercise. When we talk of fascism, we think of the military taking over. And shouldn't we be calling it a corporate takeover so that it hurts the corporations, that it hurts them in the pocketbook if they're perceived as being the ones behind this fascism? You can't have fascism without a corporate takeover. Is that correct?
Ralph Nader: Well, you point to an interesting opportunity here. There are some corporate executives who really are scared of American fascism. It's too unstable. Right now, corporations have it their way. I mean, they dominate Washington as if they're sitting on it. I mean, there isn't a single department in Washington, a single agency in Washington, that the outside force that's dominating it is not corporate. It's all corporate! Even the Department of Labor; the most powerful forces on the Department of Labor over the decades has not been the labor unions. It's been corporations. I mean, look how they froze the minimum wage, how they froze labor law reform, how they perpetuated anti-labor laws, how they violated with impunity fair labor standards in the workplace, how they disabled OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration]. So, they've never had it so good. It's the lowest tax on corporations in decades, for example; the weakest regulation in decades of corporations. The corporate crime laws are totally antiquated and they're not enforced. The budgets are not enforced. The corporations in the healthcare area are getting away with $350 billion in billing fraud this year, according to Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard and other studies. Very little prosecution. So, they've never had it so good. Massive profits. They can go to tax havens and escape. They can shift jobs to fascist communist dictatorships and get their will there. So, why would they want an additional fascist oligarchy to take charge?
Now, some are like the Koch brothers. They would like that kind of fascist oligarchy. They think they can benefit from it. But I think a majority of major CEOs, if they were asked privately, they would say, “We've never had it so good.” Whether it's Democrat or Republican, we don't even have to deal with the many congressional hearings anymore.” There are no corporate crime hearings. There may be some tough hearings where the members pound the table for the television cameras, but they never do anything about it. And we've seen those with the Facebook and Google hearings.
And so, they're basically – we've never had it so good. And we don't need this kind of destabilization, this kind of provocation of all kinds of demonstrations by people opposed to this kind of oligarchy. And that's what I think is in the minds of some of these generals is that this is the quest for continued stability under a corporate plutocratic system. That's their preferred approach. And that's why some of them don't like Trump at all. Never mind his own personal characteristics. They just don't like the prospects of fundamental destabilization of the political economy by going too far.
David Feldman: I think Corporate America is terrified that they don't think they have it good. I read somewhere that 75% of corporate CEOs say they expect to be fired in 2022. Corporate America has something like $18 trillion in debt that most of the companies, the S&P 500, are laggards; they’re not doing well; that the reason the stock market seems to be going up is the way they waited. And there were about 25 companies that are dragging the stock market up, but the rest of the corporations in America are suffering under debt. So, I could see corporate CEOs expressing the same anger that the insurrectionists had on January 6th and thinking a fascist takeover would help them.
Ralph Nader: Well, not as long as they have the Federal Reserve printing money backing them up at $150 billion a month. They're buying bonds and increasing liquidity and juicing up the stock market. Yeah. You know, I'm sure these CEOs sometimes look ahead and they get worried, but they’re never around very long, David. Four or five years, CEO at the best; then they get retired with huge benefits. And then they become the leisure class again. It's hard to exaggerate the narcissism that is built in at the top of these corporations. You have to go to some midsize companies that have done it right. I've got a manuscript about 12 CEOs, like the head of Patagonia[, Inc.], the head of Interface[, Inc.] corporation, and other companies who have met the bottom line, but have done great work dealing with the way they treat their employees, the way they treat the environment, the way they condition their suppliers. And these CEOs never get any publicity. They're doing it right. But they don't get anywhere near the publicity as someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk’s outbursts. And so, we've gotta get these new standards that we have already seen in these midsize companies and give them much more coverage because these standards are very consonant with an economic democracy; they're very consonant with a competitive economy. They're very consonant with a respect for the environment. They're very consonant with the proper role of workers in these companies and the rights of workers. But we don't get NPR [National Public Radio], PBS [Public Broadcasting Service], all these supposed public interest media to pay any attention to them, which is, I suppose, why we have this program, huh? [chuckle]
David Feldman: By the way, thanks to you, my new year's resolution is to read the business page. I've been focusing more on – I don't want to endorse any newspapers, but the magazines and newspapers that cover business primarily I've been reading. And they do cover capitalism; it's very critical. Thank you for that because the most critical reporting on capitalism comes from the business pages.
Ralph Nader: As I've said before, we're living in a golden age of muckraking books. Those of you who want a big list of recent books critical of corporations, I had a column a few days ago; go to nader.org. You can sign up for the column and get it automatically free. But it made the point. There are about 60 books that have come out recently-- tremendous on one company or one industry after another--very well documented critical books and nothing happens. And the same with all these documentaries. We have 10 times more critical documentaries of power structures in our country and the world than we had 30, 40 years ago and almost nothing happens. And that's because all these people back home who are very concerned about the future of their country are not organizing the way they should and getting a foothold by focusing on Congress, which is the purpose of the Congress Club. Otherwise, they'll be so overwhelmed due to their sensitivity to injustice that it will freeze them and turn it into a kind of hopelessness.
Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:59 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:12 am
Jan. 6 panel ramps up investigation into Trump's state-level pressure [Forged election documents in Michigan and Arizona]
by Nicholas Wu
Politico
01/10/2022 04:30 AM EST
Updated: 01/10/2022 12:28 PM EST
POLITICO has identified the information the committee has received from key swing states, as lawmakers prepare to take their findings public.
The public focus of Congress’ Jan. 6 investigation, so far, is what happened in Washington, D.C. Behind the scenes, the probe’s state-level work is kicking into overdrive.
The House committee investigating the Capitol attack has gathered thousands of records from state officials and interviewed a slate of witnesses as it attempts to retrace former President Donald Trump's attempts to subvert the 2020 election, particularly in four key states that swung the presidency to Joe Biden. They're getting ready to take their work public, possibly as soon as the spring.
“We want to let the public see and hear from those individuals who conducted elections in those states,” select panel chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said in an interview. He described those witnesses as particularly important given their mandates to keep elections “fair and impartial” while hailing from one political party.
The voluminous documents state election officials have sent the Jan. 6 committee, obtained by POLITICO through open records requests, underscore the depth of Trump's pressure campaign directed at the typically lower-level administrators of presidential balloting. The emails, texts and phone recordings also add consequential context to previously reported incidents, such as Trump’s call to Georgia's top elections investigator and Mark Meadows’ outreach to Georgia election officials.
The select panel asked states for any scrap of evidence to justify allegations of election fraud that Trump baselessly promoted, focusing much of its efforts on officials in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those states found virtually no evidence of fraud, according to Thompson.
Among the officials who spoke with the committee was Kathy Boockvar, Pennsylvania's secretary of state during the 2020 election, according to a source familiar with the situation not authorized to speak publicly. A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania secretary of state declined to comment on whether the panel had been in touch with the state’s officials.
Mainly, the records show state officials trying to either mollify or ignore Trump and his allies without distorting election results or embracing debunked claims of vote tampering. A spokesperson for the select panel declined to comment on the documents.
Pressure in Georgia
Just one day before Georgia was set to certify the 2020 election results and seal Trump’s defeat, records turned over to the Jan. 6 committee show a text message that arrived on the phone of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
“Mr Secretary. Mark Meadows here. If you could give me a brief call at your convenience. Thank you,” the then-White House chief of staff texted Raffensperger in a Nov. 19, 2020, message obtained through a public records request.
It doesn’t appear that Raffensperger, a Republican, responded to Meadows. (His office sent no reply to one Meadows text because aides weren't sure if it was real, according to CNN.) But it was not the last time Raffensperger would hear from Trump’s allies as they sought to pressure state-level officials to overturn the president's loss.
A spokesperson for Georgia's secretary of state did not respond to a request for comment.
Meadows texted Raffensperger a second time on the morning of Dec. 5, 2020, asking him to call the White House switchboard to set up a call. “Your voicemail is full,” Meadows told Raffensperger.
Raffensperger has already interviewed with the panel, according to Thompson, who praised him as “very straightforward” in his testimony.
A previously unreported email from one of Raffensperger’s top aides, Jordan Fuchs, was also turned over to the committee. In it, Fuchs responded to Meadows' Dec. 22, 2020, trip to Georgia's Cobb County during the state’s signature match audit. She emailed Meadows to “clarify a few items” about the rejection rate of absentee ballots — something Trump and his allies had alleged was much lower than normal.
Fuchs’ note included the text of a press release sent out by the secretary of State’s office a month beforehand with a more thorough explanation of how the office evaluated absentee ballots.
Meadows' attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
Also included in the document dump are emails between Sen. Lindsey Graham’s and Raffensperger’s offices, which shows how a previously reported call between the two officials came about roughly two weeks after the 2020 election.
“Hope you are doing well. Senator Graham has requested a call w/ Sec. Raffensperger at his earliest convenience,” a Graham staffer told two of Raffensperger’s top aides on Nov. 12, 2020. The call between the two men ended with Graham indicating to Raffensperger some ballots should be tossed out, the Georgia official said later.[!!!]
Graham’s office declined to comment.
The state also turned over a previously reported audio recording of a Dec. 23, 2020, call between Trump and Frances Watson, the chief investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office, and a brief call between Watson and an unidentified staffer. In the Dec. 23 call, Trump had urged Watson to find “dishonesty” in the state’s election results.[!!!]
Forged election documents in Michigan and Arizona
As Trump's team pushed its discredited voter fraud narrative, the National Archives received forged certificates of ascertainment declaring him and then-Vice President Mike Pence the winners of both Michigan and Arizona and their electors after the 2020 election. Public records requests show the secretaries of state for those states sent those certificates to the Jan. 6 panel, along with correspondence between the National Archives and state officials about the documents.
Spokespeople for the Michigan and Arizona secretaries of state declined to comment on the documents. The offices confirmed that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, both Democrats, and their staff met with the panel in November.
“They mostly discussed election administration in Arizona, the 2020 elections, threats/harassment directed toward the office, and the Cyber Ninja’s partisan ballot review,” said Hobbs' spokesperson C. Murphy Hebert.
Benson and her staff took questions from the committee on the 2020 election and events leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, according to Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Benson.
The National Archives sent emails to the Arizona secretary of state on Dec. 11, 2020, passing along the forged certificates “for your awareness” and informing the state officials the Archives would not accept them.
Arizona then took legal action against at least one of the groups who sent in the fake documents, sending a cease and desist letter to a pro-Trump "sovereign citizen" group telling them to stop using the state seal and referring the matter to the state attorney general.
“By affixing the state seal to documents containing false and misleading information about the results of Arizona’s November 3, 2020 General Election, you undermine the confidence in our democratic institutions,” Hobbs wrote to one of the pro-Trump groups.
That group’s leader, Lori Osiecki, had told the Arizona Republic in December 2020 that she decided to send in the certificates after taking part in post-election rallies and after attending a daylong meeting in Phoenix that had included Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.
The group that forged the Michigan certification had not used the state seal, and it appears state officials there took no further action after the Archives rejected it.
Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
*****************
Hobbs asks AG to investigate fake Trump electors for employing Arizona's state seal
Dylan Smith
TucsonSentinel.com
Posted Dec 24, 2020, 3:06 pm
A group of people who sent a slate of fake electoral votes for President Donald Trump to Washington, D.C., may be facing legal trouble for using the state seal without authorization.
Secretary of State Katie Hobbs sent a cease-and-desist letter to Mesa resident Lori Osiecki, one of the 11 fake electors, demanding that her group no longer use Arizona's state seal. The state requires people to get the secretary of state's permission to "use, display or otherwise employ any facsimile, copy, likeness, imitation or other resemblance" to the state seal, which Hobbs said the group didn't do.
Hobbs also referred the matter to the Attorney General's Office for investigation. Using the state seal without authorization is a class 3 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Osiecki and 10 others, who identified themselves as "The Sovereign Citizens of the Great State of Arizona," sent signed, notarized certificates to the National Archives purporting to be electoral votes for Trump, despite the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden won Arizona by about 10,500 votes. They also sent a copy of their faux electoral votes to the Secretary of State's Office. The state seal was on the cover sheet of the documents, as well as at the top of each subsequent page.
"By affixing the state seal to documents containing false and misleading information about the results of Arizona's November 3, 2020 General Election, you undermine the confidence in our democratic institutions," Hobbs wrote in her letter, dated Dec. 22.
Osiecki could not be reached for comment.
The group cast its fake electoral votes as Trump supporters across the country rejected the results of the presidential election. Many Trump supporters, as well as the president himself, have falsely claimed the election was swayed by fraud and have spread baseless conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims, particularly about Biden's win in Arizona and five other swing states.
Osiecki and her cohorts were not the official Republican electors who were pledged to vote for Trump if the president had won Arizona in the 2020 general election.
Arizona's official Republican electors, which includes several prominent GOP officials, submitted fake electoral votes of their own on Dec. 14, the date when electors across the nation cast their votes. The Arizona Republican Party said the votes would be sent to Congress, where it hopes they will be counted as Arizona's official electoral votes on Jan. 6, when Congress will count and certify the votes of the Electoral College.
Some Republicans believe that Congress can reject Biden electors and instead certify Trump as the winner of the election. The notion is widely rejected because both the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate would have to vote to reject a slate of electors.
Were the votes of Arizona's Republican electors to somehow be counted, they would be deemed invalid under state law. Arizona is one of 33 states prohibiting "faithless electors," a term for electors who cast their votes for a candidate other than their state's winner. If an Arizona elector casts a vote for someone besides the winner, his or her position would be immediately deemed vacant, and the chair of the political party representing the winner would choose a replacement.
This report was first published by the Arizona Mirror
*********************
'Sovereign citizens' try to undermine Arizona electoral vote
by Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Pinal Central
Dec 14, 2020 Updated Jan 23, 2021 0
PHOENIX — Arizona’s 11 Democrat electors cast their votes Monday for Joe Biden even as the chairman of a Senate panel said he will issue subpoenas to check the accuracy of hardware and software that gave the Democrat the edge over President Trump.
Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said there are enough questions raised about whether the Dominion Voting Systems used in Maricopa County produced reliable results.
The announcement followed more than six hours of testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee which led to a series of questions about whether the results can be trusted. And as Farnsworth said, that doesn’t even address other allegations that ballots were not properly handled and that observers from political parties did not have sufficient access to oversee what was going on.
It’s unlikely that anything that an audit turns up would affect the results of the election.
That would require either a court ruling overturning the results — something multiple judges have so far refused to do — or the full legislature trying to pick its own slate of electors. But both Senate President Karen Fann and House Speaker Rusty Bowers have said there does not appear to be a legal way to do that, even assuming lawmakers could call themselves into special session before Jan. 6 when Congress counts the electoral votes.
Even Farnsworth, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, suggested that this was simply a matter of addressing the various claims and doubts “and try and see if we can reinsert some confidence in our election process.’’
“We hold and audit and we see what the outcome is,’’ he said. “And then we can put this to rest.’’
Farnsworth said the subpoenas could be issued as early as Tuesday.
All this comes as the official slate of electors — the ones pledged to Biden — cast their votes and Secretary of State Katie Hobbs sent off the results to both Congress and the National Archives.
That, however, did not stop two other groups from filing reports that their “electors’’ had met and were supporting Trump.
One group consists of the 11 Republicans whose names were on the ballot as pledged to Trump, who lost the popular vote according to the certified results.
That vote was organized by the state GOP on the premise that those outstanding legal challenges to the Arizona tally could end up changing the final vote total. In essence, Kelli Ward, the party chair who is a litigant in both pending cases, believes that having the Trump-pledged electors voting on Monday — the date set in federal law — sends a slate of GOP electors to Congress should the cases go their way or Congress decides that their votes are the ones that should be counted and not those pledged to Biden.
But Hobbs aide Murphy Hebert said that’s meaningless.
“It’s clearly a political gesture,’’ she said. Hebert said Congress can acknowledge only those electors whose votes are accompanied by “letters of ascertainment’’ signed by Hobbs and Gov. Doug Ducey.
Separately, a group of self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens’’ filed their own slate of electors with the National Archives claiming they represent the state’s 11 electoral votes for Trump.
Documents obtained by Capitol Media Services show that Mesa resident Lori Osiecki submitted sworn statements for the 11 people “by authority & direction of the sovereign citizens of the great state of Arizona.’’ That comes complete with the use of the official state seal which in and of itself Hebert said is itself a violation of the law.
“We absolutely anticipated there would be efforts to disrupt the system like this,’’ Hebert said. But she said the actual “votes’’ sent to Washington amount to little more than political theater.
“The statute is very, very clear: The slate of electors for the candidate with the most number of votes in the popular vote are the ones who represent the state in the Electoral College vote,’’ she said. And these were the 11 Democrats who took the official oath of office Monday morning and signed the certificate of votes.
And what of the “votes’’ sent off by on behalf of either slate of 11 Republicans?
“Anybody can send a letter to the National Archives,’’ Hobbs said.
One thing different this year is that the process, normally a routine action with little public attention, was moved to the Phoenix Convention Center. And the location was not made public ahead of the event amid security concerns, including threats of violence against Hobbs and other staffers in her office and fears protesters might seek to disrupt the voting.
At the same time members of the Senate Judiciary were focused on Dominion Voting Systems used in the state’s largest county.
There have been a series of charges leveled against the company both here and nationally that the equipment and software were deliberately programmed to deliver more votes for Biden.
None of those complaints have been found valid by any court anywhere in the nation. But that didn’t stop lawmakers from asking and saying that there needs to be an independent audit and even a full hand count of all the ballots.
Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, one of those who wants that 100% hand count, got Maricopa County Elections Director Scott Jarrett to acknowledge that Dominion workers had 24/7 access to his office and even, in certain circumstances, access to the equipment.
But Jarrett said there is no way to alter the codes in a way that would change the outcome.
He said it starts with “logic and accuracy’’ test of the equipment, both before and after the election. Jarrett said that would not only capture any change made in the software but that the program is built in a way so that any change would render the results “not readable.’’
The equipment itself, he said, is also subject to independent certification by the Secretary of State’s Office.
More to the point, Jarrett pointed out that state law requires an actual hand count of a random sample of ballots, both those mailed in early and those cast on Election Day.
He said the batches to be sampled and the elections to be reviewed are chosen by officials from both political parties. And of the more than 47,000 ballots checked by hand there was not a single vote difference from what was recorded by the equipment.
“These hand counts are an independent audit,’’ Jarrett told lawmakers. And he said they showed the equipment worked as expected.
Farnsworth was not convinced.
“I do have a concern that the county is taking the position that it just can’t happen,’’ he said.
“There is a litany of white-collar crimes, digital crimes in the history of this country and this world of some very sophisticated people and the victims didn’t recognize it until some future time,’’ Farnsworth said. “I think it’s really, really dangerous for us to say, ‘It can’t happen.’ ‘’
That sentiment was echoed by Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City. He said even the operating manual for Dominion software suggests “data can be changed and votes switched around.’’
“Nothing’s 100% secure,’’ he said. “If people want to cheat they’re going to cheat.’’
Farnsworth also complained that it’s possible for people who are not U.S. citizens to have voted in the presidential race.
Arizona does require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
But a federal law spells out that people without such proof can use a registration form prepared by the Election Assistance Commission, one that has no such requirement. And those who do not provide citizenship proof can vote in federal elections, including for president and members of Congress.
Jarrett acknowledged that more than 3,000 such “federal-only’’ ballots were cast in Maricopa County, people who he acknowledged might not be U.S. citizens. That angered Farnsworth.
“That is harmful, detrimental, undercuts,’’ he said.
“And it is outrageous that we have that kind of a mandate from Congress,’’ Farnsworth said. “It challenges the very sovereignty of this country, in my opinion.’’
Jarrett also defended against claims that observers from political parties could not get close enough to really monitor what was going on in both the process to check signatures on early ballot envelopes and in the actual counting. He acknowledged, though, that there were efforts to keep observers at least six feet from election workers amid fears of COVID-19.
He also said that, despite rumors to the contrary, there were not late “spikes’’ of votes for Biden. In fact, Jarrett said, the reverse was in some ways true, with Biden having a big lead among the first ballots counted and the later-counted ballots swinging for Trump.
by Nicholas Wu
Politico
01/10/2022 04:30 AM EST
Updated: 01/10/2022 12:28 PM EST
Highlights:
The select panel asked states for any scrap of evidence to justify allegations of election fraud that Trump baselessly promoted, focusing much of its efforts on officials in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those states found virtually no evidence of fraud, according to Thompson....
Just one day before Georgia was set to certify the 2020 election results and seal Trump’s defeat, records turned over to the Jan. 6 committee show a text message that arrived on the phone of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
“Mr Secretary. Mark Meadows here. If you could give me a brief call at your convenience. Thank you,” the then-White House chief of staff texted Raffensperger in a Nov. 19, 2020, message obtained through a public records request.
It doesn’t appear that Raffensperger, a Republican, responded to Meadows....
Meadows texted Raffensperger a second time on the morning of Dec. 5, 2020, asking him to call the White House switchboard to set up a call. “Your voicemail is full,” Meadows told Raffensperger....
A previously unreported email from one of Raffensperger’s top aides, Jordan Fuchs, was also turned over to the committee. In it, Fuchs responded to Meadows' Dec. 22, 2020, trip to Georgia's Cobb County during the state’s signature match audit. She emailed Meadows to “clarify a few items” about the rejection rate of absentee ballots — something Trump and his allies had alleged was much lower than normal.
Fuchs’ note included the text of a press release sent out by the secretary of State’s office a month beforehand with a more thorough explanation of how the office evaluated absentee ballots....
Also included in the document dump are emails between Sen. Lindsey Graham’s and Raffensperger’s offices, which shows how a previously reported call between the two officials came about roughly two weeks after the 2020 election.
“Hope you are doing well. Senator Graham has requested a call w/ Sec. Raffensperger at his earliest convenience,” a Graham staffer told two of Raffensperger’s top aides on Nov. 12, 2020. The call between the two men ended with Graham indicating to Raffensperger some ballots should be tossed out, the Georgia official said later.[!!!]...
The state also turned over a previously reported audio recording of a Dec. 23, 2020, call between Trump and Frances Watson, the chief investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office, and a brief call between Watson and an unidentified staffer. In the Dec. 23 call, Trump had urged Watson to find “dishonesty” in the state’s election results.[!!!]
-- Jan. 6 panel ramps up investigation into Trump's state-level pressure [Forged election documents in Michigan and Arizona], by Nicholas Wu
POLITICO has identified the information the committee has received from key swing states, as lawmakers prepare to take their findings public.
The public focus of Congress’ Jan. 6 investigation, so far, is what happened in Washington, D.C. Behind the scenes, the probe’s state-level work is kicking into overdrive.
The House committee investigating the Capitol attack has gathered thousands of records from state officials and interviewed a slate of witnesses as it attempts to retrace former President Donald Trump's attempts to subvert the 2020 election, particularly in four key states that swung the presidency to Joe Biden. They're getting ready to take their work public, possibly as soon as the spring.
“We want to let the public see and hear from those individuals who conducted elections in those states,” select panel chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said in an interview. He described those witnesses as particularly important given their mandates to keep elections “fair and impartial” while hailing from one political party.
The voluminous documents state election officials have sent the Jan. 6 committee, obtained by POLITICO through open records requests, underscore the depth of Trump's pressure campaign directed at the typically lower-level administrators of presidential balloting. The emails, texts and phone recordings also add consequential context to previously reported incidents, such as Trump’s call to Georgia's top elections investigator and Mark Meadows’ outreach to Georgia election officials.
The select panel asked states for any scrap of evidence to justify allegations of election fraud that Trump baselessly promoted, focusing much of its efforts on officials in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those states found virtually no evidence of fraud, according to Thompson.
Among the officials who spoke with the committee was Kathy Boockvar, Pennsylvania's secretary of state during the 2020 election, according to a source familiar with the situation not authorized to speak publicly. A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania secretary of state declined to comment on whether the panel had been in touch with the state’s officials.
Mainly, the records show state officials trying to either mollify or ignore Trump and his allies without distorting election results or embracing debunked claims of vote tampering. A spokesperson for the select panel declined to comment on the documents.
Pressure in Georgia
Just one day before Georgia was set to certify the 2020 election results and seal Trump’s defeat, records turned over to the Jan. 6 committee show a text message that arrived on the phone of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
“Mr Secretary. Mark Meadows here. If you could give me a brief call at your convenience. Thank you,” the then-White House chief of staff texted Raffensperger in a Nov. 19, 2020, message obtained through a public records request.
It doesn’t appear that Raffensperger, a Republican, responded to Meadows. (His office sent no reply to one Meadows text because aides weren't sure if it was real, according to CNN.) But it was not the last time Raffensperger would hear from Trump’s allies as they sought to pressure state-level officials to overturn the president's loss.
A spokesperson for Georgia's secretary of state did not respond to a request for comment.
Meadows texted Raffensperger a second time on the morning of Dec. 5, 2020, asking him to call the White House switchboard to set up a call. “Your voicemail is full,” Meadows told Raffensperger.
Raffensperger has already interviewed with the panel, according to Thompson, who praised him as “very straightforward” in his testimony.
A previously unreported email from one of Raffensperger’s top aides, Jordan Fuchs, was also turned over to the committee. In it, Fuchs responded to Meadows' Dec. 22, 2020, trip to Georgia's Cobb County during the state’s signature match audit. She emailed Meadows to “clarify a few items” about the rejection rate of absentee ballots — something Trump and his allies had alleged was much lower than normal.
Fuchs’ note included the text of a press release sent out by the secretary of State’s office a month beforehand with a more thorough explanation of how the office evaluated absentee ballots.
Meadows' attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
Also included in the document dump are emails between Sen. Lindsey Graham’s and Raffensperger’s offices, which shows how a previously reported call between the two officials came about roughly two weeks after the 2020 election.
“Hope you are doing well. Senator Graham has requested a call w/ Sec. Raffensperger at his earliest convenience,” a Graham staffer told two of Raffensperger’s top aides on Nov. 12, 2020. The call between the two men ended with Graham indicating to Raffensperger some ballots should be tossed out, the Georgia official said later.[!!!]
Graham’s office declined to comment.
The state also turned over a previously reported audio recording of a Dec. 23, 2020, call between Trump and Frances Watson, the chief investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office, and a brief call between Watson and an unidentified staffer. In the Dec. 23 call, Trump had urged Watson to find “dishonesty” in the state’s election results.[!!!]
Forged election documents in Michigan and Arizona
As Trump's team pushed its discredited voter fraud narrative, the National Archives received forged certificates of ascertainment declaring him and then-Vice President Mike Pence the winners of both Michigan and Arizona and their electors after the 2020 election. Public records requests show the secretaries of state for those states sent those certificates to the Jan. 6 panel, along with correspondence between the National Archives and state officials about the documents.
Spokespeople for the Michigan and Arizona secretaries of state declined to comment on the documents. The offices confirmed that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, both Democrats, and their staff met with the panel in November.
“They mostly discussed election administration in Arizona, the 2020 elections, threats/harassment directed toward the office, and the Cyber Ninja’s partisan ballot review,” said Hobbs' spokesperson C. Murphy Hebert.
Benson and her staff took questions from the committee on the 2020 election and events leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, according to Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Benson.
The National Archives sent emails to the Arizona secretary of state on Dec. 11, 2020, passing along the forged certificates “for your awareness” and informing the state officials the Archives would not accept them.
Arizona then took legal action against at least one of the groups who sent in the fake documents, sending a cease and desist letter to a pro-Trump "sovereign citizen" group telling them to stop using the state seal and referring the matter to the state attorney general.
“By affixing the state seal to documents containing false and misleading information about the results of Arizona’s November 3, 2020 General Election, you undermine the confidence in our democratic institutions,” Hobbs wrote to one of the pro-Trump groups.
That group’s leader, Lori Osiecki, had told the Arizona Republic in December 2020 that she decided to send in the certificates after taking part in post-election rallies and after attending a daylong meeting in Phoenix that had included Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.
The group that forged the Michigan certification had not used the state seal, and it appears state officials there took no further action after the Archives rejected it.
Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
*****************
Hobbs asks AG to investigate fake Trump electors for employing Arizona's state seal
Dylan Smith
TucsonSentinel.com
Posted Dec 24, 2020, 3:06 pm
A group of people who sent a slate of fake electoral votes for President Donald Trump to Washington, D.C., may be facing legal trouble for using the state seal without authorization.
Secretary of State Katie Hobbs sent a cease-and-desist letter to Mesa resident Lori Osiecki, one of the 11 fake electors, demanding that her group no longer use Arizona's state seal. The state requires people to get the secretary of state's permission to "use, display or otherwise employ any facsimile, copy, likeness, imitation or other resemblance" to the state seal, which Hobbs said the group didn't do.
Hobbs also referred the matter to the Attorney General's Office for investigation. Using the state seal without authorization is a class 3 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Osiecki and 10 others, who identified themselves as "The Sovereign Citizens of the Great State of Arizona," sent signed, notarized certificates to the National Archives purporting to be electoral votes for Trump, despite the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden won Arizona by about 10,500 votes. They also sent a copy of their faux electoral votes to the Secretary of State's Office. The state seal was on the cover sheet of the documents, as well as at the top of each subsequent page.
"By affixing the state seal to documents containing false and misleading information about the results of Arizona's November 3, 2020 General Election, you undermine the confidence in our democratic institutions," Hobbs wrote in her letter, dated Dec. 22.
Osiecki could not be reached for comment.
The group cast its fake electoral votes as Trump supporters across the country rejected the results of the presidential election. Many Trump supporters, as well as the president himself, have falsely claimed the election was swayed by fraud and have spread baseless conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims, particularly about Biden's win in Arizona and five other swing states.
Osiecki and her cohorts were not the official Republican electors who were pledged to vote for Trump if the president had won Arizona in the 2020 general election.
Arizona's official Republican electors, which includes several prominent GOP officials, submitted fake electoral votes of their own on Dec. 14, the date when electors across the nation cast their votes. The Arizona Republican Party said the votes would be sent to Congress, where it hopes they will be counted as Arizona's official electoral votes on Jan. 6, when Congress will count and certify the votes of the Electoral College.
Some Republicans believe that Congress can reject Biden electors and instead certify Trump as the winner of the election. The notion is widely rejected because both the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate would have to vote to reject a slate of electors.
Were the votes of Arizona's Republican electors to somehow be counted, they would be deemed invalid under state law. Arizona is one of 33 states prohibiting "faithless electors," a term for electors who cast their votes for a candidate other than their state's winner. If an Arizona elector casts a vote for someone besides the winner, his or her position would be immediately deemed vacant, and the chair of the political party representing the winner would choose a replacement.
This report was first published by the Arizona Mirror
*********************
'Sovereign citizens' try to undermine Arizona electoral vote
by Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Pinal Central
Dec 14, 2020 Updated Jan 23, 2021 0
PHOENIX — Arizona’s 11 Democrat electors cast their votes Monday for Joe Biden even as the chairman of a Senate panel said he will issue subpoenas to check the accuracy of hardware and software that gave the Democrat the edge over President Trump.
Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said there are enough questions raised about whether the Dominion Voting Systems used in Maricopa County produced reliable results.
The announcement followed more than six hours of testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee which led to a series of questions about whether the results can be trusted. And as Farnsworth said, that doesn’t even address other allegations that ballots were not properly handled and that observers from political parties did not have sufficient access to oversee what was going on.
It’s unlikely that anything that an audit turns up would affect the results of the election.
That would require either a court ruling overturning the results — something multiple judges have so far refused to do — or the full legislature trying to pick its own slate of electors. But both Senate President Karen Fann and House Speaker Rusty Bowers have said there does not appear to be a legal way to do that, even assuming lawmakers could call themselves into special session before Jan. 6 when Congress counts the electoral votes.
Even Farnsworth, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, suggested that this was simply a matter of addressing the various claims and doubts “and try and see if we can reinsert some confidence in our election process.’’
“We hold and audit and we see what the outcome is,’’ he said. “And then we can put this to rest.’’
Farnsworth said the subpoenas could be issued as early as Tuesday.
All this comes as the official slate of electors — the ones pledged to Biden — cast their votes and Secretary of State Katie Hobbs sent off the results to both Congress and the National Archives.
That, however, did not stop two other groups from filing reports that their “electors’’ had met and were supporting Trump.
One group consists of the 11 Republicans whose names were on the ballot as pledged to Trump, who lost the popular vote according to the certified results.
That vote was organized by the state GOP on the premise that those outstanding legal challenges to the Arizona tally could end up changing the final vote total. In essence, Kelli Ward, the party chair who is a litigant in both pending cases, believes that having the Trump-pledged electors voting on Monday — the date set in federal law — sends a slate of GOP electors to Congress should the cases go their way or Congress decides that their votes are the ones that should be counted and not those pledged to Biden.
But Hobbs aide Murphy Hebert said that’s meaningless.
“It’s clearly a political gesture,’’ she said. Hebert said Congress can acknowledge only those electors whose votes are accompanied by “letters of ascertainment’’ signed by Hobbs and Gov. Doug Ducey.
Separately, a group of self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens’’ filed their own slate of electors with the National Archives claiming they represent the state’s 11 electoral votes for Trump.
Documents obtained by Capitol Media Services show that Mesa resident Lori Osiecki submitted sworn statements for the 11 people “by authority & direction of the sovereign citizens of the great state of Arizona.’’ That comes complete with the use of the official state seal which in and of itself Hebert said is itself a violation of the law.
“We absolutely anticipated there would be efforts to disrupt the system like this,’’ Hebert said. But she said the actual “votes’’ sent to Washington amount to little more than political theater.
“The statute is very, very clear: The slate of electors for the candidate with the most number of votes in the popular vote are the ones who represent the state in the Electoral College vote,’’ she said. And these were the 11 Democrats who took the official oath of office Monday morning and signed the certificate of votes.
And what of the “votes’’ sent off by on behalf of either slate of 11 Republicans?
“Anybody can send a letter to the National Archives,’’ Hobbs said.
One thing different this year is that the process, normally a routine action with little public attention, was moved to the Phoenix Convention Center. And the location was not made public ahead of the event amid security concerns, including threats of violence against Hobbs and other staffers in her office and fears protesters might seek to disrupt the voting.
At the same time members of the Senate Judiciary were focused on Dominion Voting Systems used in the state’s largest county.
There have been a series of charges leveled against the company both here and nationally that the equipment and software were deliberately programmed to deliver more votes for Biden.
None of those complaints have been found valid by any court anywhere in the nation. But that didn’t stop lawmakers from asking and saying that there needs to be an independent audit and even a full hand count of all the ballots.
Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, one of those who wants that 100% hand count, got Maricopa County Elections Director Scott Jarrett to acknowledge that Dominion workers had 24/7 access to his office and even, in certain circumstances, access to the equipment.
But Jarrett said there is no way to alter the codes in a way that would change the outcome.
He said it starts with “logic and accuracy’’ test of the equipment, both before and after the election. Jarrett said that would not only capture any change made in the software but that the program is built in a way so that any change would render the results “not readable.’’
The equipment itself, he said, is also subject to independent certification by the Secretary of State’s Office.
More to the point, Jarrett pointed out that state law requires an actual hand count of a random sample of ballots, both those mailed in early and those cast on Election Day.
He said the batches to be sampled and the elections to be reviewed are chosen by officials from both political parties. And of the more than 47,000 ballots checked by hand there was not a single vote difference from what was recorded by the equipment.
“These hand counts are an independent audit,’’ Jarrett told lawmakers. And he said they showed the equipment worked as expected.
Farnsworth was not convinced.
“I do have a concern that the county is taking the position that it just can’t happen,’’ he said.
“There is a litany of white-collar crimes, digital crimes in the history of this country and this world of some very sophisticated people and the victims didn’t recognize it until some future time,’’ Farnsworth said. “I think it’s really, really dangerous for us to say, ‘It can’t happen.’ ‘’
That sentiment was echoed by Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City. He said even the operating manual for Dominion software suggests “data can be changed and votes switched around.’’
“Nothing’s 100% secure,’’ he said. “If people want to cheat they’re going to cheat.’’
Farnsworth also complained that it’s possible for people who are not U.S. citizens to have voted in the presidential race.
Arizona does require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
But a federal law spells out that people without such proof can use a registration form prepared by the Election Assistance Commission, one that has no such requirement. And those who do not provide citizenship proof can vote in federal elections, including for president and members of Congress.
Jarrett acknowledged that more than 3,000 such “federal-only’’ ballots were cast in Maricopa County, people who he acknowledged might not be U.S. citizens. That angered Farnsworth.
“That is harmful, detrimental, undercuts,’’ he said.
“And it is outrageous that we have that kind of a mandate from Congress,’’ Farnsworth said. “It challenges the very sovereignty of this country, in my opinion.’’
Jarrett also defended against claims that observers from political parties could not get close enough to really monitor what was going on in both the process to check signatures on early ballot envelopes and in the actual counting. He acknowledged, though, that there were efforts to keep observers at least six feet from election workers amid fears of COVID-19.
He also said that, despite rumors to the contrary, there were not late “spikes’’ of votes for Biden. In fact, Jarrett said, the reverse was in some ways true, with Biden having a big lead among the first ballots counted and the later-counted ballots swinging for Trump.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:23 am
Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis Seems Poised to be the First to Indict Donald Trump
by Glenn Kirschner
Jan 11, 2022
On December 17, 2021, Donald Trump issued an unhinged statement about how "district attorneys", "attorneys general" and "Dem enforcement" agencies are out to ruin his life. Knowing that prosecutors often meet with defense attorneys right before making a final decision to seek an indictment, Trump's statement strongly signaled that some prosecutor somewhere had let his defense team know that he was about to be indicted.
Based on new reporting, we now know that just days before Trump issued that unhinged rant, his defense team met with prosecutors from the Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney's Office.
All signs are now pointing to Georgia being the first jurisdiction that may be on the verge of criminally inciting Donald Trump.
******************************
Trump Lawyers Met With Georgia Prosecutors; Days Later, Trump Rants About Law Enforcement
by Rachel Maddow
Jan 10, 2022
Gwen Keyes Fleming, former district attorney for DeKalb Count, Georgia, talks with Rachel Maddow about new details in the criminal investigation of Donald Trump's alleged actions to pressure election officials in that state.
by Glenn Kirschner
Jan 11, 2022
On December 17, 2021, Donald Trump issued an unhinged statement about how "district attorneys", "attorneys general" and "Dem enforcement" agencies are out to ruin his life. Knowing that prosecutors often meet with defense attorneys right before making a final decision to seek an indictment, Trump's statement strongly signaled that some prosecutor somewhere had let his defense team know that he was about to be indicted.
Based on new reporting, we now know that just days before Trump issued that unhinged rant, his defense team met with prosecutors from the Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney's Office.
All signs are now pointing to Georgia being the first jurisdiction that may be on the verge of criminally inciting Donald Trump.
******************************
Trump Lawyers Met With Georgia Prosecutors; Days Later, Trump Rants About Law Enforcement
by Rachel Maddow
Jan 10, 2022
Gwen Keyes Fleming, former district attorney for DeKalb Count, Georgia, talks with Rachel Maddow about new details in the criminal investigation of Donald Trump's alleged actions to pressure election officials in that state.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:54 am
Similarities Suggest Coordination In Fake Elector Letters From Republicans In Five (5) States
by Rachel Maddow
Jan 12, 2022
Rachel Maddow updates reporting on Republicans submitting forged elector letters as if Donald Trump had won their states instead of Joe Biden, with the number of states involved up to at least five, and a pattern of coordination becoming more evident.
by Rachel Maddow
Jan 12, 2022
Rachel Maddow updates reporting on Republicans submitting forged elector letters as if Donald Trump had won their states instead of Joe Biden, with the number of states involved up to at least five, and a pattern of coordination becoming more evident.
[Rachel Maddow] Now, I picked these five states to show you what the real electoral vote ascertainment documents look like. I picked these five, because thanks to the watchdog group, “American Oversight”, we now know that in all five of these states, Republicans also prepared forged fake documents that were sent to the government, proclaiming that actually these other electors were the real electors from these states, and they were casting the state’s electoral college votes not for Biden, but for Trump.
Just watch this. Tell me if you notice something as I show you these.
So, this is the documents from Georgia. In Georgia, that’s the real electoral vote document on the left; that’s the forgery that was created by Republicans on the right.
Now, let’s do Nevada.
In Nevada, that’s the real one on the left, and that’s the fake one on the right.
Here also is Wisconsin, where we reported on their forgery last month. That’s the real one on the left, and the fake one on the right.
Here’s Michigan, where we reported their forgery last night. It’s the real one on the left, and the forgery on the right.
And lastly, here’s Arizona: the real electoral vote document on the left, and the fake one on the right.
It wasn’t one state, it wasn’t three states where they did this, it was at least five states where we have now obtained forged documents created by Republicans.
And it’s not like they sent them in saying, “Hey, we know we’re not the real electors because Biden won here, but here’s our names for posterity, here’s our names for your records.” No, they actually created these fake documents purporting to be the real certifications of them as electors.
I mean, here it is in the forged document from Georgia. Look at the language: “We, the undersigned, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President in the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following.” You’re NOT the duly elected and qualified electors for the State of Georgia. YOU ARE NOT! But that language, or language just like that, is in all of these. THEY ALL MATCH, EXACTLY! Same formatting, same font, same spacing, almost the exact same wording – all of them!
Now, you might remember on last night’s show we noted that the forged documents from Michigan and Wisconsin looked really similar, look really alike, but the Arizona one actually looked a little bit different. Here’s the amazing thing we discovered today about Arizona. It looks like there are actually two sets of forged electoral college documents sent in by Arizona Republicans. There was the sort of hoopty-different-looking-one that we showed you last night, which has notary stamps all over it and stuff. That was the one that was obtained by Politico.com that we showed on the air here last night. But now, as of today, thanks to “American Oversight,” we have obtained another one, also from Arizona, also a forgery – a whole different set of Republican imposters sent in this one in Arizona, and that one matches exactly all of the other forged electoral votes from the four other states that we have found.
In these five states, one of the two forgeries from Arizona, and those four other states, the forged documents all match. This would therefore appear to be some kind of a coordinated effort, or at least someone gave Republicans in all these states the same template for creating these false records, because they all have the exact same language, they all have the same font, they all have the spacing, they all have the same formatting. That doesn’t happen by accident. Who organized this?
Now, at the time this was happening, Pennsylvania Republicans -- Pennsylvania is not one of the states we’ve been talking about here – they actually put out a statement saying the Trump campaign had asked them to create and certify like within the Republican party, a Republican set of electors for Pennsylvania. As they explained in their press release at the time, though, the Pennsylvania Republicans didn’t forge a document to make it look like they were the real electors, they created a new document that said they would become the electors if a court ever ordered that the Republican side had actually won the election in Pennsylvania. They didn’t forge a document saying they believed they were, they were purporting to be the official electors from Pennsylvania. They created a document that said, “if a court ever says that Republicans won in Pennsylvania, then we’ll be the electors.”
Now, they say the Trump campaign advised them to create that alternate slate. We’re trying to track down the claims in that statement. If, in fact, the Trump campaign was commissioning Republicans not just to create “contingent” slates of electors in case the results were ever reversed by courts, but if the Trump campaign was commissioning Republicans to forge official-looking documents in multiple states where the wrong electors actually purported to be the real electors, well, we will do our best to get to the bottom of that.
Now, one of the Trump officials who has plead the Fifth, who has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, in order to avoid testifying to the January 6 investigation, his name is Jeffrey Clark, former Trump Justice Department official named Jeff Clark. Clark, you might remember,, he’s the one Trump reportedly tried to install as Attorney General right at the end. The best we can tell from public reporting, Trump seemed to like the cut of his jib after Jeff Clark drafted a letter that he insisted must go out on Justice Department letterhead to some of the states that Trump lost, including Georgia. This letter that was reportedly drafted by Jeff Clark, was addressed to the state government in Georgia, it was reportedly going to be sent to multiple other states as well, and the letter falsely stated that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating “serious, credible claims of fraud” in the election in that state, and that the state legislature there should therefore consider holding back the state’s electoral college votes.
Jeff Clark drafted this letter from the U.S. Justice Department to go to Georgia, and other states. And because the rest of the Justice Department wouldn’t sign off on it and do it, Trump tried to install Jeff Clark as Attorney General so Jeff Clark could send that letter and sign it, “Attorney General.”
I mean, had that happened, think about had the U.S. Justice Department jumped in the way Trump wanted to, the way Jeff Clark proposed, had the U.S. Justice Department told Republican-led states in formal letters, “don’t send in Biden electors on advice from the U.S. Justice Department; you better not do that,” how do you think Republican legislators in those states would have acted? It’s one thing to get a, you know, off-the-wall call from Trump berating you, right? It’s another thing for the U.S. Justice Department to formally advise you over the signature of the United States Attorney General, that you must not send in your electors, because there’s real problems with the vote in your state. How would Republican legislatures have dealt with that? How would they have responded?
We would be living in a very different country right now had that U.S. Justice Department letter actually gone out to the states. I’m not even sure all of us would be living in the same country as each other anymore had that letter actually gone out. That was just insanity! That would have been as radical as Trump’s other reported idea to send the National Guard out to seize the voting machines, and re-run the election. It would have been just that radical had the U.S. Justice Department intervened to stop the administration of the election in that way.
But here’s the thing. That insane draft letter, that letter explicitly describes these forged slates of electors from multiple states. It says in the middle of the letter, “The Department believes (meaning the Department of Justice believes) that in Georgia and several other States, both a slate of electors supporting Joseph R. Biden, Jr., and a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump, gathered on [December 14, 2020] at the proper location to cast their ballots, and that both sets of those ballots have been transmitted to Washington, D.C., to be opened by Vice President Pence.”
In fact, I don’t know why the Justice Department “believed” that to be true, but that was correct we now know.
That draft letter was dated December 28th. How did that guy, that Trump guy at the Justice Department, know that two weeks earlier Republicans in at least five states had in fact created these forged elector documents? Did the Trump Justice Department know about it because they helped Republicans in those states do it? We don’t know. But somebody helped them do it because they all filed the exact same document, in the same font, in the same spacing, with the exact same language. So somebody helped them do it.
We are working on figuring it out.
I will also just tell you one other thing about this. In a lot of these states, for whatever reason, in addition to the assertion that these were “the duly elected electors from these states,” which was a lie, a lot of them also included a bunch of substitutions, meaning that the people who were originally supposed to be Trump electors from those states had Trump won, the original would-be Trump electors, had their names dropped and they were replaced with other names, with other Republicans who did sign these documents. In almost every state that did this, people who were originally supposed to be Trump electors got replaced with these other Republicans before the forged documents were sent in. Why is that?
We’re trying to get to the bottom of that, too, but I can tell you at first pass that in at least one state, at least one of the Republicans who was substituted for, whose name was dropped as an elector, one Republican who was replaced by somebody else before that forged document was signed and sent in, that Republican told us this evening, that that substitution was deliberate, that person had their name taken off the list and replaced because that person did not want to be part of that effort to forge a slate of electors that was not the real electors from that state. It was one of the Republican electors who was replaced in Georgia. That person told us this tonight: “I knew (the meeting) was taking place, but I did not wish to attend. I did not wish to give my electoral vote knowing that President Biden had already been certified by the state.” Which you’d hope would be the reaction from every Republican approached to sign their name as if they were a real elector in a state that was not won by their candidate, but that in fact was won by the other guy, so they weren’t going to be electors at all.
As we reported here in December, there is an open question in Wisconsin as to whether the forgery there is going to be pursued by the state election board or indeed by state prosecutors. Those people in Wisconsin said they were the state’s electors, and they were not, and they tried to pass themselves off that way. That would appear to be against the law in Wisconsin. It is an open question as to whether or not that is going to be pursued as a criminal matter by the state election board.
This is new. In Michigan the Detroit News has just reported that the matter is part of an ongoing investigation by the state Attorney General’s office. Here’s the Detroit News: “New reporting. A spokeswoman for the Michigan Attorney General declined to discuss the legality of the Republican certificate in detail saying it was part of a “ongoing” probe. That matter is part of an investigation into election-related matters; however, we’re not currently in a position to share specifics as the review remains ongoing,” Mukomel said.Lynsey Mukomel, spokeswoman for the Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, declined Monday to discuss the legality of the GOP certificate in detail, saying it was part of a “ongoing” probe. That matter is part of an investigation into election-related matters; however, we’re not currently in a position to share specifics as the review remains ongoing,” Mukomel said.
So, in terms of whether or not the people who did this are individually going to get in trouble, open question in at least two states. I don’t know about the others.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:06 am
Rep. Adam Schiff: Jan. 6 Was Just One Part Of Broader Plan To Overturn Election
by Joy Reid
The Reid Out
MSNBC
Jan 12, 2022
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s cooperation with the Jan. 6 select committee has been officially requested for their investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Rep. Adam Schiff, member of the House select committee on the January 6th attack, and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, joins Joy Reid to discuss.
***********************
American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors
by American Oversight
March 2, 2021
https://www.americanoversight.org/ameri ... p-electors
American Oversight has obtained copies of phony electoral vote certificates from seven states that were submitted to Congress as part of the failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The fake electoral certificates were assembled by groups of Trump supporters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who sought to replace the valid presidential electors from their state — who had been chosen by voters in free and fair elections — with bogus slates of pro-Trump electors.
None of the certificates contains any indication that they list illegitimate slates of electors not chosen by those states’ voters.
The coordinated, multi-state effort to cast doubt on the 2020 election and undermine the electoral vote process tragically led to the violent Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in which a pro-Trump mob stormed the building and sought to physically block the congressional certification of each state’s real Electoral College votes.
American Oversight is actively investigating the ongoing assault on our democracy, including the efforts by former President Donald Trump and his supporters to reverse the 2020 election. We obtained these records from the National Archives and Records Administration in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
We’ve filed separate sets of public records requests in multiple states — including in many of the seven named above — seeking documents relating to the Jan. 6 rally, the lawsuit filed by Texas attempting to invalidate other states’ electoral votes, and Trump’s effort to pressure Georgia officials to illegally change the vote totals, among others.
by Joy Reid
The Reid Out
MSNBC
Jan 12, 2022
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s cooperation with the Jan. 6 select committee has been officially requested for their investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Rep. Adam Schiff, member of the House select committee on the January 6th attack, and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, joins Joy Reid to discuss.
[Joy Reid]...
The more that we learn about January 6, the harder it is to dismiss it as some spontaneous occurrence. Instead, it better resembles a coordinated top-down effort, both in public view and behind the scenes. Now, on the one hand, you had the Maga shock troops on the ground, the rank-and-file Trump supporters who were incited to violence in the name of the big lie. They attempted a literal coup by force. But, on the other hand, you had a more subversive effort going on behind closed doors conducted by Trump loyalists like John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, and Peter Navarro. They put pen to paper, and laid out blueprints to overthrow the electoral system itself. We're now learning more about how those schemes were supposed to work thanks to some reporting in Politico that got a lot of attention this week.
Namely, we learn that the Committee is scrutinizing forged election documents submitted by Republicans in Michigan and Arizona, declaring Trump and Pence the winners of those states, even though they lost.
That's right, Trump supporters in those states literally forged official documents, and tried to pass them off as legitimate. The truth is, however, that this exact same thing happened in a total of seven states! And those fake election certificates are now getting renewed attention. In addition to Michigan and Arizona, Republicans did this in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, without any legal authority. They tried to award their state's electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden. And thanks to the watchdog group, "American Oversight," we have copies of the phony electoral vote certificates that they submitted. In some cases, the forged documents appear to have been signed by committee members of the state's Republican party. Sometimes even by the chairperson.
What they attempted sure does look like a clear case of fraud, but notably they have faced no consequences for their actions. And what's more curious, is that these fake electoral slates played a huge role in Trump's efforts to short-circuit our democracy. In fact, they were crucial to Trump's plan to have Mike Pence contest the results before Congress on January 6. And we know that because the now-infamous memos drafted by Trump lawyers, John Eastman, and Jenna Ellis, both cited these dubious election documents as the basis for throwing out the legitimate votes from those states.
It suggests that maybe this was part of a more coordinated, top-down effort, that maybe these state Republicans got some direction from on high.
Now last night, the brilliant Rachel Maddow, uncovered another rather suspicious detail about these fake election documents. She not only noticed that the forgeries looked noticeably different than their authentic counterparts, but that five of the forgeries were nearly identical to one another.
***********************
American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors
by American Oversight
March 2, 2021
https://www.americanoversight.org/ameri ... p-electors
American Oversight has obtained copies of phony electoral vote certificates from seven states that were submitted to Congress as part of the failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The fake electoral certificates were assembled by groups of Trump supporters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who sought to replace the valid presidential electors from their state — who had been chosen by voters in free and fair elections — with bogus slates of pro-Trump electors.
None of the certificates contains any indication that they list illegitimate slates of electors not chosen by those states’ voters.
The coordinated, multi-state effort to cast doubt on the 2020 election and undermine the electoral vote process tragically led to the violent Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in which a pro-Trump mob stormed the building and sought to physically block the congressional certification of each state’s real Electoral College votes.
American Oversight is actively investigating the ongoing assault on our democracy, including the efforts by former President Donald Trump and his supporters to reverse the 2020 election. We obtained these records from the National Archives and Records Administration in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
We’ve filed separate sets of public records requests in multiple states — including in many of the seven named above — seeking documents relating to the Jan. 6 rally, the lawsuit filed by Texas attempting to invalidate other states’ electoral votes, and Trump’s effort to pressure Georgia officials to illegally change the vote totals, among others.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20493986-nara-records-regarding-invalid-elector-slates-nara-21-0174-a
February 17, 2021
Austin R. Evers
American Oversight
1030 15th Street NW
Suite B255
Washington, DC 20005
foia@americanoversight.org
Mr. Evers:
You have asked for the following under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) –
(1) Copies of all certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of electoral votes for
the 2020 presidential and vice presidential election, except those NARA has already published on
its website titled “2020 Electoral College Results.”
(2) Copies of correspondence (e.g., emails, cover letters, etc.) accompanying the certificates
and papers described in (1), above.
We are granting your request. We are releasing 45 unredacted pages and 0 redacted pages. We are
withholding 0 pages.
You also requested a fee waiver for these materials. As an “other requester”, you are entitled to up to 2
hours of search and review time and 100 pages of copying without charge (36 CFR 1250.54). The search,
review, and copying for your request are under your allotment, therefore the issue of a waiver is moot.
If you are not satisfied with our action on this request, you have the right to file an administrative appeal
within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of this letter via regular U.S. mail or email. By filing an
appeal, you preserve your rights under FOIA and give the agency a chance to review and reconsider your
request and the agency’s decision. If you submit your appeal in writing, please address it to the Deputy
Archivist of the United States (ND), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, Maryland 20740. Both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of
Information Act Appeal.” If you submit your appeal by e-mail please send it to FOIA@nara.gov, also
addressed to the Deputy Archivist of the United States. Please be sure to explain why you believe this
response does not meet the requirements of the FOIA. All correspondence should reference your case
tracking number FL-28769.
Office of the
Federal Register
National Archives and Records Administration • 7 G St NW, Suite A-734 , Washington, DC 20401
U.S. Mail: 8601 Adelphi Road • College Park, MD 20740 • http://www.archives.gov • http://www.federalregiste1:gov • http://www.ecfr.gov • http://www.govinfo.gov
PVERSIGHT
If you would like to discuss our response before filing an appeal to attempt to resolve your dispute
without going through the appeals process, you may contact our FOIA Public Liaison, Gary M. Stern, for
assistance at:
8601 Adelphi Road, Room 3110
College Park, MD 20740-6001
301-837-1750 (phone)
301-837-0293 (fax)
garym.stern@nara.gov
If you are unable to resolve your FOIA dispute through our FOIA Public Liaison, the Office of
Government Information Services (OGIS), the Federal FOIA Ombudsman’s office, offers mediation
services to help resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies. The contact information
for OGIS is:
Office of Government Information Services
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road–OGIS
College Park, MD 20740-6001
ogis@nara.gov
ogis.archives.gov
202-741-5770 or 1-877-684-6448
Sincerely,
KATERINA HORSKA
Director, Legal Affairs and Policy
Office of the Federal Register
pVERSIGHT
NARA-21-0174-A-000001
MEMORANDUM
TO: President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Archivist of the United States
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20408
Secretary of State
State of Arizona
1700 W. Washington St., Floor 7
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
District of Arizona
Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse
401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(By Registered Mail)
(By Registered Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
FROM: Nancy Cottle, Chairperson, Electoral College of Arizona
DATE: December 14, 2020
RE: Arizona's Electoral Votes for President and Vice President
Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 11, enclosed please find duplicate originals of
Arizona's electoral votes for President and Vice President, as follows: two (2)
duplicate originals for the President of the Senate and the Archivist, and one (1)
duplicate original for the Secretary of State and Chief Judge.
AMERICA\J
pVERSIGHT
NARA-21-0174-A-000002
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM ARIZONA
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State
of Arizona, do hereby certify the following:
(A) That we convened and organized in the City of Phoenix, County of
Maricopa, State of Arizona, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December,
2020, to perform the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for
President; and the other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
11
Number of Votes
11
NARA-21-0174-A-000003 AMERICA\J PVERSIGHT
Nancy Cottle, Cha·' person
~~q/)/~
Loraine B. Pellegrino, Secreta~
James Lamon
Samuel I. Moorhead
a~
~
Dr. Michael Ward
NARA-21-0174-A-000004
David J. Shafer
Chairman, Georgia Republican Party
Chairman, Electoral College of Georgia
MEMORANDUM
TO: President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Archivist of the United States
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20408
Secretary of State
State of Georgia
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia
2188 Richard D. Russell Federal
Office Building and U.S. Courthouse
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(By Registered Mail)
(By Registered Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
FROM: David J. Shafer, Chairperson, Electoral College of Georgia
DATE: December 14, 2020
RE: Georgia's Electoral Votes for President and Vice President
Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 11, enclosed please find duplicate originals of
Georgia's electoral votes for President and Vice President, as follows: two (2)
duplicate originals for the President of the Senate and the Archivist, and one (1)
duplicate original for the Secretary o tate and Chief J dge.
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
David J. Shafer
NARA-21-0174-A-000005
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF FULTON
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President
and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby
certify the following:
(A) That we convened and organized at the State Capitol, in the City of Atlanta, County
of Fulton, Georgia, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December, 2020, to perform
the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That David J. Shafer presided and Shawn Still served as Secretary for the meeting.
(C) That the undersigned 2020 Electors from the State of Georgia cast each of their
respective ballots for President of the United States of America, as follows:
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
FOR DONALD J. TRUMP - 16 VOTES
JOSEPH BRANNAN
JAMES "KEN" CARROLL
VIKKI TOWNSEND CONSIGLIO
CAROLYN HALL FISHER
HON BURT JONES
GLORIA KAY GODWIN
DAVID G. HANNA
MARK W. HENNESSY
MARK AMICK
JOHN DOWNEY
CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM
DARYL MOODY
BRAD CARVER
DAVID SHAFER
NARA-21-0174-A-000006
SHAWN STILL
C.B. YADAV
(D) That the undersigned 2020 Electors from the State of Georgia cast each of their respective ballots for Vice President of the United States of America, as follows
FOR MICHAEL R. PENCE - 16 VOTES
JOSEPH BRANNAN
JAMES "KEN" CARROLL
VIKKI TOWNSEND CONSIGLIO
CAROLYN HALL FISHER
HON BURT JONES
GLORIA KAY GODWIN
DAVID G. HANNA
MARK W. HENNESSY
MARK AMICK
JOHN DOWNEY
CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM
DARYL MOODY
BRAD CARVER
DAVID SHAFER
SHAWN STILL
C.B. YADAV
Witness the hands and seals of the undersigned as the duly elected and qualified Electors of the President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, this 14th day of December, 2020.
AMf HICAN
pVERSIGHT
NARA-21-0174-A-000007
~G~)~zjf,Ju[SEAf,)
~~ (SEAL)
DAVID G. HANNA
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
BRAD CARVER
DAVID SHAFE
~(SEAL)
s~
C.B. YADAV
NARA-21-0174-A-000008
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Brian P. Kemp
Governor, State of Georgia
206 \V ashington Street
111 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Decembe1· 14, 2020
RE: Notice of Filling of Electoral College Vacancy
Dear Governor Kemp,
In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 21-2-12, I hereby give you notice of the following:
1. On December 14, 2020, 12 of the 16 electors pledged to Donald J. Trump for President and Michael R. Pence for Vice President assembled in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 21-2-11;
2. 4 electors, John A Isakson, Patrick Garland, Cj Pearson, Susan Holmes did not appear at the time appointed by law;
3. The Electors present proceeded to fill those vacancies;
4. The Electors elected by unanimous voice vote, Brad Carver, Mark Amick, John Downey, Burt Jones persons of the same political party as the absent Electors;
5. As the presiding officer of the Georgia Electoral College, I am immediately transmitting their names to you, and ask that you notify them in writing of their election as a Presidential Elector to fill the vacant Elector
positions, and of their duty to perform, along with the other Electors, the duties required of them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
David J. Shafer.. "-J
Chairman, 2020 Georgia
Electoral College Meeting
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
Att
s
Secretary, 2020 Georgia
Electoral College Meeting
NARA-21-0174-A-000009
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA
**********
U pan the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Elector
John A. Isakson
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
John Downey
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the State of Georgia to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMLHICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Georgia hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
''". ~--- A\// i\ -- - '"-~~ \~~/
NARA-21-0174-A-000010
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROlVI GEORGIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Elector
Susan Holmes
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Brad Carver
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the State of Georgia to fill the vacancy i11 the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AM~RICAN pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Georgia hereunto Subscribe their names this 14th day
~- of DE?fmber, 2020.
-~ \\ .;'~
\' ~.~-':~,,/'/' """"'· '1. I. /~ '
NARA-21-0174-A-000011
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Elector
Patrick Gartland
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
MarkAmick
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of Ame1·ica for the State of Georgia to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMf HICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN 'WITNESS \¥HEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Georgia hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
'~r
~y
David J. Sl}a,r, Chairperspn
_ _,,,.,/ /' ,.,. -'2.-· ff/ ,c::"'"/~// (~ ,/'/
.,,~- \... .. -1::>./Z/,~~~ssl t½ff~ ~/v )'l' ✓
~ .. .,,,. yr
Shawn Still, Secretary
NARA-21-0174-A-000012
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Elector
CJ Pearson
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Hono Burt Jones
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the State of Georgia to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
Atv'1ERICAN pVERSIGHT
IN VVITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the Electoral College of Georgia hereunto Subscribe their names this 14th day "'t,, of Dec'f1tlber, 2020.
·~~~
~
\ \
r==-
David J 19~;';,,! ~---~~rp:/4011 .-1]7 I' ?.-;~,A'(,~, f ..r~..-.:-..r- ,...:.,,r - ,., -~ .,. M··
~,,,,,P- ~-·~~ ~I;. - - ;✓ -~-· 1<-/
ihawn Sti;_'i:secdarf
NARA-21-0174-A-000013
December 14, 2020
I, Brian P. Kemp, Governor of the State of Georgia, in accordance with
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-12, hereby give notice of the following to _____ , and
___ [ names of the substituted electors]:
1. On December 14, 2020, __ of the 16 electors pledged to Donald J.
Trump for President and Michael R. Pence for Vice President assembled in
accordance with O.C.G.A. § 21-2-11;
2. _electors, ___ [name], ___ [name], and __ name ...
[etc.], did not appear at the time appointed by law;
3. The Electors present then proceeded to fill the vacancies;
4. The Electors elected by unanimous voice vote, ______ , and
-~ persons of the same political party as the absent Electors;
5. Immediately following that vote of the Electors, David Shafer, the
presiding officer of the Electors, transmitted the names of the substitute
Electors to me;
6. By this Certificate, I am hereby notifying--~ --~ and __ _
of their election to fill the vacant Elector positions.
AMERICA\J
pVERSIGHT
Witness my hand and seal of
of my office this 14th day of
December, 2020.
Brian P. Kemp, Governor
NARA-21-0174-A-000014
MEMORANDUM
TO: President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Archivist of the United States
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20408
Secretary of State
State of Michigan
430 Allegan Street
Richard H. Austin Bldg., 4th Floor
Lansing, MI 48918
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
. Western District of Michigan
113 Federal Building
315 West Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48933
(By Registered Mail)
(By Registered Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
FROM: Kathy Berden, Chairperson, Electoral College of Michigan
DATE: December 14, 2020
RE: Michigan's Electoral Votes for President and Vice President
Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 11, enclosed please find duplicate originals of
Michigan's electoral votes for President and Vice President, as follows: two (2)
duplicate originals for the President of the Senate and the Archivist, and one (1)
duplicate original for the Secretary of State and Chief Judge.
AMERICA\J
PVERSIGHT
NARA-21-0174-A-000015
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM MICHIGAN
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of
Michigan, do hereby certify the following:
(A)That we convened and organized in the State Capitol, in the City of
Lansing, Michigan, and at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the 14th
day of December, 2020, performed the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C)That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for
President; and the other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
AMERICA\J
PVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
16
Number of Votes
16
NARA-21-0174-A-000016
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, in the City of
Lansing, in the State of Michigan, on this 14th day of December, 2020, subscribed
our respective names.
Kent Vanderwood
"-vl/1 - 1?JJ '~ ,
f/'faA--4~ ( .
Marian Sheridan
James Renner
~!icckdt
Am; ~chinello
A~LH GAf\
PVERSIGHT
Rose Rook
c/k~
Hank Choate
c<i!II:!
~~~
Stanley Grot r
Timothy 1 · ng J1 ()JI! , 1 17 1 /_· / ~ ,.,7 / 'J//uJdv(;0k/l irv/1_-
Michew Lundgre.n
/,// - I
/ / /'1 y /
/ i1.._ /.I '!.,vt,,. --L
Ken Thompson
NARA-21-0174-A-000017
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM MICHIGAN
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of
Elector
TERRI LYNN LAND
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
KEN THOMPSON
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the
United States of America for the State of Michigan to fill the vacancy in the manner
provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of
the Electoral College.
AMER1GAf\
PVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Michigan hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
/ \.<.I/, .-·1 ,, ,.C,1 A
·- I
Kathy ;I3 rden, Chairperson
~/4"'-~d-k, d Mayra Rodrigu,Secretary V ~)
NARA-21-0174-A-000018
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM MICHIGAN
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of
Elector
GERALD WALL
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
JAMES RENNER
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the
United States of America for the State of Michigan to fill the vacancy in the manner
provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of
the Electoral College.
AMER1GAf\
PVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Michigan hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
_/_.-·--i~. "'./41 / . 122 i ..
1
.
, ~·-:-· #',,.,/ '/ . ( /t- '[/ / , _.,., /1~'}'--.,
,_ - I
Kathy Ber
NARA-21-0174-A-000019
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM MICHIGAN
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of
Michigan, do hereby certify the following:
(A)That we convened and organized in the State Capitol, in the City of
Lansing, Michigan, and at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the 14th
day of December, 2020, performed the duties enjoined upon us;
(B)That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for
President; and the other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
AMERICAf\
PVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
16
Number of Votes
16
NARA-21-0174-A-000020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, in the City of
Lansing, in the State of Michigan, on this 14th day of December, 2020, subscribed
our respective names.
~~~
~ ?Z,,Lr40f6
Mayra Rodriguez, Secretary
~~
Meshawn Maddock
~c~
---·
Kent Vanderwood ~ ~t~,:7<l !div~
Marian Sheridan
James Renner
AMLH GAf\
PVERSIGHT
Rose Rook
Hank Choate
~-Uv-tttt0i Ma~n Henry 7 0
c~ft/PZM
3,Q~~
Stanley~f ?ifl!t~-
Ti~ ~rf
, n O r ~ p n 4 J 1'll1v,11,/vY'dll//lt{ ~
Michele Lundgren ()
t{c,Jl~ I
Ken Thompson
NARA-21-0174-A-000021
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM MICHIGAN
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of
Elector
TERRI LYNN LAND
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
KEN THOMPSON
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the
United States of America for the State of Michigan to fill the vacancy in the manner
provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of
the Electoral College.
AMERICA\J
PVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Michigan hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
Kathy J3. rden, Chairperson
NARA-21-0174-A-000022
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM MICHIGAN
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of
Elector
GERALD WALL
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
JAMES RENNER
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the State of Michigan to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of
the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Michigan hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
// -- __ )/4i / l\/t-r, (. J/ (t . C-1 /.
Kathy Ber
NARA-21-0174-A-000023
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM NEW MEXICO
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, on the understanding that it might later be
determined that we are the duly elected and qualified Electors for President
and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of New
Mexico, do hereby certify the following:
(A) That we convened and organized at the State Capitol, in Santa Fe,
New Mexico at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December, 2020, to
perform the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for
President; and the other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
5
Number of Votes
5
NARA-21-0174-A-000024
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, at the Capitol, in
Santa Fe, in the State of New Mexico, on this 14th day of December, 2020,
subscribed our respective names.
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
DEBORAH W. MAESTAS, Secretary
Jl ' - /) L/
RSIETRIPP e,.-
-~
ANISSA FORD-TINNIN
NARA-21-0174-A-000025
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM NEW MEXICO
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of
Elector
HARVEY YATES
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
ANISSA FORD-TINNIN
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the
United States of America for the State of New Mexico to fill the vacancy in the manner
provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of
the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of New Mexico hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of D ember, 2020.
DEBORAH W. MAESTAS, Secretary
NARA-21-0174-A-000026
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM NEV ADA
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of
Nevada, do hereby certify the following:
(A) That we convened and organized at the State Capitol, in Carson City,
Nevada, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December, 2020, to perform
the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following is a list of all the votes for President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
A\lll HICAN
PVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
6
NARA-21-0174-A-000027
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, at the Capitol, in Carson City, in
the State of Nevada, on this 14th day of December, 2020, subs ibed our res~:tilfe-n~~
AMERICA\J
pVERSIGHT
Shawn Meehan
Eileen Rice
NARA-21-0174-A-000028
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM NEV ADA
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of
Nevada, do hereby certify the following:
(A) That we convened and organized at the State Capitol, in Carson City,
Nevada, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December, 2020, to perform
the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following is a distinct list of all the votes for Vice President, so
cast as aforesaid.
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
A\lll HICAN
OVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
6
NARA-21-0174-A-000029
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, at the Capitol, in Carson City, in
the State of Nevada, on this 14th day of December, 2020, subs 'bed our respectiv~e:.,.mHrn:~-::;:;;:,,_
AMERICA\J
PVERSIGHT
Michael J. cDo Id, ierson
~
-----~c~ ~-
James DeGra~ S~ry -
James Hindle III
k]c0
Shawn Meehan
Eileen Rice
NARA-21-0174-A-000030
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, on the understanding that if, as a result of a final
non-appealable Court Order or other proceeding prescribed by law, we are
ultimately recognized as being the duly elected and qualified Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of
Pennsylvania, hereby certify the following:
(A) That we assembled in the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the seat of
government of this Commonwealth, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of
December, 2020, to perform the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled, we proceeded to vote by ballot, and balloted
first for President and then for Vice President, by distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for
President; and the other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
20
Number of Votes
20
NARA-21-0174-A-000031
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, at the Capitol, in the City
of Harrisburg, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on this 14th day of December, 2020,
subscribed our respective names.
Sam DeMarco III
AMEHICAN
PVERSIGHT
,lJ-ss-fb~ I
Bernadette Comfort
Marcela Diaz-Myers
isa Patton, Secretary
Clsi_,]~
:RRzz=
(
Calvin Tucker
NARA-21-0174-A-000032
December 14, 2020
VIA FAX DELIVERY
The Honorable Tom Wolf
Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 508 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
FAX: 717-772-8284
RE: Notice of Filling of Electoral College Vacancies
Dear Governor Wolf,
In accordance with 25 Pa. Stats.§ 3193, I hereby give you notice of the following:
1. On December 14, 2020, 13 of the 20 electors pledged to Donald J. Trump for President and Michael R. Pence for Vice President assembled in accordance with 25 Pa. Stats.§ 3192;
2. 7 electors, Robert Asher, Robert Gleason, Thomas Marino, Lance Stange, Lawrence Tabas, Christine Torretti, and Carolyn Welsh did not appear at the time appointed by law;
3. The Electors present proceeded to fill those vacancies, as authorized by 25 Pa. Stats. § 3193;
4. The Electors elected by unanimous voice vote, Tom Carroll, Christie DiEsposti, Charlie Gerow, Kevin Harley, Leah Hoopes, Andre McCoy, and Suk Smith.
5. As the presiding officer of the Pennsylvania Electoral College, I am immediately transmitting their names to you, and ask that you notify them in writing of their election as a Presidential Elector to fill the vacant Elector positions, and of their duty to perform, along with the other Electors, the duties required of them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
This 14th day of December, 2020.
Chairp Pennsylvania Elector Meeting
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
etary, 2020 Pennsylvania Electoral College Meeting
NARA-21-0174-A-000033
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Robert Asher
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Tom Carroll
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto Subscribe their names this 14th day of December, 2020.
NARA-21-0174-A-000034
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Lawrence Tabas
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Leah Hoopes
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
NARA-21-0174-A-000035
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Thomas Marino
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Charlie Gerow
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto Subscribe their names this 14th day of December, 2020.
NARA-21-0174-A-000036
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Lance Stange
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Kevin Harley
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMLHICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
NARA-21-0174-A-000037
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Carolyn Welsh
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Suk Smith
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Chairperson and Secretary of the Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto Subscribe their names this 14th day of December, 2020.
a1rperson
NARA-21-0174-A-000038
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Christine Toretti
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Andre McCoy
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the
vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
NARA-21-0174-A-000039
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of Electors:
Robert Gleason
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Christie DiEsposti
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the United States of America for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fill the vacancy in the manner provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Pennsylvania hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of December, 2020.
NARA-21-0174-A-000040
[letterhead, Governor of Pennsylvania]
December 14, 2020
I, Tom Wolf, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in accordance with 25 Pa. Stats.§ 3193, hereby give notice of the following to Tom Carroll, Christie DiEsposti, Charlie Gerow, Kevin Harley, Leah Hoopes, Andre McCoy, and Suk Smith.
1. On December 14, 2020, 13 of the 20 electors pledged to Donald J. Trump for President and Michael R. Pence for Vice President assembled in accordance with 25 Pa. Stats.§ 3192;
2. 7 electors, Robert Asher, Robert Gleason, Thomas Marino, Lance Stange, Lawrence Tabas, Christine Torretti, and Carolyn Welsh did not appear at the time appointed by law;
3. The Electors present then proceeded to fill the vacancies;
4. The Electors elected by unanimous voice vote, Tom Carroll, Christie DiEsposti, Charlie Gerow, Kevin Harley, Leah Hoopes, Andre McCoy, and Suk Smith, persons of the same political party as the absent Electors;
5. Immediately following that vote of the Electors, Bill Bachenberg, the presiding officer of the Electors, transmitted the names of the substitute Electors to me;
6. By this Certificate, I am hereby notifying Tom Carroll, Christie DiEsposti, Charlie Gerow, Kevin Harley, Leah Hoopes, Andre McCoy, and Suk Smith of their election to fill the vacant Elector positions.
AMERICAN
pVERSIGHT
Witness my hand and seal of
of my office this 14th day of
December, 2020.
Tom Wolf, Governor
NARA-21-0174-A-000041
-=-- ----- .-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Archivist of the United States
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20408
(By Registered Mail)
FROM: Bill Bachenberg, Chairperson, Electoral College of Pennsylvania
DATE: December 14, 2020
RE: Pennsylvania's Electoral Votes for President and Vice President
Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 11, enclosed please find duplicate originals of
Pennsylvania's electoral votes for President and Vice President, as follows: two (2)
duplicate originals for the President of the Senate and the Archivist, and one (1)
duplicate original for the Secretary of State and Chief Judge.
~
1-
J:
C,
L.-
<r_(/)
oa:
c:-w
w>
~~
NARA-21-0174-A-000042
MEMORANDUM
TO: President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Archivist of the United States
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20408
Secretary of State
State of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 7848
Madison, WI 53707
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
Western District of Wisconsin
120 N. Henry Street
Madison, WI 53703
(By Registered Mail)
(By Registered Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
(By Certified Mail)
FROM: Andrew Hitt, Chairperson, Electoral College of Wisconsin
DATE: December 14, 2020
RE: Wisconsin's Electoral Votes for President and Vice President
Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 11, enclosed please find duplicate originals of
Wisconsin's electoral votes for President and Vice President, as follows: two (2)
duplicate originals for the President of the Senate and the Archivist, and one (1)
duplicate original for the Secretary of State and Chief Judge.
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
NARA-21-0174-A-000043
CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE
2020 ELECTORS FROM WISCONSIN
**********
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of
Wisconsin, do hereby certify the following:
(A)That we convened and organized at the State Capitol, in the City of
Madison, Wisconsin, at 12:00 noon on the 14th day of December, 2020,
to perform the duties enjoined upon us;
(B) That being so assembled and duly organized, we proceeded to vote by
ballot, and balloted first for President and then for Vice President, by
distinct ballots; and
(C) That the following are two distinct lists, one, of all the votes for
President; and the other, of all the votes for Vice President, so cast as
aforesaid:
FOR PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
DONALD J. TRUMP of the State of Florida
FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Names of the Persons Voted For
MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
Number of Votes
10
Number of Votes
10
NARA-21-0174-A-000044
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, have hereunto, at the Capitol, in
the City of Madison, in the State of Wisconsin, on this h day of December, 2020,
subscribed our respective names. /,///~ ---
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
Edward Scott Grabins
tofff~
Bill Feehan
/_zA-<-Y/V ~~dl4 .,1,
Robert F. Spindel], . 4
~~AV
~n
dy!72lt_
Darryl Carlson
c~&k= )
Pam Travis
NARA-21-0174-A-000045
CERTIFICATE OF FILLING VACANCY
OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM WISCONSIN
**********
Upon the call of the roll, a vacancy became known due to the absence of
Elector
Tom Schreibel
Representing the Fifth Congressional District of Wisconsin
Thereupon, by nomination duly made and seconded,
Kathy Kiernen
Was elected by the Electors present, as an Elector of President and Vice President of the
United States of America for the State of Wisconsin to fill the vacancy in the manner
provided by law. This Elector participated in the proceedings as set forth in the record of
the Electoral College.
AMERICAN
PVERSIGHT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
Chairperson and Secretary of the
Electoral College of Wisconsin hereunto
Subscribe their names this 14th day
of Dece 'r, 2 0.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:12 am
Oath Keepers leader and 10 others charged with 'seditious conspiracy' related to US Capitol attack
by Hannah Rabinowitz, Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed and Holmes Lybrand, CNN
CNN
Updated 10:41 PM ET, Thu January 13, 2022
(CNN)The Justice Department escalated its January 6 investigation by bringing seditious conspiracy charges against 11 defendants, including the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes.
The latest accusations -- with a charge that had not previously been brought in the department's US Capitol attack prosecutions -- remove any sense that prosecutors believe the riot emerged from just a group of overzealous protestors, with new details about the planning and logistics alleged to have predated the Capitol breach.
The Justice Department until now had been careful not to push the idea of sedition, instead charging defendants affiliated with right-wing groups with conspiracy to obstruct the congressional proceeding on January 6. The seditious conspiracy charge carries the same possible consequence as an obstruction charge, but is rarely used, politically loaded and has been difficult for the Justice Department to use successfully against defendants in the past.
Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers.
The new indictment brings to light planning the Oath Keepers are accused to have done ahead of the Capitol attack, as they allegedly recruited members, stocked up on weapons and organized to disrupt Congress' certification of the 2020 election. Prosecutors say they also continued to plot "to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power" after the Capitol riot failed to block the electoral college vote, according to a Justice Department statement on Thursday.
[x]
Booking photo of Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes. From Collin County, Texas.
One Oath Keeper claimed to travel to Washington, DC, for a scouting trip ahead of January 6, according to the indictment. The new court filings also detail accusations that the defendants stashed weapons at a Virginia hotel and that they were prepared to "rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into Washington, D.C." to support the efforts to stop the presidential certification vote.
Rhodes was arrested Thursday in Little Elm, Texas.
Allegedly opposing 'by force' the lawful transfer of power
The new indictment, approved by a grand jury on Wednesday and made public Thursday, alleges that Rhodes and his co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy to "oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force, by preventing, hindering, or delaying by force execution of laws governing the transfer of power."
The latest court filings revealed that Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell, who was arrested in January, claimed to take a reconnaissance trip to DC before January 6. The indictment also surfaces previously unknown communications Rhodes is alleged to have sent that prosecutors say encouraged the use of force to oppose the lawful transfer of power.
"We aren't going through this without civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body and spirit," Rhodes allegedly said in a November 5, 2020, Signal message. In December, Rhodes -- according to the indictment -- wrote of the electoral college certification that "there is no standard political or legal way out of this."
Prosecutors have previously said that Rhodes used Signal during the attack to communicate with other members of the Oath Keepers who were at the Capitol.
"All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything," Rhodes allegedly wrote. "So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They've had enough," he allegedly said on Signal at 1:38 p.m. that day, shortly after the siege had begun.
Additionally, the indictment says that Oath Keepers from three different states, including newly charged Edward Vallejo, stashed weapons in a Virginia hotel as part of a quick reaction force.
"[Quick reaction force] teams were prepared to rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into Washington, D.C., in support of operations aimed at using force to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power," the indictment said.
On his way to DC on January 3, Rhodes allegedly bought an AR-platform rifle and other firearms equipment, including sights, mounts, triggers, slings, and other firearms attachments in Texas. The next day, he allegedly bought more firearms equipment in Mississippi including sights, mounts, an optic plate, and a magazine, according to the filings.
Accusations of plotting before and after the Capitol attack
The Rhodes indictment walks through public and private statements the Oath Keeper leader made, starting just days after the election, that prosecutors say illuminate the plot to oppose by force the transfer of presidential power.
Those alleged discussions include a November readout that Caldwell reached out to provide Rhodes about a November 9 trip he had taken to DC to do recon for an upcoming "op." Communications about the "bloody" "fight" and "revolution" were accompanied by logistical planning, prosecutors alleged, with defendants discussing obtaining and bringing weapons to the Washington area. Rhodes allegedly spent thousands on firearms equipment en route to DC, prosecutors allege.
On January 6, prosecutors allege that Oath Keepers stationed themselves around the DC area -- some near the Capitol, others providing security and a third group waiting across the river in a Virginia hotel with a cache of weapons. At the Capitol, some members moved in a military "stack" formation into the Capitol where they fought with police, and a small group unsuccessfully looked for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to court documents.
The plotting didn't end with the Capitol riot, prosecutors say, alleging Rhodes and other co-conspirators met in Virginia to "celebrate" the attack and "discuss next steps." In a Signal chat to other members of Oath Keepers leadership, Rhodes allegedly said that "Patriots entering their own Capitol to send a message to the traitors is NOTHING compared to what's coming."
In the week after the riot, Rhodes allegedly spent more than $17,500 on weapons, equipment, and ammunition. One member, according to the filings, said Rhodes should stay "below the radar," while another brought what he called "all available weapons" to Rhodes' home in Texas.
Around Inauguration Day, January 20, Rhodes allegedly told associates to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration. Another member allegedly said, "After this... if nothing happens...its war...Civil War 2.0."
Change in approach
The charges mark a dramatic change in the Justice Department's January 6 probe.
Previously, some Biden administration officials believed using the sedition charge could politicize the Justice Department's prosecution of the Capitol attackers, and the department recoiled after the former top prosecutor over the investigation, Michael Sherwin, said on CBS' "60 Minutes" he believed seditious conspiracy could be charged.
Garland said in a speech last week commemorating the Capitol attack that the department was "committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law -- whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy."
Rhodes has also been of interest to the House's January 6 investigation, which issued subpoenas in November for him and his organization for a deposition and documents related to the events of that day.
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper Thursday night, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who serves on the January 6 committee, said he hopes the newly filed charges will "shut up those of our colleagues who keep saying, 'Well if it was a conspiracy, how come there are no conspiracy charges? If it was seditious, how come there were no sedition charges?'"
"So, there we go," he continued. "We've got those with, undoubtedly, a lot more to come soon."
CNN reported in July that Rhodes gave a voluntary interview to the FBI and that investigators seized his cell phone. He has denied all wrongdoing.
According to previous court filings submitted by the Justice Department in other cases, Rhodes said at a November 2020 online meeting, "We're going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don't guys, you're going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war and a bloody -- you can call it an insurrection, or you can call it a war or fight."
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN's Marshall Cohen and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
****************************
The estranged wife of indicted leader of Oath Keepers tells CNN he is a 'dangerous man' and 'complete sociopath'
by Alia Shoaib
Business Insider
Jan 15, 2022, 9:34 AM
The estranged wife of Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right group Oath Keepers, said he is a "complete sociopath."
Rhodes' wife Tasha Adams made the comments in an interview with CNN on Friday, a day after Rhodes was charged with seditious conspiracy in connection to the Capitol riot.
Insider's Oma Seddiq and Sonam Sheth wrote that it's the most significant arrest yet and marks the first time that federal prosecutors have brought sedition charges in connection to the Justice Department's sprawling investigation into the deadly January 6, 2021, Capitol siege.
Adams said she was relieved to hear he was indicted, as she "lived in fear" of him showing up at her house.
"Knowing we were safe and my kids were safe and my kids' school doesn't have to worry, that was a relief I didn't know existed," she said.
Adams told CNN host John Berman that she felt Rhodes was dangerous to her and her family, and the country.
"He is very dangerous. He lives very much in his own head," Adams said on CNN.
"He sees himself as a great leader. He almost has his own mythology of himself and I think he almost made it come true, seeing himself as some sort of figure in history, and it sort of happened."
"He's a complete sociopath. He does not feel empathy for anyone around him at all," she added.
Tasha Adams and Stewart Rhodes' divorce has been pending for more than three years.
In April of last year, Adams set up a GoFundMe page asking for $30,000 in donations to fund their divorce.
"Though I can't talk about the details of my marriage here, I can tell you that it was likely about exactly what you're picturing, but probably quite a bit weirder," Adams wrote on the GoFundMe page.
She also wrote that the process of divorcing her husband was difficult as he was someone who "commands their own private army."
Rhodes, an Army veteran, founded the Oath Keepers in 2019. The far-right group recruits active and former military and law enforcement officers who swear an oath to defend the US Constitution.
His arrest on Thursday marked the first time that federal prosecutors have brought sedition charges in connection to the events of January 6.
Rhodes has said he was at the Capitol that day but did not enter the building, according to The Washington Post.
Tasha Adams told CNN that she has been talking to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, and said that she believed her husband "planned it very carefully."
She said that she believed Rhodes had been calculating in his decision to not enter the Capitol building so that he would not be implicated.
"I see his fingerprints all over it," she said.
Adams and Rhodes, who met in Las Vegas, married in 1994 and have six children together, according to Buzzfeed News.
by Hannah Rabinowitz, Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed and Holmes Lybrand, CNN
CNN
Updated 10:41 PM ET, Thu January 13, 2022
(CNN)The Justice Department escalated its January 6 investigation by bringing seditious conspiracy charges against 11 defendants, including the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes.
The latest accusations -- with a charge that had not previously been brought in the department's US Capitol attack prosecutions -- remove any sense that prosecutors believe the riot emerged from just a group of overzealous protestors, with new details about the planning and logistics alleged to have predated the Capitol breach.
The Justice Department until now had been careful not to push the idea of sedition, instead charging defendants affiliated with right-wing groups with conspiracy to obstruct the congressional proceeding on January 6. The seditious conspiracy charge carries the same possible consequence as an obstruction charge, but is rarely used, politically loaded and has been difficult for the Justice Department to use successfully against defendants in the past.
Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers.
The new indictment brings to light planning the Oath Keepers are accused to have done ahead of the Capitol attack, as they allegedly recruited members, stocked up on weapons and organized to disrupt Congress' certification of the 2020 election. Prosecutors say they also continued to plot "to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power" after the Capitol riot failed to block the electoral college vote, according to a Justice Department statement on Thursday.
[x]
Booking photo of Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes. From Collin County, Texas.
One Oath Keeper claimed to travel to Washington, DC, for a scouting trip ahead of January 6, according to the indictment. The new court filings also detail accusations that the defendants stashed weapons at a Virginia hotel and that they were prepared to "rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into Washington, D.C." to support the efforts to stop the presidential certification vote.
Rhodes was arrested Thursday in Little Elm, Texas.
Allegedly opposing 'by force' the lawful transfer of power
The new indictment, approved by a grand jury on Wednesday and made public Thursday, alleges that Rhodes and his co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy to "oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force, by preventing, hindering, or delaying by force execution of laws governing the transfer of power."
The latest court filings revealed that Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell, who was arrested in January, claimed to take a reconnaissance trip to DC before January 6. The indictment also surfaces previously unknown communications Rhodes is alleged to have sent that prosecutors say encouraged the use of force to oppose the lawful transfer of power.
"We aren't going through this without civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body and spirit," Rhodes allegedly said in a November 5, 2020, Signal message. In December, Rhodes -- according to the indictment -- wrote of the electoral college certification that "there is no standard political or legal way out of this."
Prosecutors have previously said that Rhodes used Signal during the attack to communicate with other members of the Oath Keepers who were at the Capitol.
"All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything," Rhodes allegedly wrote. "So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They've had enough," he allegedly said on Signal at 1:38 p.m. that day, shortly after the siege had begun.
Additionally, the indictment says that Oath Keepers from three different states, including newly charged Edward Vallejo, stashed weapons in a Virginia hotel as part of a quick reaction force.
"[Quick reaction force] teams were prepared to rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into Washington, D.C., in support of operations aimed at using force to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power," the indictment said.
On his way to DC on January 3, Rhodes allegedly bought an AR-platform rifle and other firearms equipment, including sights, mounts, triggers, slings, and other firearms attachments in Texas. The next day, he allegedly bought more firearms equipment in Mississippi including sights, mounts, an optic plate, and a magazine, according to the filings.
Accusations of plotting before and after the Capitol attack
The Rhodes indictment walks through public and private statements the Oath Keeper leader made, starting just days after the election, that prosecutors say illuminate the plot to oppose by force the transfer of presidential power.
Those alleged discussions include a November readout that Caldwell reached out to provide Rhodes about a November 9 trip he had taken to DC to do recon for an upcoming "op." Communications about the "bloody" "fight" and "revolution" were accompanied by logistical planning, prosecutors alleged, with defendants discussing obtaining and bringing weapons to the Washington area. Rhodes allegedly spent thousands on firearms equipment en route to DC, prosecutors allege.
On January 6, prosecutors allege that Oath Keepers stationed themselves around the DC area -- some near the Capitol, others providing security and a third group waiting across the river in a Virginia hotel with a cache of weapons. At the Capitol, some members moved in a military "stack" formation into the Capitol where they fought with police, and a small group unsuccessfully looked for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to court documents.
The plotting didn't end with the Capitol riot, prosecutors say, alleging Rhodes and other co-conspirators met in Virginia to "celebrate" the attack and "discuss next steps." In a Signal chat to other members of Oath Keepers leadership, Rhodes allegedly said that "Patriots entering their own Capitol to send a message to the traitors is NOTHING compared to what's coming."
In the week after the riot, Rhodes allegedly spent more than $17,500 on weapons, equipment, and ammunition. One member, according to the filings, said Rhodes should stay "below the radar," while another brought what he called "all available weapons" to Rhodes' home in Texas.
Around Inauguration Day, January 20, Rhodes allegedly told associates to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration. Another member allegedly said, "After this... if nothing happens...its war...Civil War 2.0."
Change in approach
The charges mark a dramatic change in the Justice Department's January 6 probe.
Previously, some Biden administration officials believed using the sedition charge could politicize the Justice Department's prosecution of the Capitol attackers, and the department recoiled after the former top prosecutor over the investigation, Michael Sherwin, said on CBS' "60 Minutes" he believed seditious conspiracy could be charged.
Garland said in a speech last week commemorating the Capitol attack that the department was "committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law -- whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy."
Rhodes has also been of interest to the House's January 6 investigation, which issued subpoenas in November for him and his organization for a deposition and documents related to the events of that day.
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper Thursday night, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who serves on the January 6 committee, said he hopes the newly filed charges will "shut up those of our colleagues who keep saying, 'Well if it was a conspiracy, how come there are no conspiracy charges? If it was seditious, how come there were no sedition charges?'"
"So, there we go," he continued. "We've got those with, undoubtedly, a lot more to come soon."
CNN reported in July that Rhodes gave a voluntary interview to the FBI and that investigators seized his cell phone. He has denied all wrongdoing.
According to previous court filings submitted by the Justice Department in other cases, Rhodes said at a November 2020 online meeting, "We're going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don't guys, you're going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war and a bloody -- you can call it an insurrection, or you can call it a war or fight."
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN's Marshall Cohen and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
****************************
The estranged wife of indicted leader of Oath Keepers tells CNN he is a 'dangerous man' and 'complete sociopath'
by Alia Shoaib
Business Insider
Jan 15, 2022, 9:34 AM
The estranged wife of Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right group Oath Keepers, said he is a "complete sociopath."
Rhodes' wife Tasha Adams made the comments in an interview with CNN on Friday, a day after Rhodes was charged with seditious conspiracy in connection to the Capitol riot.
Insider's Oma Seddiq and Sonam Sheth wrote that it's the most significant arrest yet and marks the first time that federal prosecutors have brought sedition charges in connection to the Justice Department's sprawling investigation into the deadly January 6, 2021, Capitol siege.
Adams said she was relieved to hear he was indicted, as she "lived in fear" of him showing up at her house.
"Knowing we were safe and my kids were safe and my kids' school doesn't have to worry, that was a relief I didn't know existed," she said.
Adams told CNN host John Berman that she felt Rhodes was dangerous to her and her family, and the country.
"He is very dangerous. He lives very much in his own head," Adams said on CNN.
"He sees himself as a great leader. He almost has his own mythology of himself and I think he almost made it come true, seeing himself as some sort of figure in history, and it sort of happened."
"He's a complete sociopath. He does not feel empathy for anyone around him at all," she added.
Tasha Adams and Stewart Rhodes' divorce has been pending for more than three years.
In April of last year, Adams set up a GoFundMe page asking for $30,000 in donations to fund their divorce.
"Though I can't talk about the details of my marriage here, I can tell you that it was likely about exactly what you're picturing, but probably quite a bit weirder," Adams wrote on the GoFundMe page.
She also wrote that the process of divorcing her husband was difficult as he was someone who "commands their own private army."
Rhodes, an Army veteran, founded the Oath Keepers in 2019. The far-right group recruits active and former military and law enforcement officers who swear an oath to defend the US Constitution.
His arrest on Thursday marked the first time that federal prosecutors have brought sedition charges in connection to the events of January 6.
Rhodes has said he was at the Capitol that day but did not enter the building, according to The Washington Post.
Tasha Adams told CNN that she has been talking to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, and said that she believed her husband "planned it very carefully."
She said that she believed Rhodes had been calculating in his decision to not enter the Capitol building so that he would not be implicated.
"I see his fingerprints all over it," she said.
Adams and Rhodes, who met in Las Vegas, married in 1994 and have six children together, according to Buzzfeed News.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:39 pm
Senate Uses 'Nuclear Option' All The Time Despite Manchin & Sinema Saying Otherwise
by Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
Jan 20, 2022
[Rachel Maddow] I was just looking back today at when Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, and President Trump was in office. During that time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is running the Senate, Trump is in the White House, during that time, Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans went nuclear and decided it would be a majority vote only -- it would be 50 votes only -- to confirm Supreme Court nominees.
Then, Mitch McConnell went nuclear another time and decided it would be a majority vote only, it would be 50 votes only needed, for lower level executive branch nominees.
Then he went nuclear a third time and decided he would change the filibuster rule, and it would only have to be a majority vote, a 50 vote threshold, for federal district court judges.
Even since President Biden has been President, the U.S. Senate has decided to go "nuclear," as they say, to require just a majority vote, just 50 votes, on a bill to fund the government last year.
They also did it, they went "nuclear", they decided it would be just a majority vote, just 50 votes, for a random vote that didn't go anywhere about vaccine requirements.
I mean, we use the phrase "go nuclear" because it's supposed to be the end of the world, it's supposed to be mutually assured destruction. It turns out they go "nuclear" all the time. They go "nuclear" and decide that a 50-vote majority is enough, that we can't have a 60-vote threshold for a particular type of action in the Senate, or a particular type of legislation, or a particular amendment, a particular vote -- they do that all the time.
Now, even in this Senate, even when the Republicans were in control with Trump in the White House, it happens all the time. But Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Cinema keep saying that this would be an unprecedented thing to do, even though that's absolutely not true. They just keep saying they won't do it for voting rights.
by Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
Jan 20, 2022
[Rachel Maddow] I was just looking back today at when Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, and President Trump was in office. During that time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is running the Senate, Trump is in the White House, during that time, Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans went nuclear and decided it would be a majority vote only -- it would be 50 votes only -- to confirm Supreme Court nominees.
Business Insider: SENATE GOES NUCLEAR: McConnell kills the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to get Trump's court pick over the top, by Allan Smith, 4/6/2017
Then, Mitch McConnell went nuclear another time and decided it would be a majority vote only, it would be 50 votes only needed, for lower level executive branch nominees.
NBC News: Mitch McConnell triggered the 'nuclear option' again. Here's what that means, by Allan Smith and Alex Seltz-Wald, 4/3/19
Then he went nuclear a third time and decided he would change the filibuster rule, and it would only have to be a majority vote, a 50 vote threshold, for federal district court judges.
The Hill: McConnell sets stage for 'nuclear option' to change rules on judges, by Alexander Bolton, 3/28/19
Even since President Biden has been President, the U.S. Senate has decided to go "nuclear," as they say, to require just a majority vote, just 50 votes, on a bill to fund the government last year.
The Hill: Senate Democrats raise debt ceiling after filibuster deal, by Jordan Carney, 12/14/21
They also did it, they went "nuclear", they decided it would be just a majority vote, just 50 votes, for a random vote that didn't go anywhere about vaccine requirements.
TNR: It Turns out the Senate CAN Abolish the Filibuster Whenever it Wants, by Michael Tomasky, 12/15/21
I mean, we use the phrase "go nuclear" because it's supposed to be the end of the world, it's supposed to be mutually assured destruction. It turns out they go "nuclear" all the time. They go "nuclear" and decide that a 50-vote majority is enough, that we can't have a 60-vote threshold for a particular type of action in the Senate, or a particular type of legislation, or a particular amendment, a particular vote -- they do that all the time.
Now, even in this Senate, even when the Republicans were in control with Trump in the White House, it happens all the time. But Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Cinema keep saying that this would be an unprecedented thing to do, even though that's absolutely not true. They just keep saying they won't do it for voting rights.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:45 pm
Court Filings Expose Trump Pattern Of Exaggerating Values Of Real Estate Holdings
by Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
Jan 20, 2022
Rachel Maddow looks at new court filings by New York Attorney General Letitia James that show the Trump family regularly assigning apparently arbitrarily inflated values to real estate assets in representations to insurance companies and banks, as well as in tax filings.
by Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
Jan 20, 2022
Rachel Maddow looks at new court filings by New York Attorney General Letitia James that show the Trump family regularly assigning apparently arbitrarily inflated values to real estate assets in representations to insurance companies and banks, as well as in tax filings.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:35 am
Part 1 of 4
Supplemental Verified Petition
by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York
Against The Trump Organization
January 18, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York,
Petitioner,
-against-
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC; SEVEN SPRINGS LLC; ERIC TRUMP; CHARLES MARTABANO; MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP; SHERI DILLON; MAZARS USA LLC; DONALD J. TRUMP; DONALD TRUMP, JR.; and IVANKA TRUMP,
Respondents.
Index No. 451685/2020
SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED PETITION
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2022
Petitioner, the People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, as and for her Supplemental Verified Petition, respectfully alleges:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) is currently investigating whether the Trump Organization and Donald J. Trump (“Mr. Trump”) misstated the value of Mr. Trump’s assets on annual financial statements, tax submissions, and other documents and made other material misrepresentations provided to third parties in order to secure loans and insurance coverage and obtain other economic and tax benefits.
2. This investigation is being conducted pursuant to the New York Executive Law and other applicable laws. OAG has identified facts and evidence indicating that the annual financial statements, tax submissions, and other documents under investigation contain material misstatements and omissions. It intends to make a final determination about who is responsible for those misstatements and omissions. OAG requires the testimony and evidence sought herein to determine which Trump Organization employees and affiliates—and which other entities and individuals—may have assisted the Trump Organization and Mr. Trump in making, or may have relevant knowledge about, the misstatements and omissions at issue.
3. The factual basis for OAG’s investigation is set out below and in OAG’s previous filings in this proceeding, which are incorporated herein, including the Second Affirmation of Matthew Colangelo dated August 21, 2020 (“Second Aff.”), filed in camera to protect the confidentiality of this ongoing investigation. See Michaelis v. Graziano, 5 N.Y.3d 317, 323 (2005); American Dental Coop., Inc. v. Attorney-General, 127 A.D.2d 274, 280 (1st Dep’t 1987).
4. Upon this Supplemental Verified Petition; the Affirmation of Colleen Faherty, dated January 18, 2022; and its attachments (incorporated herein), OAG moves to compel the testimony of Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump, and to compel the production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of Donald J. Trump.
5. As alleged in detail below, OAG has obtained documents and testimony from numerous witnesses that were involved in creating and disseminating the misleading statements and omissions at issue in this investigation. However, witnesses closest to the top of the Trump Organization have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Certain others have professed faulty memories or asserted that they were following instruction from more senior employees. And as the Court is well aware, other testimony and documents have been withheld under assertions of privilege, including assertions on behalf of Mr. Trump himself: for instance, Sheri Dillon, a respondent in OAG’s motion that began this proceeding, was Mr. Trump’s personal tax counsel.
6. The knowledge and actions of Mr. Trump’s agents and attorneys can be imputed to Mr. Trump himself. See, e.g., Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446, 465-66 (2010). But Mr. Trump’s actual knowledge of—and intention to make—the numerous misstatements and omissions made by him or on his behalf are essential components to resolving OAG’s investigation in an appropriate and just manner. Likewise, Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump worked as agents of Mr. Trump, acted on their own behalves, and supervised others in connection with the transactions at issue here; their testimony is necessary for appropriate resolution of OAG’s investigation as well.
7. For all these reasons, there is a heightened need for testimony from these respondents. Specifically:
8. Respondent Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump is the beneficial owner of the Trump Organization. He had ultimate authority over a wide swath of conduct by the Trump Organization involving misstatements to counterparties, including financial institutions, and the Internal Revenue Service. The Trump Organization has responded to OAG’s document and testimonial subpoenas, producing more than 930,000 documents. Although approximately a dozen current and former Trump Organization employees have testified before OAG, and Mr. Trump personally authorized the production of federal income tax information to OAG, Mr. Trump himself has declined to comply with OAG subpoenas for documents and testimony, moving to quash the subpoenas in this proceeding and (along with the Trump Organization) seeking to enjoin this investigation in its entirety in a recently-filed action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trump should be compelled by this Court to testify before OAG and produce to OAG relevant documents in his possession, custody, or control.
9. Respondent Donald Trump, Jr. Donald Trump, Jr. manages the Trump Organization with Eric Trump. He is also the trustee of the Donald Trump Revocable Trust and is responsible for issuing annual financial statements regarding the assets the Trust holds for his father. Since 2017, Donald Trump, Jr. has had authority over numerous financial statements containing misleading asset valuations. Donald Trump, Jr. should be compelled to testify before OAG.
10. Respondent Ivanka Trump. Respondent Ivanka Trump was an Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through at least 2016. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. Until January 2017, Ms. Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank. In connection with this work, Ms. Trump caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank and the federal government. Ivanka Trump should be compelled to testify before OAG.
11. Petitioner seeks an order pursuant to C.P.L.R. 2308(b) to enforce its subpoenas without further delay and therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant OAG’s motion in its entirety and reject the motions by the moving respondents. Exs. 301-303.1
THE PARTIES
12. The Attorney General is responsible for overseeing the activities of New York corporations and the conduct of their officers and directors, in accordance with the New York Executive Law and other applicable laws. She is expressly tasked by the Legislature with policing fraud and illegal conduct in business. See, e.g., Executive Law § 63(12).
13. Respondent Donald J. Trump is the beneficial owner of the collection of entities he styles the “Trump Organization.” As previously alleged, according to required disclosures, from May 1, 1981 to January 19, 2017, Mr. Trump was Director, President, and Chairman of the Trump Organization, Inc. From at least July 15, 2015 until May 16, 2016, Mr. Trump was the sole owner of the Trump Organization, Inc. As of 2017, the Trump Organization, Inc. was wholly owned by DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC. On information and belief, Mr. Trump is the sole beneficiary of The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, a trust created and operating under the laws of New York that is the legal owner of the above entities.
14. Respondent Donald Trump, Jr. is an Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization. According to the Trump Organization, Donald Trump, Jr. and Respondent Eric Trump took over management of the Trump Organization from Mr. Trump in 2017. Donald Trump, Jr. oversees the Trump Organization’s property portfolio and is involved in all aspects of the company’s property development. Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg were trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust until Mr. Weisselberg resigned in June 2021. As of October 29, 2021, Donald Trump, Jr. was the sole Trustee of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.
15. Respondent Ivanka Trump was an Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through at least 2016. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. While at the Trump Organization she “direct[ed] all areas of the company’s real estate and hotel management platforms.” Ex. 330. This included active participation in all aspects of projects, “including deal evaluation, pre-development planning, financing, design, construction, sales and marketing” as well as “involve[ment] in all decisions—large and small.” Id. Among other duties, she negotiated the ground lease with the federal government related to the Old Post Office property as well as financing related to that property.
JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, AND VENUE
16. The Attorney General commenced this special proceeding on behalf of the People of the State of New York pursuant to the New York Executive Law and C.P.L.R. Article 4.
17. Executive Law § 63(12) allows the Attorney General to bring a proceeding “[w]henever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.”
18. Fraudulent conduct as used in § 63(12) has been defined as “whether the targeted act has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud.” People v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 104, 107 (3d Dep’t 2005), aff’d on other grounds, 11 N.Y.3d 105 (2008).
19. A violation of any federal, state, or local law or regulation constitutes “illegality” within the meaning of § 63(12). See, e.g., Applied Card Sys., 27 A.D.3d at 104; Oncor Commc’ns, Inc. v. State, 165 Misc. 2d 262, 267 (Sup. Ct. Albany Cty. 1995), aff’d, 218 A.D.2d 60 (3d Dep’t 1996); People v. Am. Motor Club, Inc., 179 A.D.2d 277 (1st Dep’t 1992), appeal dismissed, 80 N.Y.2d 893; State v. Winter, 121 A.D.2d 287 (1st Dep’t 1986).
20. The requirement to show “persistent” or “repeated” acts is met by, among other things, a showing of “separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal acts which affected more than one individual.” People v. 21st Century Leisure Spa Int’l Ltd., 153 Misc. 2d 938, 944 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1991); see also State of New York v. Wolowitz, 96 A.D.2d 47, 61 (2d Dep’t 1983) (recognizing that § 63(12) allows “the Attorney-General to bring a proceeding when the respondent was guilty of only one act of alleged misconduct, providing it affected more than one person”); Exec. Law. § 63(12) (defining “persistent” and “repeated”).
21. The Attorney General has broad authority to issue subpoenas and take sworn testimony to determine whether a proceeding should be brought. The Attorney General is “authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.” Exec. Law § 63(12).
22. A sufficient factual basis for a subpoena under § 63(12) exists as long as there is a “reasonable relation to the subject-matter under investigation and to the public purpose to be achieved.” Matter of La Belle Creole Int’l, S.A. v. Attorney-General of the State of N.Y., 10 N.Y.2d 192, 196 (1961).
23. Because the Attorney General is presumed to be acting in good faith when issuing a subpoena, Am. Dental Coop., 127 A.D.2d at 280, a § 63(12) subpoena will not be quashed unless it seeks material “utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” or where the futility of the process “to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.” La Belle Creole, 10 N.Y.2d at 196.
24. Venue is properly set in New York County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 503, 505, and 509, because Petitioner is resident in New York County and has selected New York County, and because Petitioner is a public authority whose facilities involved in the action are located in New York County.
PRELIMINARY FACTUAL FINDINGS
I. Misleading Statements of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump
25. Since no later than 2004, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have prepared an annual “Statement of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump” (the “Statements” or “Statements of Financial Condition”). Since 2017, commencing with the Statement for the year ending June 30, 2016, the Statements have been issued by the Trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. These Statements contain Mr. Trump’s or the Trustees’ assertions of net worth, based principally on asserted values of particular assets minus outstanding debt. 26. From 2004 until 2020, Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were compiled by accounting firm Mazars USA LLP (“Mazars”). Mazars ceased work on the Statements after the Statement reflecting Mr. Trump’s financial condition as of June 30, 2020. Another firm, Whitley Penn LLP, compiled the June 30, 2021 statement. The relevant Statements of Financial Condition obtained by OAG from 2004 to 2021 are attached to the Affirmation as exhibits 304-319.
27. The Statements relied upon a supporting data spreadsheet and backup material prepared by the Trump Organization; Mazars compiled that information into financial-statement format. E.g., Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000689. The relevant supporting data spreadsheets obtained by OAG from 2011 to 2020 are attached to the Affirmation as exhibits 320-329.
28. The Trump Organization and its affiliates, including Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump, submitted the Statements or arranged for their submission to counterparties, including financial institutions, other lenders, and insurers. The Trump Organization and its affiliates made these submissions to induce counterparties’ consent to transactions or comply with the terms of transactions in which the parties were already engaged. The counterparties relied on the Statements and additional information provided by the Trump Organization in evaluating Mr. Trump’s financial condition.
A. Misleading asset valuations in Trump financial statements
29. The Statements described Mr. Trump’s (or the Trustees of the Revocable Trust’s) valuation process in broad terms and in ways which are often inaccurate or misleading to a reader when compared with the supporting data and documentation that the Trump Organization submitted to Mazars. Among other things, the Statements or the backup material:
a. Misstated objective facts, like the size of Mr. Trump’s Trump Tower penthouse;
b. Miscategorized assets outside Mr. Trump’s or the Trump Organization’s control as “cash,” thereby overstating his liquidity;
c. Misstated the process by which Mr. Trump or his associates reached valuations.
d. Failed to use fundamental techniques of valuation, like discounting future revenues and expenses to their present value;
e. Misstated the purported involvement of “outside professionals” in reaching the valuations; and
f. Failed to advise that certain valuation amounts were inflated by an undisclosed flat percentage for brand value, despite express language on the Statements asserting that the value of Mr. Trump’s brand was not reflected [in] the Statements pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).
30. Since 2019, OAG has taken testimony from Trump Organization employees and others involved in these and other valuations. As detailed below, those involved have not been able to provide plausible justification for the valuation decisions at issue, their description of the Statements, or representations about the Statements made to counterparties. In light of the pervasive and repeated nature of the misstatements and omissions, it appears that the valuations in the Statements were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump’s net worth was higher than it otherwise would have appeared.
31. OAG is investigating a number of issues with the Statements. Other than appearing in New York Supreme Court beginning in August 2020 in this proceeding to compel production of necessary documents, and to seek the Court’s intervention regarding the Trump Organization’s documentary subpoena-compliance failures, OAG has largely maintained its investigation out of the public eye. However, because the Respondents have questioned whether OAG is pursuing in good faith a civil inquiry that may lead to civil remedial action within OAG’s statutory power, OAG now presents to the Court a showing that reflects the progress of that inquiry. Below are seven issues that OAG believes are appropriate for disclosure to the Court now. The disclosure of these examples will not impede OAG’s investigation; OAG is also investigating other conduct not discussed here.
1. “Other assets”: Seven Springs and the Mr. Trump’s Trump Tower Triplex
32. The Seven Springs Estate (“Seven Springs”) is a parcel of real property that consists of approximately 212 acres within the towns of Bedford, New Castle, and North Castle in Westchester County. Seven Springs LLC, a Trump Organization subsidiary, purchased the property in December 1995 for $7.5 million.2
33. A 2000 appraisal prepared for the Royal Bank of Pennsylvania and sent to the Trump Organization estimated that Seven Springs had an “as-is” market value of $25 million for residential development. Ex. 335 at C&W_0048781, -88-91.
34. The same bank’s records further indicate that a 2006 appraisal showed an “as-is” market value of $30 million. Ex. 336 at 00046009.12.2019.
35. The Statements of Financial Condition listed the above valuations of Seven Springs for the indicated year.3
36. The 2012, 2013, and 2014 Statements of Financial Condition reported a value for Seven Springs of $291 million and asserted that “[t]his property is zoned for 9 luxurious homes.” Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006325; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000052; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000733. Each financial statement asserted that the valuation was “based on an assessment made by Mr. Trump in conjunction with his associates of the projected net cash flow which he would derive as those units are constructed and sold, and the estimated fair value of the existing mansion and other buildings.” Id.
37. As depicted below, supporting data that the Trump Organization provided to Mazars for the purpose of compiling the 2012 financial statement recorded a “telephone conversation with Eric Trump (9/24/2012)” as one basis of this valuation, and also noted that portions of the Seven Springs property were “land to be donated.” See Ex. 321 at rows 679-680. The supporting data for 2013 and 2014 reflected similar conversations with Eric Trump. Ex. 322 at cell B640; Ex. 323 at cell B660.
38. Mr. McConney, Senior Vice President and Controller of the Trump Organization, testified that this valuation includes the full amount that would be generated from the sale of the non-existent homes without taking into account the years it would take to construct infrastructure, build homes, obtain necessary approvals, and sell the number of homes identified in the supporting data. Ex. 337 at 230:10-231:11. He provided similar testimony with regard to the 2013 and 2014 valuations. Id. at 240:6-20; also 242:22-243:20.
39. Asked to explain various aspects of the 2012 and 2013 valuations, Eric Trump repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Ex. 338 at 262:5-266:7; 271:19-272:3. And asked whether he discussed the valuation of Seven Springs with Mr. McConney on September 12, 2014, Eric Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. at 274:10-16.
40. Notably, the September 12, 2014 conversation described by Mr. McConney occurred after the completion of a valuation of the development potential for Seven Springs by a Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (“Cushman”) appraiser. In July 2014, the law firm Vinson & Elkins LLP (by an attorney, Sheri Dillon), had engaged Cushman to “provide consulting services related to an analysis of the estimated value of a potential conservation easement on all or part of the Seven Springs Estate.” Ex. 339 at C&W_0016742. Vinson & Elkins acted “in its capacity as legal counsel for Seven Springs, LLC, the owner of the Seven Springs Estate.” Id.
41. David McArdle, an appraiser at Cushman, performed this engagement. Mr. McArdle testified that this engagement was to provide, verbally, a “range of value” of the Seven Springs property. Ex. 340 at 50:06-51:08, 96:19-98:09.
42. Mr. McArdle valued the sale of eight lots in the Town of Bedford, six lots in New Castle, and ten lots in North Castle. Spreadsheets he prepared reflecting his opinion on the range of values show that McArdle used two different techniques to reach this range of values.
43. In one spreadsheet, which he called “a sellout analysis,” McArdle reached an average per-lot sales value of $2 million for the New Castle and North Castle lots, and $2.25 million for the Bedford lots. Ex. 341 at 458:6-459:8; Ex. 342 at C&W_0048563. After preparing a cashflow anticipating the sale of the lots and 10% rounded costs over five years, McArdle reached a rounded present value for all 24 lots of $29,950,000. In other words, Mr. McArdle— accounting for the time it would take to develop the property and discounting revenues and expenses to their present value—computed a value.
44. Using another valuation technique, Mr. McArdle also sought to establish a value “Before” and “After” an easement donation. He assumed the eight Bedford lots were presently worth $1.5 million to $2.5 million each, for a range of $12 million to $18 million. He assumed six lots in New Castle at an estimated range of $1.5 million to $2 million for a total of $9 million to $12 million. Likewise, he assumed ten lots in North Castle at an estimated range of $1.5 million to $2 million, for totals of $15 million to $20 million, respectively. Ex. 343 at C&W_0048562. McArdle testified that he provided these individual ranges of value per lot to the client. Ex. 341 at 454:2-21. These ranges put the current value of the lots at a range of $36 million to a maximum of $50 million.
45. McArdle testified that he conveyed his estimated range of value to the Trump Organization in late August or September 2014. Ex. 341 at 506:5-15. In an email he wrote on September 8, 2014, Mr. McArdle stated that he had “completed the research and all verbal consulting.” Ex. 344.
46. The Trump Organization was thus in possession of McArdle’s “range of value” of $29,500,000 to a maximum of $50,000,000 for the developable lots at Seven Springs before Mr. McConney’s September 12, 2014 telephone conversation with Eric Trump, and well before the finalization of the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition on November 7, 2014.
47. Despite the Trump Organization’s receipt of a valuation of twenty-four lots across three Westchester townships reflecting a value between $29.5 million and $50 million, the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition valued seven non-existent mansions in Bedford at $161 million—without factoring in the valuation the Trump Organization commissioned or the time it would take to build and sell such homes. Those failures are objectively misleading.
48. As described in previous submissions and alleged in detail below, in March 2016, two Cushman appraisers completed an appraisal of Seven Springs and concluded that the entire property (including undeveloped land and existing buildings) as of December 1, 2015 was worth $56.5 million. See 345 at MLB_EM00009124 (the “March 2016 Appraisal”). Like Mr. McArdle’s verbal consultation, this March 2016 Appraisal—reporting less than one-fifth of the value that Mr. Trump had most recently asserted on his financial statements and certified as accurate to financial institutions—substantially undermines the assertions in Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition: from 2008 through 2014, the Statements assigned valuations for Seven Springs that range from $200 million to $291 million. Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000733; Ex. 346. And as noted below, OAG has identified evidence that the March 2016 Appraisal itself relied on questionable assumptions indicating misrepresentations and significant omissions—such that even the $56.5 million valuation in that appraisal was improperly inflated.
49. Further, after receiving the March 2016 Appraisal, Mr. Trump’s subsequent Statement of Financial Condition was changed in a manner that disguised what would otherwise have appeared as a more than 80% drop in the value of Seven Springs, which had been reported to be worth $291 million for the three preceding years.
50. In prior years, the asserted value for Seven Springs was listed individually on the summary page or property description for each financial statement. See Ex. 305 at 17; Ex. 306 at 17; Ex. 307 at 15; Ex. 308 at 16; Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003148; Ex. 310 at MAZARSNYAG-00006325; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000052; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000733.
51. Mr. Trump’s financial statement as of June 30, 2015 (which was not issued until March 2016), does not identify any value for the Seven Springs property. Ex. 313 at MAZARSNYAG- 00000691-92.
52. The property was instead moved into a catch-all category entitled “other assets,” where its value was part of that category’s total but not separately itemized. See Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000710-12.
53. Between the 2014 and 2015 financial statements, the “other assets” category was reported to have increased in value by $219.6 million, with the Seven Springs property representing a significant asset transferred to this category. Compare Ex. 312 at MAZARSNYAG- 00000717 (reporting “other assets” worth $338 million), and id. at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000736-37 (listing assets included in this category); with Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000691 (reporting “other assets” worth $557.6 million), and id. at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000710-12 (listing assets included in this category).
54. In that same “other assets” category in 2015, the data supporting the financial statement reflects that there was a $127 million increase in the reported value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower from $200 million to $327 million, a 64 percent increase in reported value in a single year. Ex. 324 at rows 819-904.
55. Because none of the assets in the “other assets” category were given individual line-item values on the Statement of Financial Condition, the $127 million increase in asserted value for Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment helped disguise a substantial drop in the value of Seven Springs, which had been transferred to the same “other assets” category.
56. With respect to Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower, OAG has discovered that the valuations of this asset as incorporated into the Statements of Financial Condition since at least 2012 were based on the assertion that the triplex apartment was 30,000 square feet in size. Evidence indicates that Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. McConney both participated in such valuations. See, e.g., Ex. 347 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003611.
57. Further, there is evidence that documents demonstrating that the actual size of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment was only 10,996 square feet (namely the condominium offering plan and associated amendments for Trump Tower) were easily accessible inside the Trump Organization, were signed by Mr. Trump, and were sent to Mr. Weisselberg in 2012. See Ex. 348; Ex. 349 at LC00132530, -37.
58. The supporting data for Mr. Trump’s 2015 financial statement reported the value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment as $327 million, based on the apartment having 30,000 square feet of space multiplied by a certain price per square foot. Ex. 324 at rows 882-883. This assertion was repeated in the supporting data for Mr. Trump’s 2016 financial statement. Ex. 325 at row 913.
59. Without mention in the financial statement, the supporting data for Mr. Trump’s 2017 financial statement presented yet another change in the valuation, stating the value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment as $116.8 million. Ex. 326. But for the first time in 2017, the supporting data states that the triplex apartment had only 10,996.39 square feet. Ex. 326. Because these valuations were performed by multiplying the number of square feet times a price per square foot, the reduction in the apartment’s square footage in the valuation from 30,000 to 10,996 indicates that the valuations of Mr. Trump’s triplex in the 2015 and 2016 were overstated almost by a factor of three, as Mr. Weisselberg conceded in his testimony. Mr. Weisselberg admitted that this amounted to an overstatement of “give or take” $200 million. Ex. 351 at 507:05-22 (“Q: In fact, overstated by a factor of 3, is that correct? A: I didn’t do the math, but it should be one third, yes, I would agree with that. Q: So, it’s on the order of a $200 million overstatement, give or take? A: Give or take.”).
60. A Trump Organization employee who assisted in these valuations testified that he had prepared the spreadsheets. He accepted that there was “a fairly large discrepancy in the square footage listed for this asset in the two spreadsheets [he] prepared.” He stated that he had “probably” discussed the discrepancy with “either Jeff McConney or Allen Weisselberg.” Ex. 352 at 267:17-271:12
61. Publicly available information indicates that Mr. Trump himself has stated his triplex apartment in Trump Tower was approximately 30,000 square feet in size or larger. For example, a 2017 article in Forbes magazine states: “During the presidential race, Donald Trump left the campaign trail to give Forbes a guided tour of his three-story Trump Tower penthouse— part of his decades-long crusade for a higher spot on our billionaire rankings. . . . [Mr. Trump] bragged that people have called his Manhattan aerie the ‘best apartment ever built’ and emphasized its immense size (33,000 square feet) and value (at least $200 million). ‘I own the top three floors—the whole floor, times three!’” Ex. 353. The article evaluated whether the apartment was actually 30,000 square feet or more in size, and referred to a review of records, “[t]he end result [of which was] 10,996 square feet of prime Manhattan real estate—a massive residence, no doubt, but much smaller than what Trump claims to own.” Ex. 353.
2. Trump International Golf Club Scotland – Aberdeen
62. Trump International Golf Club Scotland (“Trump Aberdeen”) is a parcel of land containing a golf course, a country club, and undeveloped land in Aberdeen, Scotland. The entire property was purchased in 2006 for $12.6 million by the Trump Organization. Ex. 354 at 2.
63. Trump Aberdeen has been included as an asset on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition each year from 2011 to 2019. Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003144; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006321; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000046; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000729; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000703; Ex. 314 at MAZARSNYAG- 00001995; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001854; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00002737; Ex. 317 at DB-NYAG-230542.
64. The Statements of Financial Condition do not list an individual value for the property. Instead, the value of Trump Aberdeen, as recorded in the supporting data for the respective financial statements, is grouped together with a series of other properties in a category called “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00003140; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006317; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000043; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000723; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000697; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001989; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001848; Ex. 316 at MAZARSNYAG- 00002731; Ex. 317 at DB-NYAG-230536. The result is that a recipient of the financial statement receives a bottom-line figure for all of those clubs and related properties—but is kept from learning, from the statement, the value assigned to any particular club in that category.4 65. In 2011, the valuation for Trump Aberdeen in the supporting data that the Trump Organization provided to Mazars was based on capital contributions from inception and an estimate of value for the undeveloped land on the property of £75,000,000 “per George Sorial email 9/6/2011.” Ex. 321 at row 533.
66. The referenced email had the subject line “Forbes Magazine,” and contained a quote Mr. Sorial provided to an accountant in Scotland who was then expected to pass the information on to Forbes Magazine. Ex. 355. The quote stated: “Although a formal appraisal has not been prepared at this point, after speaking with specialists in the field and having closely watched this development transform itself over the last five years, we are informed that the value for the residential/hotel land parcels could achieve a value in excess of 75 million [British pounds sterling].” Ex. 355 at TTO_008977.
67. It thus appears that the valuation of Trump Aberdeen used for Mr. Trump’s financial statement was prepared for purposes of providing information to Forbes magazine in a quote. Ex. 355.
68. Converted to U.S. dollars, the Trump Organization’s asserted value of Trump Aberdeen in 2011 was $161 million. See Ex. 356 at rows 527-543.
69. In April 2012, Donald Trump testified to the Scottish Government that he “cannot proceed with [the development] if the hotel is going to be looking at industrial turbines, and no one here would do so if they were in my position.”5
70. Mr. Sorial’s “Forbes Magazine” email was a component of the Trump Organization’s 2012 and 2013 valuations of Trump Aberdeen as well. See Ex. 356 at rows 527- 543; Ex. 322 at rows 487-503.
71. The Trump Organization valued Trump Aberdeen at $435.56 million for purposes of Mr. Trump’s 2014 financial statement; that figure was more than double the 2013 valuation for the same property. Ex. 323 at cell H527. Of the asserted $435.563 million valuation in 2014, more than four-fifths of the value ($361.393 million) was derived from the Trump Organization’s estimate of the residential development potential of the property. Ex. 323 at rows 519-526.
72. The 2014 Statement of Financial Condition reports that the Trump Organization “received outline planning permission in December 2008 for . . . a residential village consisting of 950 holiday homes and 500 single family residences and 36 golf villas.” Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000729. This is a total of 1,486 homes. But the supporting data for the 2014 valuation contained a residential parcel valuation based on the development potential of 2,500 homes. Ex. 323 at row 521. Mr. Weisselberg testified that he could not explain this discrepancy. Ex. 357 at 299:03-300:09, 302:06-17.
73. In 2014, shortly before the Trump Organization finalized Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition (including the $361.393 million asset valuation for the residential development potential at Aberdeen), the Trump Organization, consistent with Donald Trump’s testimony to the Scottish government, represented in an audited financial statement that it did not intend any residential development on the property for the foreseeable future. Ex. 358 at TTO_009941. Specifically, in the “Director’s report and financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2013,” submitted to a UK regulator and signed on September 29, 2014, the Trump Organization wrote: “the hotel, second golf course, and future phases of the project have been postponed until such time that the Scottish Government and regional Councils have reversed their stance on supporting the wind farm development being considered for Aberdeen Bay.” Ex. 358 at TTO_009941-42, -9947.
74. Mr. Weisselberg signed the audited statement as an officer of Trump International Golf Club Scotland. Ex. 358 at TTO_009942, -9946, -9948.
75. The valuation of Trump Aberdeen in the 2014 supporting data which was ultimately reflected on the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition did not account for this indefinite postponement of residential development. Ex. 351 at 357:09-15.
76. As was the case with the valuation of the Seven Springs residential development (see supra at ¶¶ 37-38), the valuation for Trump Aberdeen did not account for the time it might take to secure any needed approvals, develop the property, and market the property. Ex. 351 at 398:24-399:24; Ex. 323 at rows 519-526. Supporting data for the Statements of Financial Condition for 2015 and 2016 do not reflect, in the valuation of Trump Aberdeen, any consideration of the time it might take to secure any needed approvals, develop the property, and market the property. Ex. 324 at rows 530-539; Ex. 325 at rows 563-571.
77. OAG has learned of additional information that further calls into question the valuation of the Aberdeen property on the Statement of Financial Condition.
78. For example, the Trump Aberdeen valuations described above—computing a valuation principally based on building 2,500 homes—assumes that 2500 homes would have the same characteristics (and the same value per home). This ignores that, as the Statements notes, of the 1,486 homes that were purportedly the recipient of some level of approval, 950 of the homes were to be “holiday homes” and 36 were to be “golf villas.” OAG has obtained evidence indicating that such properties—under the terms governing Trump Aberdeen—would be rental properties and no individual could rent one for more than six weeks at a time. Ex. 359 at 5.
79. In 2017 the Trump Organization commissioned an appraisal which suggested that if 557 private homes (which exceed the approved amount) were built that would result in a total net present valued profit of £16-19 million. Ex. 360 at TTO_242033. The Trump Organization valued the undeveloped residential land at more than ten times that amount, £212,160,000, that year. Ex. 326 at G582.
3. The “Trump” brand
80. The financial statements explicitly state that, according to GAAP, the statements do not incorporate any intangible brand value. In particular, the financial statements assert that, although Mr. Trump’s name “enhances the value of the properties reflected in this statement,” that value “has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement.” Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003136. A similar proviso is included each year from 2012-2020. Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006313; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000039; Ex. 312 at MAZARSNYAG- 00000719; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000693; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00001986; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001845; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002731; Ex. 317 at MAZARS-NYAG-161792; Ex. 318 at MAZARS-NYAG-00162250.
81. The language in the 2016 Statement is depicted below:
Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001986.
82. Mr. Trump was personally aware of the fact that his Statement of Financial Condition represented that no brand value was included. In a letter to CSG Investments Inc., for example, Mr. Trump wrote:
Ex. 534.
83. The Statement’s representation regarding the absence of brand value is false (or, at a minimum, misleading). As described below, the Statement of Financial Condition includes an added brand premium for most of the properties in the Club Facilities and Related Real Estate category.
84. The Statements of Financial Condition include a category of assets called “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” See, e.g., Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003134. Values assigned to the assets in this category are summed together, with only the overall figure reported to recipients of the financial statement, who are kept from learning, from the statement, the value assigned to any particular club in that category.
85. Beginning in the year 2013 nearly all properties in this category are valued based on, at least in part, a metric entitled “fixed assets.” Ex. 322; Ex. 323; Ex 324; Ex. 325; Ex. 326 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002024; Ex. 327 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002772; Ex. 328 at MAZARSNYAG- 00161836; Ex. 329 at MAZARS-NYAG-00162291.
86. According to the Trump Organization Controller Jeffrey McConney, when the Trump Organization was valuing golf clubs, the label “fixed assets” encompassed cash spent to build the clubhouse and any improvements. Ex. 337 at 64:06-11.
87. For the 2013 and 2014 Statements, the Trump Organization added thirty percent to the “fixed assets” metric it had used for several clubs. The label associated with that 30% premium was, “fully operational branded facility.” That premium was applied to the Trump Organization’s golf clubs at Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter (Florida), Charlotte, and Los Angeles. Ex. 322; Ex. 323.
88. For each Statement from 2015 to 2020 the value of the Trump golf clubs at Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter, Charlotte, and Los Angeles included a fifteen-percent premium in addition to fixed assets for a “fully operational branded facility.” Ex. 324; Ex. 325; Ex. 326 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002024; Ex. 327 at MAZARSNYAG- 00002772; Ex. 328 at MAZARS-NYAG-00161836; Ex. 329 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00162291.
89. For the Statements from 2013 to 2018, the brand premiums for Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter, Charlotte, and Los Angeles were all purportedly based on a 2013 phone call with an outside golf club professional. See e.g., Ex. 324 at rows 383-386. The supporting data from the Trump Organization asserts, as a basis for the premium, that the Organization was told by the professional that “Trump branded clubs are more valuable than most golf courses.” Ex. 322 at rows 306-307.
90. That outside professional testified that it would never be his practice to value a golf course based on fixed assets or add a premium to fixed assets to value a golf course. Ex. 361 at 82:10-25.
91. That outside golf club professional, who is the only outside professional listed on the Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter, Charlotte, and Los Angeles golf club valuations for the Statements from 2013-2018, denied ever having provided a valuation of, or a brand premium number for, any Trump golf courses during this time period. Ex. 361 at 70:19-21, 95:04-96:16.
92. As discussed below at ¶¶ 160-190, Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were submitted to counterparties to seek or obtain credit and insurance, and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements. Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003049; Ex. 363 at DB-NYAG-059810-13.
93. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed several of those loans and at least one insurance program, and those personal guarantees required that Mr. Trump certify that he accurately represented his financial condition. See, e.g., Ex. 363 at DB-NYAG-059810, -059813, -059821- 22; Ex. 346 at DB-NYAG-060415.
94. Donald Trump was required to submit his Statement of Financial Condition and maintain a certain minimum net worth in order to comply with covenants on loans that he personally guaranteed. See Exs. 356, 364, 365, 366.
95. The agreed upon definition of net worth in the loan documentation of one bank excluded brand value. “For purposes hereof, the goodwill attached to the Trump name shall be excluded from the calculation of Guarantor’s assets, as stated in Note 1 of the Notes to Statement of Financial Condition of Guarantor’s Statement of Financial Condition, dated as of June 30, 2011.” Ex. 356 at DB-NYAG-004173; Ex. 364 at DB-NYAG-038873 (relying on note 1 to the 2012 SOFC); Ex. 365 at DB-NYAG-003223 (relying on Note 1 to the 2012 SOFC); Ex. 366 at DB-NYAG-003279 (relying on Note 1 to the 2013 SOFC). Similarly, the underwriting guidelines of one insurer which provided coverage to the Trump Organization specify that intangible assets such as brand value be excluded from financial statements. Ex. 367 at 98:02- 98:18.
96. Accordingly, at least one financial institution who lends to, and at least one insurer of, the Trump Organization have policies which treats brand value as worthless in their analysis and requires they not consider it for purposes of determining net worth. Ex. 368 at DBNYAG- 001697, 1701; Ex. 369 at 184:20-185:18; Ex. 367 at 98:02-98:18.
97. The originating credit risk manager for those loans stated that if brand value were included in Mr. Trump’s reported net worth that it would constitute a breach of the net worth covenant. Ex. 369 at 202:20-203:11.
98. As is discussed below, an underwriter for the Trump Organization’s surety program stated that if she were aware brand value had been included in Donald Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition, she would have been required to reduce reported net worth accordingly. Ex. 367 at 98:02-98:18.
4. Trump National Golf Club –Westchester
99. Mr. Trump purchased Trump National Golf Club Westchester (“Briarcliff”) for $8,500,000. Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-0000044. The property has been included as an asset on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition from 2004 to present.
100. As discussed supra at ¶¶ 84-85, the Statements of Financial Condition do not list an individual value for the Briarcliff property; instead, the value of the property, as recorded in the supporting data for the financial statement, is grouped together with a series of other properties in a category called “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” The result is that a recipient of the financial statement receives a bottom-line figure for all items in that category together—but cannot identify the value assigned to any particular club in that category.
101. In the 2011 supporting data document the property was valued at $68,703,300. Ex. 320 at G300. That valuation was broken down into multiple components. First was the value of the initiation fee for 67 unsold memberships totaling $12,775,000. Although the supporting data spreadsheet states that the club was currently “getting $150,000” per membership, the Trump Organization derived $12,775,000 in value by computing a value with 47 of the 67 unsold memberships priced higher than that amount, in many instances by $100,000 each. Ex. 320 at G265-284. Next, the valuation included $28 million for the cost to construct the clubhouse and $2,828,300 in receivables from members. Ex. 320 at G288-293. Furthermore, the valuation included an estimate of $25,100,000 for the expected profit from the sale of 31 mid-rise units “put on hold.” Ex. 320 at G295-298
102. According to TTO membership records, even the representation that the club was “getting $150,000 per membership” in June 2011 was false: Records indicate that many members paid no deposit for their memberships in 2011. Ex. 370.
103. In March 2012, the club sought to increase membership through a strategy that “has been discussed several times with Mr. Trump and will be implemented per his instructions.” Ex. 371 at TTO_02360603. The goal was to bring in 75 new members in order to generate maximum revenue for the club and the instructions note that memberships should be sold dues only with no initiation fee in order to achieve that goal. Ex. 371 at TTO_02360603-04.
104. According to TTO membership records no new members paid an initiation fee in 2012. Ex. 370.
105. Increasing the number of new members and not collecting initiation fees would reduce the remaining number of unsold memberships available for sale and thereby the listed value of Briarcliff on the Statement of Financial Condition.
106. However, after the strategy change directed by Mr. Trump, his Statement of Financial Condition stopped computing the value of the Briarcliff property using unsold memberships: The Briarcliff valuation was done using “fixed assets” instead of unsold membership prices for the 2012 Statement of Financial Condition. As discussed supra, ¶ 86, “fixed assets” referred to the cost to build the clubhouse and any improvements to the property. The value of fixed assets was $71,200,000. Ex. 321 at H280. When added to the receivables from members of $3,207,000 and the estimate of $25,100,000 for the expected profit from the sale of 31 mid-rise units “put on hold” the total reported value of the property reached $99,507,000. Ex. 321 at H273-287.
107. These valuations do not take into account the time value of money.
108. The Briarcliff property increased in valuation on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition by at least over $30 million from 2011 to 2012, mostly because of this change in methods. The change in methods and the concomitant increase were concealed from a reader of the statement of financial condition. This is because a reader of the statement only sees a total value for the category “Club facilities and related real estate” rather than an individual valuation for each property.
109. Although the statement discloses that “cash expenditures to improve certain facilities” is a method of valuation used in the club facilities and related real estate category, there is no way to ascertain that the methodology switched for Briarcliff in particular.
110. In the supporting data for the financial statement issued on October 28, 2013, Briarcliff’s “fixed assets” were $72,354,000, its receivables from members were $2,160,000, and the spreadsheet listed an additional value of $101,748,600 for the profit from a sellout of “71 Mid Rise units approved but put on hold,” for a total of $176,262,600. The source of this valuation was a telephone conversation with Eric Trump. See Ex. 311 at Mazars-NYAG- 0000036; Ex.322 at G253-273.
111. Without the supporting data document, a reader of the financial statement would be unaware that the value of Briarcliff increased by over $75 million from 2012 to 2013, and by over $100 million from 2011 to 2013. A reader of the statement would also be unaware that this increase in value came in part from adding 40 homes and over $75 million in additional profit to the forecast of a project that was “on hold.”
112. Starting in 2013, the Trump Organization considered donating a conservation easement over the land where the 71 undeveloped mid-rise units would go. During that process the Trump Organization and outside tax counsel Ms. Dillon hired an appraiser, who reached several preliminary valuations. Yet, as illustrated in the below chart, the Statement of Financial Condition value ignored the preliminary valuations.
113. Each appraisal discussed in the table above appears to have been prepared using standard methodologies—such as reaching a market value for a business entity based on its income performance, and valuing proposed residential property based on comparable sales data and time factors. There was no apparent basis for the Trump Organization to disregard such professionally prepared information in favor of the “fixed assets” method that is an accounting of past expenditures or the method that Eric Trump used.
Supplemental Verified Petition
by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York
Against The Trump Organization
January 18, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York,
Petitioner,
-against-
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER LLC; SEVEN SPRINGS LLC; ERIC TRUMP; CHARLES MARTABANO; MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP; SHERI DILLON; MAZARS USA LLC; DONALD J. TRUMP; DONALD TRUMP, JR.; and IVANKA TRUMP,
Respondents.
Index No. 451685/2020
SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED PETITION
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2022
Petitioner, the People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, as and for her Supplemental Verified Petition, respectfully alleges:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) is currently investigating whether the Trump Organization and Donald J. Trump (“Mr. Trump”) misstated the value of Mr. Trump’s assets on annual financial statements, tax submissions, and other documents and made other material misrepresentations provided to third parties in order to secure loans and insurance coverage and obtain other economic and tax benefits.
2. This investigation is being conducted pursuant to the New York Executive Law and other applicable laws. OAG has identified facts and evidence indicating that the annual financial statements, tax submissions, and other documents under investigation contain material misstatements and omissions. It intends to make a final determination about who is responsible for those misstatements and omissions. OAG requires the testimony and evidence sought herein to determine which Trump Organization employees and affiliates—and which other entities and individuals—may have assisted the Trump Organization and Mr. Trump in making, or may have relevant knowledge about, the misstatements and omissions at issue.
3. The factual basis for OAG’s investigation is set out below and in OAG’s previous filings in this proceeding, which are incorporated herein, including the Second Affirmation of Matthew Colangelo dated August 21, 2020 (“Second Aff.”), filed in camera to protect the confidentiality of this ongoing investigation. See Michaelis v. Graziano, 5 N.Y.3d 317, 323 (2005); American Dental Coop., Inc. v. Attorney-General, 127 A.D.2d 274, 280 (1st Dep’t 1987).
4. Upon this Supplemental Verified Petition; the Affirmation of Colleen Faherty, dated January 18, 2022; and its attachments (incorporated herein), OAG moves to compel the testimony of Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump, and to compel the production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of Donald J. Trump.
5. As alleged in detail below, OAG has obtained documents and testimony from numerous witnesses that were involved in creating and disseminating the misleading statements and omissions at issue in this investigation. However, witnesses closest to the top of the Trump Organization have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Certain others have professed faulty memories or asserted that they were following instruction from more senior employees. And as the Court is well aware, other testimony and documents have been withheld under assertions of privilege, including assertions on behalf of Mr. Trump himself: for instance, Sheri Dillon, a respondent in OAG’s motion that began this proceeding, was Mr. Trump’s personal tax counsel.
6. The knowledge and actions of Mr. Trump’s agents and attorneys can be imputed to Mr. Trump himself. See, e.g., Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446, 465-66 (2010). But Mr. Trump’s actual knowledge of—and intention to make—the numerous misstatements and omissions made by him or on his behalf are essential components to resolving OAG’s investigation in an appropriate and just manner. Likewise, Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump worked as agents of Mr. Trump, acted on their own behalves, and supervised others in connection with the transactions at issue here; their testimony is necessary for appropriate resolution of OAG’s investigation as well.
7. For all these reasons, there is a heightened need for testimony from these respondents. Specifically:
8. Respondent Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump is the beneficial owner of the Trump Organization. He had ultimate authority over a wide swath of conduct by the Trump Organization involving misstatements to counterparties, including financial institutions, and the Internal Revenue Service. The Trump Organization has responded to OAG’s document and testimonial subpoenas, producing more than 930,000 documents. Although approximately a dozen current and former Trump Organization employees have testified before OAG, and Mr. Trump personally authorized the production of federal income tax information to OAG, Mr. Trump himself has declined to comply with OAG subpoenas for documents and testimony, moving to quash the subpoenas in this proceeding and (along with the Trump Organization) seeking to enjoin this investigation in its entirety in a recently-filed action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trump should be compelled by this Court to testify before OAG and produce to OAG relevant documents in his possession, custody, or control.
9. Respondent Donald Trump, Jr. Donald Trump, Jr. manages the Trump Organization with Eric Trump. He is also the trustee of the Donald Trump Revocable Trust and is responsible for issuing annual financial statements regarding the assets the Trust holds for his father. Since 2017, Donald Trump, Jr. has had authority over numerous financial statements containing misleading asset valuations. Donald Trump, Jr. should be compelled to testify before OAG.
10. Respondent Ivanka Trump. Respondent Ivanka Trump was an Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through at least 2016. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. Until January 2017, Ms. Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank. In connection with this work, Ms. Trump caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank and the federal government. Ivanka Trump should be compelled to testify before OAG.
11. Petitioner seeks an order pursuant to C.P.L.R. 2308(b) to enforce its subpoenas without further delay and therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant OAG’s motion in its entirety and reject the motions by the moving respondents. Exs. 301-303.1
THE PARTIES
12. The Attorney General is responsible for overseeing the activities of New York corporations and the conduct of their officers and directors, in accordance with the New York Executive Law and other applicable laws. She is expressly tasked by the Legislature with policing fraud and illegal conduct in business. See, e.g., Executive Law § 63(12).
13. Respondent Donald J. Trump is the beneficial owner of the collection of entities he styles the “Trump Organization.” As previously alleged, according to required disclosures, from May 1, 1981 to January 19, 2017, Mr. Trump was Director, President, and Chairman of the Trump Organization, Inc. From at least July 15, 2015 until May 16, 2016, Mr. Trump was the sole owner of the Trump Organization, Inc. As of 2017, the Trump Organization, Inc. was wholly owned by DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC. On information and belief, Mr. Trump is the sole beneficiary of The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, a trust created and operating under the laws of New York that is the legal owner of the above entities.
14. Respondent Donald Trump, Jr. is an Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization. According to the Trump Organization, Donald Trump, Jr. and Respondent Eric Trump took over management of the Trump Organization from Mr. Trump in 2017. Donald Trump, Jr. oversees the Trump Organization’s property portfolio and is involved in all aspects of the company’s property development. Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg were trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust until Mr. Weisselberg resigned in June 2021. As of October 29, 2021, Donald Trump, Jr. was the sole Trustee of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.
15. Respondent Ivanka Trump was an Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through at least 2016. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. While at the Trump Organization she “direct[ed] all areas of the company’s real estate and hotel management platforms.” Ex. 330. This included active participation in all aspects of projects, “including deal evaluation, pre-development planning, financing, design, construction, sales and marketing” as well as “involve[ment] in all decisions—large and small.” Id. Among other duties, she negotiated the ground lease with the federal government related to the Old Post Office property as well as financing related to that property.
JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, AND VENUE
16. The Attorney General commenced this special proceeding on behalf of the People of the State of New York pursuant to the New York Executive Law and C.P.L.R. Article 4.
17. Executive Law § 63(12) allows the Attorney General to bring a proceeding “[w]henever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.”
18. Fraudulent conduct as used in § 63(12) has been defined as “whether the targeted act has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud.” People v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 104, 107 (3d Dep’t 2005), aff’d on other grounds, 11 N.Y.3d 105 (2008).
19. A violation of any federal, state, or local law or regulation constitutes “illegality” within the meaning of § 63(12). See, e.g., Applied Card Sys., 27 A.D.3d at 104; Oncor Commc’ns, Inc. v. State, 165 Misc. 2d 262, 267 (Sup. Ct. Albany Cty. 1995), aff’d, 218 A.D.2d 60 (3d Dep’t 1996); People v. Am. Motor Club, Inc., 179 A.D.2d 277 (1st Dep’t 1992), appeal dismissed, 80 N.Y.2d 893; State v. Winter, 121 A.D.2d 287 (1st Dep’t 1986).
20. The requirement to show “persistent” or “repeated” acts is met by, among other things, a showing of “separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal acts which affected more than one individual.” People v. 21st Century Leisure Spa Int’l Ltd., 153 Misc. 2d 938, 944 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1991); see also State of New York v. Wolowitz, 96 A.D.2d 47, 61 (2d Dep’t 1983) (recognizing that § 63(12) allows “the Attorney-General to bring a proceeding when the respondent was guilty of only one act of alleged misconduct, providing it affected more than one person”); Exec. Law. § 63(12) (defining “persistent” and “repeated”).
21. The Attorney General has broad authority to issue subpoenas and take sworn testimony to determine whether a proceeding should be brought. The Attorney General is “authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.” Exec. Law § 63(12).
22. A sufficient factual basis for a subpoena under § 63(12) exists as long as there is a “reasonable relation to the subject-matter under investigation and to the public purpose to be achieved.” Matter of La Belle Creole Int’l, S.A. v. Attorney-General of the State of N.Y., 10 N.Y.2d 192, 196 (1961).
23. Because the Attorney General is presumed to be acting in good faith when issuing a subpoena, Am. Dental Coop., 127 A.D.2d at 280, a § 63(12) subpoena will not be quashed unless it seeks material “utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” or where the futility of the process “to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.” La Belle Creole, 10 N.Y.2d at 196.
24. Venue is properly set in New York County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 503, 505, and 509, because Petitioner is resident in New York County and has selected New York County, and because Petitioner is a public authority whose facilities involved in the action are located in New York County.
PRELIMINARY FACTUAL FINDINGS
I. Misleading Statements of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump
25. Since no later than 2004, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have prepared an annual “Statement of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump” (the “Statements” or “Statements of Financial Condition”). Since 2017, commencing with the Statement for the year ending June 30, 2016, the Statements have been issued by the Trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. These Statements contain Mr. Trump’s or the Trustees’ assertions of net worth, based principally on asserted values of particular assets minus outstanding debt. 26. From 2004 until 2020, Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were compiled by accounting firm Mazars USA LLP (“Mazars”). Mazars ceased work on the Statements after the Statement reflecting Mr. Trump’s financial condition as of June 30, 2020. Another firm, Whitley Penn LLP, compiled the June 30, 2021 statement. The relevant Statements of Financial Condition obtained by OAG from 2004 to 2021 are attached to the Affirmation as exhibits 304-319.
27. The Statements relied upon a supporting data spreadsheet and backup material prepared by the Trump Organization; Mazars compiled that information into financial-statement format. E.g., Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000689. The relevant supporting data spreadsheets obtained by OAG from 2011 to 2020 are attached to the Affirmation as exhibits 320-329.
28. The Trump Organization and its affiliates, including Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump, submitted the Statements or arranged for their submission to counterparties, including financial institutions, other lenders, and insurers. The Trump Organization and its affiliates made these submissions to induce counterparties’ consent to transactions or comply with the terms of transactions in which the parties were already engaged. The counterparties relied on the Statements and additional information provided by the Trump Organization in evaluating Mr. Trump’s financial condition.
A. Misleading asset valuations in Trump financial statements
29. The Statements described Mr. Trump’s (or the Trustees of the Revocable Trust’s) valuation process in broad terms and in ways which are often inaccurate or misleading to a reader when compared with the supporting data and documentation that the Trump Organization submitted to Mazars. Among other things, the Statements or the backup material:
a. Misstated objective facts, like the size of Mr. Trump’s Trump Tower penthouse;
b. Miscategorized assets outside Mr. Trump’s or the Trump Organization’s control as “cash,” thereby overstating his liquidity;
c. Misstated the process by which Mr. Trump or his associates reached valuations.
d. Failed to use fundamental techniques of valuation, like discounting future revenues and expenses to their present value;
e. Misstated the purported involvement of “outside professionals” in reaching the valuations; and
f. Failed to advise that certain valuation amounts were inflated by an undisclosed flat percentage for brand value, despite express language on the Statements asserting that the value of Mr. Trump’s brand was not reflected [in] the Statements pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).
30. Since 2019, OAG has taken testimony from Trump Organization employees and others involved in these and other valuations. As detailed below, those involved have not been able to provide plausible justification for the valuation decisions at issue, their description of the Statements, or representations about the Statements made to counterparties. In light of the pervasive and repeated nature of the misstatements and omissions, it appears that the valuations in the Statements were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump’s net worth was higher than it otherwise would have appeared.
31. OAG is investigating a number of issues with the Statements. Other than appearing in New York Supreme Court beginning in August 2020 in this proceeding to compel production of necessary documents, and to seek the Court’s intervention regarding the Trump Organization’s documentary subpoena-compliance failures, OAG has largely maintained its investigation out of the public eye. However, because the Respondents have questioned whether OAG is pursuing in good faith a civil inquiry that may lead to civil remedial action within OAG’s statutory power, OAG now presents to the Court a showing that reflects the progress of that inquiry. Below are seven issues that OAG believes are appropriate for disclosure to the Court now. The disclosure of these examples will not impede OAG’s investigation; OAG is also investigating other conduct not discussed here.
1. “Other assets”: Seven Springs and the Mr. Trump’s Trump Tower Triplex
32. The Seven Springs Estate (“Seven Springs”) is a parcel of real property that consists of approximately 212 acres within the towns of Bedford, New Castle, and North Castle in Westchester County. Seven Springs LLC, a Trump Organization subsidiary, purchased the property in December 1995 for $7.5 million.2
33. A 2000 appraisal prepared for the Royal Bank of Pennsylvania and sent to the Trump Organization estimated that Seven Springs had an “as-is” market value of $25 million for residential development. Ex. 335 at C&W_0048781, -88-91.
34. The same bank’s records further indicate that a 2006 appraisal showed an “as-is” market value of $30 million. Ex. 336 at 00046009.12.2019.
Year / Stated Value / Citation
2004 / $80 million / Ex. 304 at 12.
2007 / $200 million / Ex. 305 at 17.
2008 / $200 million / Ex. 306 at 17.
2009 / $251 million / Ex. 307 at 15.
2010 / $251 million / Ex. 308 at 00165209.12.2019.
2011 / $261 million / Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003148.
2012 / $291 million / Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006325.
2013 / $291 million / Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000052.
2014 / $291 million / Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000733.
35. The Statements of Financial Condition listed the above valuations of Seven Springs for the indicated year.3
36. The 2012, 2013, and 2014 Statements of Financial Condition reported a value for Seven Springs of $291 million and asserted that “[t]his property is zoned for 9 luxurious homes.” Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006325; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000052; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000733. Each financial statement asserted that the valuation was “based on an assessment made by Mr. Trump in conjunction with his associates of the projected net cash flow which he would derive as those units are constructed and sold, and the estimated fair value of the existing mansion and other buildings.” Id.
37. As depicted below, supporting data that the Trump Organization provided to Mazars for the purpose of compiling the 2012 financial statement recorded a “telephone conversation with Eric Trump (9/24/2012)” as one basis of this valuation, and also noted that portions of the Seven Springs property were “land to be donated.” See Ex. 321 at rows 679-680. The supporting data for 2013 and 2014 reflected similar conversations with Eric Trump. Ex. 322 at cell B640; Ex. 323 at cell B660.
38. Mr. McConney, Senior Vice President and Controller of the Trump Organization, testified that this valuation includes the full amount that would be generated from the sale of the non-existent homes without taking into account the years it would take to construct infrastructure, build homes, obtain necessary approvals, and sell the number of homes identified in the supporting data. Ex. 337 at 230:10-231:11. He provided similar testimony with regard to the 2013 and 2014 valuations. Id. at 240:6-20; also 242:22-243:20.
39. Asked to explain various aspects of the 2012 and 2013 valuations, Eric Trump repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Ex. 338 at 262:5-266:7; 271:19-272:3. And asked whether he discussed the valuation of Seven Springs with Mr. McConney on September 12, 2014, Eric Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. at 274:10-16.
40. Notably, the September 12, 2014 conversation described by Mr. McConney occurred after the completion of a valuation of the development potential for Seven Springs by a Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (“Cushman”) appraiser. In July 2014, the law firm Vinson & Elkins LLP (by an attorney, Sheri Dillon), had engaged Cushman to “provide consulting services related to an analysis of the estimated value of a potential conservation easement on all or part of the Seven Springs Estate.” Ex. 339 at C&W_0016742. Vinson & Elkins acted “in its capacity as legal counsel for Seven Springs, LLC, the owner of the Seven Springs Estate.” Id.
41. David McArdle, an appraiser at Cushman, performed this engagement. Mr. McArdle testified that this engagement was to provide, verbally, a “range of value” of the Seven Springs property. Ex. 340 at 50:06-51:08, 96:19-98:09.
42. Mr. McArdle valued the sale of eight lots in the Town of Bedford, six lots in New Castle, and ten lots in North Castle. Spreadsheets he prepared reflecting his opinion on the range of values show that McArdle used two different techniques to reach this range of values.
43. In one spreadsheet, which he called “a sellout analysis,” McArdle reached an average per-lot sales value of $2 million for the New Castle and North Castle lots, and $2.25 million for the Bedford lots. Ex. 341 at 458:6-459:8; Ex. 342 at C&W_0048563. After preparing a cashflow anticipating the sale of the lots and 10% rounded costs over five years, McArdle reached a rounded present value for all 24 lots of $29,950,000. In other words, Mr. McArdle— accounting for the time it would take to develop the property and discounting revenues and expenses to their present value—computed a value.
44. Using another valuation technique, Mr. McArdle also sought to establish a value “Before” and “After” an easement donation. He assumed the eight Bedford lots were presently worth $1.5 million to $2.5 million each, for a range of $12 million to $18 million. He assumed six lots in New Castle at an estimated range of $1.5 million to $2 million for a total of $9 million to $12 million. Likewise, he assumed ten lots in North Castle at an estimated range of $1.5 million to $2 million, for totals of $15 million to $20 million, respectively. Ex. 343 at C&W_0048562. McArdle testified that he provided these individual ranges of value per lot to the client. Ex. 341 at 454:2-21. These ranges put the current value of the lots at a range of $36 million to a maximum of $50 million.
45. McArdle testified that he conveyed his estimated range of value to the Trump Organization in late August or September 2014. Ex. 341 at 506:5-15. In an email he wrote on September 8, 2014, Mr. McArdle stated that he had “completed the research and all verbal consulting.” Ex. 344.
46. The Trump Organization was thus in possession of McArdle’s “range of value” of $29,500,000 to a maximum of $50,000,000 for the developable lots at Seven Springs before Mr. McConney’s September 12, 2014 telephone conversation with Eric Trump, and well before the finalization of the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition on November 7, 2014.
47. Despite the Trump Organization’s receipt of a valuation of twenty-four lots across three Westchester townships reflecting a value between $29.5 million and $50 million, the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition valued seven non-existent mansions in Bedford at $161 million—without factoring in the valuation the Trump Organization commissioned or the time it would take to build and sell such homes. Those failures are objectively misleading.
48. As described in previous submissions and alleged in detail below, in March 2016, two Cushman appraisers completed an appraisal of Seven Springs and concluded that the entire property (including undeveloped land and existing buildings) as of December 1, 2015 was worth $56.5 million. See 345 at MLB_EM00009124 (the “March 2016 Appraisal”). Like Mr. McArdle’s verbal consultation, this March 2016 Appraisal—reporting less than one-fifth of the value that Mr. Trump had most recently asserted on his financial statements and certified as accurate to financial institutions—substantially undermines the assertions in Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition: from 2008 through 2014, the Statements assigned valuations for Seven Springs that range from $200 million to $291 million. Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000733; Ex. 346. And as noted below, OAG has identified evidence that the March 2016 Appraisal itself relied on questionable assumptions indicating misrepresentations and significant omissions—such that even the $56.5 million valuation in that appraisal was improperly inflated.
49. Further, after receiving the March 2016 Appraisal, Mr. Trump’s subsequent Statement of Financial Condition was changed in a manner that disguised what would otherwise have appeared as a more than 80% drop in the value of Seven Springs, which had been reported to be worth $291 million for the three preceding years.
50. In prior years, the asserted value for Seven Springs was listed individually on the summary page or property description for each financial statement. See Ex. 305 at 17; Ex. 306 at 17; Ex. 307 at 15; Ex. 308 at 16; Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003148; Ex. 310 at MAZARSNYAG-00006325; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000052; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000733.
51. Mr. Trump’s financial statement as of June 30, 2015 (which was not issued until March 2016), does not identify any value for the Seven Springs property. Ex. 313 at MAZARSNYAG- 00000691-92.
52. The property was instead moved into a catch-all category entitled “other assets,” where its value was part of that category’s total but not separately itemized. See Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000710-12.
53. Between the 2014 and 2015 financial statements, the “other assets” category was reported to have increased in value by $219.6 million, with the Seven Springs property representing a significant asset transferred to this category. Compare Ex. 312 at MAZARSNYAG- 00000717 (reporting “other assets” worth $338 million), and id. at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000736-37 (listing assets included in this category); with Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000691 (reporting “other assets” worth $557.6 million), and id. at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000710-12 (listing assets included in this category).
54. In that same “other assets” category in 2015, the data supporting the financial statement reflects that there was a $127 million increase in the reported value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower from $200 million to $327 million, a 64 percent increase in reported value in a single year. Ex. 324 at rows 819-904.
55. Because none of the assets in the “other assets” category were given individual line-item values on the Statement of Financial Condition, the $127 million increase in asserted value for Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment helped disguise a substantial drop in the value of Seven Springs, which had been transferred to the same “other assets” category.
56. With respect to Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower, OAG has discovered that the valuations of this asset as incorporated into the Statements of Financial Condition since at least 2012 were based on the assertion that the triplex apartment was 30,000 square feet in size. Evidence indicates that Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. McConney both participated in such valuations. See, e.g., Ex. 347 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003611.
57. Further, there is evidence that documents demonstrating that the actual size of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment was only 10,996 square feet (namely the condominium offering plan and associated amendments for Trump Tower) were easily accessible inside the Trump Organization, were signed by Mr. Trump, and were sent to Mr. Weisselberg in 2012. See Ex. 348; Ex. 349 at LC00132530, -37.
58. The supporting data for Mr. Trump’s 2015 financial statement reported the value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment as $327 million, based on the apartment having 30,000 square feet of space multiplied by a certain price per square foot. Ex. 324 at rows 882-883. This assertion was repeated in the supporting data for Mr. Trump’s 2016 financial statement. Ex. 325 at row 913.
59. Without mention in the financial statement, the supporting data for Mr. Trump’s 2017 financial statement presented yet another change in the valuation, stating the value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment as $116.8 million. Ex. 326. But for the first time in 2017, the supporting data states that the triplex apartment had only 10,996.39 square feet. Ex. 326. Because these valuations were performed by multiplying the number of square feet times a price per square foot, the reduction in the apartment’s square footage in the valuation from 30,000 to 10,996 indicates that the valuations of Mr. Trump’s triplex in the 2015 and 2016 were overstated almost by a factor of three, as Mr. Weisselberg conceded in his testimony. Mr. Weisselberg admitted that this amounted to an overstatement of “give or take” $200 million. Ex. 351 at 507:05-22 (“Q: In fact, overstated by a factor of 3, is that correct? A: I didn’t do the math, but it should be one third, yes, I would agree with that. Q: So, it’s on the order of a $200 million overstatement, give or take? A: Give or take.”).
60. A Trump Organization employee who assisted in these valuations testified that he had prepared the spreadsheets. He accepted that there was “a fairly large discrepancy in the square footage listed for this asset in the two spreadsheets [he] prepared.” He stated that he had “probably” discussed the discrepancy with “either Jeff McConney or Allen Weisselberg.” Ex. 352 at 267:17-271:12
61. Publicly available information indicates that Mr. Trump himself has stated his triplex apartment in Trump Tower was approximately 30,000 square feet in size or larger. For example, a 2017 article in Forbes magazine states: “During the presidential race, Donald Trump left the campaign trail to give Forbes a guided tour of his three-story Trump Tower penthouse— part of his decades-long crusade for a higher spot on our billionaire rankings. . . . [Mr. Trump] bragged that people have called his Manhattan aerie the ‘best apartment ever built’ and emphasized its immense size (33,000 square feet) and value (at least $200 million). ‘I own the top three floors—the whole floor, times three!’” Ex. 353. The article evaluated whether the apartment was actually 30,000 square feet or more in size, and referred to a review of records, “[t]he end result [of which was] 10,996 square feet of prime Manhattan real estate—a massive residence, no doubt, but much smaller than what Trump claims to own.” Ex. 353.
2. Trump International Golf Club Scotland – Aberdeen
62. Trump International Golf Club Scotland (“Trump Aberdeen”) is a parcel of land containing a golf course, a country club, and undeveloped land in Aberdeen, Scotland. The entire property was purchased in 2006 for $12.6 million by the Trump Organization. Ex. 354 at 2.
63. Trump Aberdeen has been included as an asset on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition each year from 2011 to 2019. Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003144; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006321; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000046; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000729; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000703; Ex. 314 at MAZARSNYAG- 00001995; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001854; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00002737; Ex. 317 at DB-NYAG-230542.
64. The Statements of Financial Condition do not list an individual value for the property. Instead, the value of Trump Aberdeen, as recorded in the supporting data for the respective financial statements, is grouped together with a series of other properties in a category called “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00003140; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006317; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000043; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000723; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000697; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001989; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001848; Ex. 316 at MAZARSNYAG- 00002731; Ex. 317 at DB-NYAG-230536. The result is that a recipient of the financial statement receives a bottom-line figure for all of those clubs and related properties—but is kept from learning, from the statement, the value assigned to any particular club in that category.4 65. In 2011, the valuation for Trump Aberdeen in the supporting data that the Trump Organization provided to Mazars was based on capital contributions from inception and an estimate of value for the undeveloped land on the property of £75,000,000 “per George Sorial email 9/6/2011.” Ex. 321 at row 533.
66. The referenced email had the subject line “Forbes Magazine,” and contained a quote Mr. Sorial provided to an accountant in Scotland who was then expected to pass the information on to Forbes Magazine. Ex. 355. The quote stated: “Although a formal appraisal has not been prepared at this point, after speaking with specialists in the field and having closely watched this development transform itself over the last five years, we are informed that the value for the residential/hotel land parcels could achieve a value in excess of 75 million [British pounds sterling].” Ex. 355 at TTO_008977.
67. It thus appears that the valuation of Trump Aberdeen used for Mr. Trump’s financial statement was prepared for purposes of providing information to Forbes magazine in a quote. Ex. 355.
68. Converted to U.S. dollars, the Trump Organization’s asserted value of Trump Aberdeen in 2011 was $161 million. See Ex. 356 at rows 527-543.
69. In April 2012, Donald Trump testified to the Scottish Government that he “cannot proceed with [the development] if the hotel is going to be looking at industrial turbines, and no one here would do so if they were in my position.”5
70. Mr. Sorial’s “Forbes Magazine” email was a component of the Trump Organization’s 2012 and 2013 valuations of Trump Aberdeen as well. See Ex. 356 at rows 527- 543; Ex. 322 at rows 487-503.
71. The Trump Organization valued Trump Aberdeen at $435.56 million for purposes of Mr. Trump’s 2014 financial statement; that figure was more than double the 2013 valuation for the same property. Ex. 323 at cell H527. Of the asserted $435.563 million valuation in 2014, more than four-fifths of the value ($361.393 million) was derived from the Trump Organization’s estimate of the residential development potential of the property. Ex. 323 at rows 519-526.
72. The 2014 Statement of Financial Condition reports that the Trump Organization “received outline planning permission in December 2008 for . . . a residential village consisting of 950 holiday homes and 500 single family residences and 36 golf villas.” Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000729. This is a total of 1,486 homes. But the supporting data for the 2014 valuation contained a residential parcel valuation based on the development potential of 2,500 homes. Ex. 323 at row 521. Mr. Weisselberg testified that he could not explain this discrepancy. Ex. 357 at 299:03-300:09, 302:06-17.
73. In 2014, shortly before the Trump Organization finalized Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition (including the $361.393 million asset valuation for the residential development potential at Aberdeen), the Trump Organization, consistent with Donald Trump’s testimony to the Scottish government, represented in an audited financial statement that it did not intend any residential development on the property for the foreseeable future. Ex. 358 at TTO_009941. Specifically, in the “Director’s report and financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2013,” submitted to a UK regulator and signed on September 29, 2014, the Trump Organization wrote: “the hotel, second golf course, and future phases of the project have been postponed until such time that the Scottish Government and regional Councils have reversed their stance on supporting the wind farm development being considered for Aberdeen Bay.” Ex. 358 at TTO_009941-42, -9947.
74. Mr. Weisselberg signed the audited statement as an officer of Trump International Golf Club Scotland. Ex. 358 at TTO_009942, -9946, -9948.
75. The valuation of Trump Aberdeen in the 2014 supporting data which was ultimately reflected on the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition did not account for this indefinite postponement of residential development. Ex. 351 at 357:09-15.
76. As was the case with the valuation of the Seven Springs residential development (see supra at ¶¶ 37-38), the valuation for Trump Aberdeen did not account for the time it might take to secure any needed approvals, develop the property, and market the property. Ex. 351 at 398:24-399:24; Ex. 323 at rows 519-526. Supporting data for the Statements of Financial Condition for 2015 and 2016 do not reflect, in the valuation of Trump Aberdeen, any consideration of the time it might take to secure any needed approvals, develop the property, and market the property. Ex. 324 at rows 530-539; Ex. 325 at rows 563-571.
77. OAG has learned of additional information that further calls into question the valuation of the Aberdeen property on the Statement of Financial Condition.
78. For example, the Trump Aberdeen valuations described above—computing a valuation principally based on building 2,500 homes—assumes that 2500 homes would have the same characteristics (and the same value per home). This ignores that, as the Statements notes, of the 1,486 homes that were purportedly the recipient of some level of approval, 950 of the homes were to be “holiday homes” and 36 were to be “golf villas.” OAG has obtained evidence indicating that such properties—under the terms governing Trump Aberdeen—would be rental properties and no individual could rent one for more than six weeks at a time. Ex. 359 at 5.
79. In 2017 the Trump Organization commissioned an appraisal which suggested that if 557 private homes (which exceed the approved amount) were built that would result in a total net present valued profit of £16-19 million. Ex. 360 at TTO_242033. The Trump Organization valued the undeveloped residential land at more than ten times that amount, £212,160,000, that year. Ex. 326 at G582.
3. The “Trump” brand
80. The financial statements explicitly state that, according to GAAP, the statements do not incorporate any intangible brand value. In particular, the financial statements assert that, although Mr. Trump’s name “enhances the value of the properties reflected in this statement,” that value “has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement.” Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003136. A similar proviso is included each year from 2012-2020. Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006313; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000039; Ex. 312 at MAZARSNYAG- 00000719; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000693; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00001986; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001845; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002731; Ex. 317 at MAZARS-NYAG-161792; Ex. 318 at MAZARS-NYAG-00162250.
81. The language in the 2016 Statement is depicted below:
This financial statement does not reflect the value of Donald J. Trump's worldwide reputation; however, the brand value has afforded Mr. Trump the opportunity to participate in licensing deals around the globe as reflected on the statement of financial condition herein (see Note 5). Mr. Trump's name conveys a high degree of quality and profitability. This prestige significantly enhances the value of the properties reflected in this financial statement, as well as that of future projects. The brand along with the level of quality of Mr. Trump's residential developments has allowed the selling price per square foot in Trump properties to be amongst the highest among prominent real estate developers. The goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant financial value that hs not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement.
Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001986.
82. Mr. Trump was personally aware of the fact that his Statement of Financial Condition represented that no brand value was included. In a letter to CSG Investments Inc., for example, Mr. Trump wrote:
I am also enclosing a letter that establishes my brand value, which is not included in my net worth statement, from Predictiv, the most respected branding valuation company in the country. Among the companies they represent are Major League Baseball, Southwest Airlines, Pfizer, Petrobras, General Motors, UPS, Visa, BASF, and United Technologies.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Donald J. Trump
Ex. 534.
83. The Statement’s representation regarding the absence of brand value is false (or, at a minimum, misleading). As described below, the Statement of Financial Condition includes an added brand premium for most of the properties in the Club Facilities and Related Real Estate category.
84. The Statements of Financial Condition include a category of assets called “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” See, e.g., Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003134. Values assigned to the assets in this category are summed together, with only the overall figure reported to recipients of the financial statement, who are kept from learning, from the statement, the value assigned to any particular club in that category.
85. Beginning in the year 2013 nearly all properties in this category are valued based on, at least in part, a metric entitled “fixed assets.” Ex. 322; Ex. 323; Ex 324; Ex. 325; Ex. 326 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002024; Ex. 327 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002772; Ex. 328 at MAZARSNYAG- 00161836; Ex. 329 at MAZARS-NYAG-00162291.
86. According to the Trump Organization Controller Jeffrey McConney, when the Trump Organization was valuing golf clubs, the label “fixed assets” encompassed cash spent to build the clubhouse and any improvements. Ex. 337 at 64:06-11.
87. For the 2013 and 2014 Statements, the Trump Organization added thirty percent to the “fixed assets” metric it had used for several clubs. The label associated with that 30% premium was, “fully operational branded facility.” That premium was applied to the Trump Organization’s golf clubs at Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter (Florida), Charlotte, and Los Angeles. Ex. 322; Ex. 323.
88. For each Statement from 2015 to 2020 the value of the Trump golf clubs at Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter, Charlotte, and Los Angeles included a fifteen-percent premium in addition to fixed assets for a “fully operational branded facility.” Ex. 324; Ex. 325; Ex. 326 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002024; Ex. 327 at MAZARSNYAG- 00002772; Ex. 328 at MAZARS-NYAG-00161836; Ex. 329 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00162291.
89. For the Statements from 2013 to 2018, the brand premiums for Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter, Charlotte, and Los Angeles were all purportedly based on a 2013 phone call with an outside golf club professional. See e.g., Ex. 324 at rows 383-386. The supporting data from the Trump Organization asserts, as a basis for the premium, that the Organization was told by the professional that “Trump branded clubs are more valuable than most golf courses.” Ex. 322 at rows 306-307.
90. That outside professional testified that it would never be his practice to value a golf course based on fixed assets or add a premium to fixed assets to value a golf course. Ex. 361 at 82:10-25.
91. That outside golf club professional, who is the only outside professional listed on the Colts Neck, Washington D.C., Hudson Valley, Philadelphia, Jupiter, Charlotte, and Los Angeles golf club valuations for the Statements from 2013-2018, denied ever having provided a valuation of, or a brand premium number for, any Trump golf courses during this time period. Ex. 361 at 70:19-21, 95:04-96:16.
92. As discussed below at ¶¶ 160-190, Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were submitted to counterparties to seek or obtain credit and insurance, and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements. Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003049; Ex. 363 at DB-NYAG-059810-13.
93. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed several of those loans and at least one insurance program, and those personal guarantees required that Mr. Trump certify that he accurately represented his financial condition. See, e.g., Ex. 363 at DB-NYAG-059810, -059813, -059821- 22; Ex. 346 at DB-NYAG-060415.
94. Donald Trump was required to submit his Statement of Financial Condition and maintain a certain minimum net worth in order to comply with covenants on loans that he personally guaranteed. See Exs. 356, 364, 365, 366.
95. The agreed upon definition of net worth in the loan documentation of one bank excluded brand value. “For purposes hereof, the goodwill attached to the Trump name shall be excluded from the calculation of Guarantor’s assets, as stated in Note 1 of the Notes to Statement of Financial Condition of Guarantor’s Statement of Financial Condition, dated as of June 30, 2011.” Ex. 356 at DB-NYAG-004173; Ex. 364 at DB-NYAG-038873 (relying on note 1 to the 2012 SOFC); Ex. 365 at DB-NYAG-003223 (relying on Note 1 to the 2012 SOFC); Ex. 366 at DB-NYAG-003279 (relying on Note 1 to the 2013 SOFC). Similarly, the underwriting guidelines of one insurer which provided coverage to the Trump Organization specify that intangible assets such as brand value be excluded from financial statements. Ex. 367 at 98:02- 98:18.
96. Accordingly, at least one financial institution who lends to, and at least one insurer of, the Trump Organization have policies which treats brand value as worthless in their analysis and requires they not consider it for purposes of determining net worth. Ex. 368 at DBNYAG- 001697, 1701; Ex. 369 at 184:20-185:18; Ex. 367 at 98:02-98:18.
97. The originating credit risk manager for those loans stated that if brand value were included in Mr. Trump’s reported net worth that it would constitute a breach of the net worth covenant. Ex. 369 at 202:20-203:11.
98. As is discussed below, an underwriter for the Trump Organization’s surety program stated that if she were aware brand value had been included in Donald Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition, she would have been required to reduce reported net worth accordingly. Ex. 367 at 98:02-98:18.
4. Trump National Golf Club –Westchester
99. Mr. Trump purchased Trump National Golf Club Westchester (“Briarcliff”) for $8,500,000. Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-0000044. The property has been included as an asset on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition from 2004 to present.
100. As discussed supra at ¶¶ 84-85, the Statements of Financial Condition do not list an individual value for the Briarcliff property; instead, the value of the property, as recorded in the supporting data for the financial statement, is grouped together with a series of other properties in a category called “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” The result is that a recipient of the financial statement receives a bottom-line figure for all items in that category together—but cannot identify the value assigned to any particular club in that category.
101. In the 2011 supporting data document the property was valued at $68,703,300. Ex. 320 at G300. That valuation was broken down into multiple components. First was the value of the initiation fee for 67 unsold memberships totaling $12,775,000. Although the supporting data spreadsheet states that the club was currently “getting $150,000” per membership, the Trump Organization derived $12,775,000 in value by computing a value with 47 of the 67 unsold memberships priced higher than that amount, in many instances by $100,000 each. Ex. 320 at G265-284. Next, the valuation included $28 million for the cost to construct the clubhouse and $2,828,300 in receivables from members. Ex. 320 at G288-293. Furthermore, the valuation included an estimate of $25,100,000 for the expected profit from the sale of 31 mid-rise units “put on hold.” Ex. 320 at G295-298
102. According to TTO membership records, even the representation that the club was “getting $150,000 per membership” in June 2011 was false: Records indicate that many members paid no deposit for their memberships in 2011. Ex. 370.
103. In March 2012, the club sought to increase membership through a strategy that “has been discussed several times with Mr. Trump and will be implemented per his instructions.” Ex. 371 at TTO_02360603. The goal was to bring in 75 new members in order to generate maximum revenue for the club and the instructions note that memberships should be sold dues only with no initiation fee in order to achieve that goal. Ex. 371 at TTO_02360603-04.
104. According to TTO membership records no new members paid an initiation fee in 2012. Ex. 370.
105. Increasing the number of new members and not collecting initiation fees would reduce the remaining number of unsold memberships available for sale and thereby the listed value of Briarcliff on the Statement of Financial Condition.
106. However, after the strategy change directed by Mr. Trump, his Statement of Financial Condition stopped computing the value of the Briarcliff property using unsold memberships: The Briarcliff valuation was done using “fixed assets” instead of unsold membership prices for the 2012 Statement of Financial Condition. As discussed supra, ¶ 86, “fixed assets” referred to the cost to build the clubhouse and any improvements to the property. The value of fixed assets was $71,200,000. Ex. 321 at H280. When added to the receivables from members of $3,207,000 and the estimate of $25,100,000 for the expected profit from the sale of 31 mid-rise units “put on hold” the total reported value of the property reached $99,507,000. Ex. 321 at H273-287.
107. These valuations do not take into account the time value of money.
108. The Briarcliff property increased in valuation on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition by at least over $30 million from 2011 to 2012, mostly because of this change in methods. The change in methods and the concomitant increase were concealed from a reader of the statement of financial condition. This is because a reader of the statement only sees a total value for the category “Club facilities and related real estate” rather than an individual valuation for each property.
109. Although the statement discloses that “cash expenditures to improve certain facilities” is a method of valuation used in the club facilities and related real estate category, there is no way to ascertain that the methodology switched for Briarcliff in particular.
110. In the supporting data for the financial statement issued on October 28, 2013, Briarcliff’s “fixed assets” were $72,354,000, its receivables from members were $2,160,000, and the spreadsheet listed an additional value of $101,748,600 for the profit from a sellout of “71 Mid Rise units approved but put on hold,” for a total of $176,262,600. The source of this valuation was a telephone conversation with Eric Trump. See Ex. 311 at Mazars-NYAG- 0000036; Ex.322 at G253-273.
111. Without the supporting data document, a reader of the financial statement would be unaware that the value of Briarcliff increased by over $75 million from 2012 to 2013, and by over $100 million from 2011 to 2013. A reader of the statement would also be unaware that this increase in value came in part from adding 40 homes and over $75 million in additional profit to the forecast of a project that was “on hold.”
112. Starting in 2013, the Trump Organization considered donating a conservation easement over the land where the 71 undeveloped mid-rise units would go. During that process the Trump Organization and outside tax counsel Ms. Dillon hired an appraiser, who reached several preliminary valuations. Yet, as illustrated in the below chart, the Statement of Financial Condition value ignored the preliminary valuations.
Year / Trump Statement Values6 / Preliminary Appraised Values7 / Citation for Appraised Values
2013 / $101,748,600 / $45,000,000 / Ex. 372 at VE_00008043
2014 / $101,748,600 / $43,300,000. / Ex. 373 at C&W_0056373
2014 / $73,130,987 in golf club fixed assets/ $16,500,000 value of golf club using income approach / Ex. 373 at C&W_0056373
2015 / $101,748,600 / $45,200,000. / Ex. 374 at C&W_0052753-54
2016 / $101,748,600 / $45,200,000. / Ex. 374 at C&W_0052753-54
2016 / $177,697,732 entire property / $8,960,000 market value or $15,124,300 “full value based on [assessed value]” / Ex. 375 at PDF 5.
113. Each appraisal discussed in the table above appears to have been prepared using standard methodologies—such as reaching a market value for a business entity based on its income performance, and valuing proposed residential property based on comparable sales data and time factors. There was no apparent basis for the Trump Organization to disregard such professionally prepared information in favor of the “fixed assets” method that is an accounting of past expenditures or the method that Eric Trump used.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:36 am
Part 2 of 4
5. Trump Park Avenue
114. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition include a property called “Trump Park Avenue.” See, e.g., Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000034, 42-43. Trump Park Avenue is reflected on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition for the years 2011 through 2020. Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000037, -42-43; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006311, 6316-17; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000037, 0042-43; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000717, 722- 23; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-0000691, 96-97; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001983, 1988-89; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001842, 47-48; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00002725, 30-31; Ex. 317 at MAZARS-NYAG-00161790, 95-96; Ex. 318 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00162248, 58. In these years, the property was reported as representing between $135 and $350 million of Mr. Trump’s total assets. Id. Evidence obtained by the Attorney General establishes that unsold residential condominium units represented the lion’s share of reported value (in excess of 95% in some years). On the 2011 Statement of Financial Condition, the reported value of the asset was $311,600,000, with unsold residential units comprising $293,122,750 of that value. Ex. 320 at G163-178.
115. Evidence obtained by OAG indicates both that the reported values of the unsold residential units of the Trump Park Avenue building and representations regarding those values were inaccurate or misleading.
116. The earliest outside valuation of the property identified by OAG consists of an appraisal performed in 2010 by the Oxford Group in connection with a $23 million loan from Investors Bank. As the appraisal identified, the collateral consisted of twenty-three residential units (twelve of which were rent stabilized), two commercial spaces, and six storage spaces. Ex. 376 at TTO_233905; Ex. 377 at TTO_234022. The appraisal valued the collateral at $72.5 million. Ex. 376 at TTO_233905. Approximately $55.1 million of that was derived from the residential and storage units. Ex. 377 at TTO_234055-56.89 The appraisal valued twelve rentstabilized units at $750,000 total, noting that the rent-stabilized units “cannot be marketed as individual units” because the “current tenants cannot be forced to leave.” Ex. 377 at TTO_234022.
117. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition in 2010, 2011, and 2012 valued the unsold residential units in Trump Park Avenue at more than $292 million, or roughly six times the 2010 appraised value attributable to the residential and storage units. Ex. 320 at H163- 178; Ex. 320 at G163; Ex. 321 at H166.
118. Evidence indicates that the Trump Organization routinely prepared estimates of current market value for unsold residential units at Trump Park Avenue that conflicted with the much higher values reported on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition and failed to account for rent-stabilized units that could not be marketed.
119. In the Statements of Financial Condition for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (the last of which was finalized in March 2016), the Trump Organization used offering plan10 or selling prices to value unsold residential condominium units at Trump Park Avenue— not estimates of current market value. See Ex. 379 at TTO_009309; Ex. 380 at MAZARSNYAG- 00003290; Ex. 381 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003476; Ex. 382 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000184; Ex. 383 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000445; Ex. 384 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000846; see also, Ex. 352 at 398:15-399:15; 400:12-403:09.
120. But the Trump Organization maintained its own internal estimates of current market value that were considerably lower than the values employed for Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition. Evidence indicates that, as far back as 2012 (and perhaps earlier),11 the Trump Organization’s in-house real estate brokerage (Trump International Realty) prepared Sponsor Unit Inventory Valuation spreadsheets reflecting both offering plan prices and current market values that included unsold units at Trump Park Avenue. Ex. 385 (2012); Ex. 386 (2013); Ex. 387 (2014). These spreadsheets reflected market valuation information for multiple Trump Organization condominium buildings.
121. Evidence indicates that Trump Organization employees used these sponsor unit valuation spreadsheets—reflecting internal estimates of market value and offering plan prices— for day-to-day operations and business planning, but used offering plan prices rather than the company’s actual estimates of current market value when reporting the current market value of those units for Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition. Compare Ex. 381 at MAZARSNYAG- 3476 with Ex. 385 at TTO_01226369 Column C; Ex. 382 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000184] with Ex. 386 at Column F; Ex. 383 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000445 with Ex. 387 at Column F.
122. The results were considerable differentials in reported value as shown in the following chart:
123. The figures in the above charts, both offering plan prices and current market value prices, do not include any reductions to account for reduced marketability due to rent stabilization. If they had, information available to the Trump Organization indicates that the valuation of Trump Park Avenue would have significantly decreased. For instance, from 2010- 2012 the twelve rent stabilized units were valued collectively at $49,596,000—a rate 98.5 percent higher than the $750,000 valuation for those units in the 2010 appraisal, which valued them based on their rent-stabilized status. Ex. 377 at TTO_234022; Ex. 379 at TTO_009309; Ex. 380 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003290; Ex. 381 at MAZARS-NYAG-3476.
124. Valuations in future years also ignored the impact of rent stabilization on units owned by Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization. Unit 15A was rent stabilized and the subject of litigation in which the Trump Organization intervened.12 Yet the Trump Organization’s internal sponsor unit valuation merely computed the value of that unit based on a price per square foot figure and the unit’s square footage—without any consideration of the unit’s rent-stabilized status. See Ex. 352 at 405:10-406:19; Ex. 389; Ex. 390; Ex. 391.
125. The Trump Organization’s own conduct beginning in late 2016 or early 2017 reflects an understanding that reporting offering plan prices as the estimated current values of unsold Trump Park Avenue units—rather than its own, lower assessment of these units’ actual current market values—was incorrect and misleading. Beginning with the June 30, 2016 Statement of Financial Condition—finalized in March 2017—the Trump Organization changed its practice and began reporting its current market value estimates for purposes of that financial statement.13 Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001982; Ex. 392 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001433; Ex. 326 at H182.
126. Apart from those discrepancies, statements on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition reflecting the manner in which those valuations were reached appear to be inaccurate and misleading. In particular, the Statements of Financial Condition from at least 2011 through 2019 reflect, in sum and substance, that the reported values were “based upon an evaluation made by Mr. Trump in conjunction with his associates and outside professionals,”14 thereby leading the reader to believe that the manner of valuation included consultation with outside professionals. Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003140; see also Ex. 310 at MAZARSNYAG- 00006317; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000043; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000724; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-0000697; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001989; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001848; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002731; Ex. 317 at MAZARS-NYAG-00161796.
127. Despite review of considerable evidence, including backup material provided to the Mazars accounting firm, OAG has been unable to identify any evidence indicating that any consultation with any outside professional occurred in connection with reporting the value of unsold residential condominium units at Trump Park Avenue for the Statement of Financial Condition in those years.
128. In 2020, Jeffrey McConney was questioned about various references to “outside professionals” on the Statements of Financial Condition. Ex. 337 at 272:22-273:13 (reference to outside professionals regarding Seven Springs); 277:25-279:10 (same); 320:05-321:12 (club facilities); Ex. 388 at 772:19-776:21 (Niketown).
129. After Mr. McConney testified, the 2020 Statement of Financial Condition was issued. That Statement of Financial Condition, unlike those that came before it for many years, omitted any contention that any specific valuation was reached in consultation with any outside professional. Instead, the 2020 Statement references outside professionals as one factor that may have been included or “applicable” in preparing various unidentified valuations reflected on the statement. Ex. 318 at MAZARS-NYAG-00162251.
130. That abrupt removal of specific references to outside-professional consultation appears, among other things, to acknowledge that references to such professionals in prior years was inaccurate and misleading.
131. Evidence obtained by the Attorney General indicates that Ivanka Trump resided in two penthouse apartments in the Trump Park Avenue building and that Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition reported values for one of those units much higher than the price at which Ivanka Trump had obtained an option to purchase.
132. Ivanka Trump rented a penthouse unit in Trump Park Avenue starting in 2011. Ex. 380 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003293. Ms. Trump’s rental agreement included an option to purchase the unit for $8,500,000. Ex. 394. For the 2011 and 2012 Statements of Financial Condition, this unit was valued at $20,820,000—approximately two and a half times as much as the option price, with no disclosure of the existence of the option. Ex. 380 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00003292; Ex. 381 at MAZARS-NYAG-3476. For the 2013 Statement of Financial Condition, the unit was valued at $25,000,000—more than three times the option price, again, with no disclosure of the existence of the option. Ex. 382 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000184.
133. The Trump Organization’s own conduct acknowledges that reporting an offering plan price for a unit—instead of the price at which the Trump Organization already had agreed to sell the unit to Ms. Trump—was incorrect and misleading. In particular, in October 2015 Ivanka Trump acquired an option to purchase a different, larger penthouse unit at Trump Park Avenue for $14,264,000. Ex. 395 at TTO_02226839.
134. After Ms. Trump acquired that option to purchase, the backup to the Statement of Financial Condition for Trump Park Avenue in 2015 used a value of $14,264,000 instead of the offering plan price of $45,000,000 that had been used in 2014. See Ex. 385 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000846; Ex. 383 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000445.
6. Liquidity
135. As a general matter, when a financial statement reports “cash,” it is referring to an amount of liquid currency or demand deposits. See Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), Master Glossary - Cash. Similarly, when a financial statement reports “cash equivalents,” it is reporting “short-term, highly liquid investments” that both can be “readily converted to known amounts of cash” and is “so near their maturity that they present insignificant risk of changes in value because of changes in interest rates.” See FASB, Master Glossary – Cash Equivalents. When a financial statement refers to “marketable securities,” it refers to debt or equity securities for which market quotations are available, and such assets are valued at “their quoted market prices.” See, e.g., FASB, Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 274-10-35-5.15
136. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition for several years reported cash amounts in partnership entities Mr. Trump did not control as Mr. Trump’s own liquidity. In some years these restricted funds accounted for almost one-third of all the cash reported by Mr. Trump (for example $24 million of the total $76 million in cash reported for 2018). For the sake of simplicity, these entities will be referred to here as the Vornado partnership entities.
137. The Vornado partnership entities are entities through which Mr. Trump has a thirty-percent limited partnership stake in certain partnership entities that own 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York, NY and 555 California Street in San Francisco, CA. Vornado Realty Trust (“Vornado”), in which Mr. Trump has no ownership interest, holds the other seventypercent stake in the Vornado partnership entities and functions as the General Partner.
138. Under the pertinent partnership agreements, the General Partner has “full control over the management, operation and activities of, and dealings with, the Partnership Assets and the Partnership’s properties, business and affairs,” and “the Limited Partners shall not take part in the management of the business or affairs of the Partnership or control the Partnership business.” E.g., Ex. 396 at TTO_02545363.16 Moreover, “[t]he Limited Partners may under no circumstances sign for or bind the Partnership.” Id. The partnership agreements provide for cash distributions in an amount, if any, that is “determined by the General Partner in its sole discretion.” Id. at -338-339.
139. Internal Trump Organization records reflect an understanding that cash residing in the Vornado partnership entities could be distributed at Vornado’s discretion only.17 The Trump Organization maintained internal spreadsheets reflecting its own cash position and cash flow. One cash flow spreadsheet states, with respect to the Vornado partnerships: “Although there could be operating profits, distributions are at the discretion of Vornado at a rate of 30% to Trump. At this point we do not have all of the data that goes into Vornado’s decision making, thus we are attributing no distribution for these properties.” Ex. 397 (tab that says “Notes”). Similarly, spreadsheet documents with “cash position” in their filename include cash in a range of Trump Organization entities—but not cash in the Vornado partnership entities. See, e.g., Ex. 398 (email with attached document named “121517 Cash Position.xls”).
140. Contrary to what is reflected in these internal records (which are consistent with the terms of the governing trust documents), Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition from at least 2013 through 2020 included cash in the Vornado partnership entities as Mr. Trump’s “cash and marketable securities” or similarly identified liquid asset, often comprising a considerable portion of Mr. Trump’s reported liquidity.18
141. For example, the June 30, 2016 Statement of Financial Condition reported $114.4 million in cash, marketable securities, and hedge funds. Ex. 400. Approximately $19.6 million (17.6%) of that figure appears to have been derived from cash in or associated with the Vornado entities. Ex. 400. The June 30, 2018 Statement of Financial Condition reported $76.2 million in cash and cash equivalents. Ex. 401. Approximately $24.4 million (32%) of that figure apparently was derived from cash in or associated with the Vornado entities. Ex. 401. See also Ex. 402 (in 2019, $24.65 million out of $87 million); Ex. 403 (in 2020, $28.25 million out of $92.7 million).
7. 40 Wall Street
142. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition refer to a property identified as “40 Wall Street,” an office building located on Wall Street in New York, NY. The Trump Organization owns a “ground lease” pertaining to the property; in other words, it holds a leasehold interest in the land and buildings on the land, but pays rent (known as ground rent) to the fee owner. By the terms of the ground lease, the rent on 40 Wall Street would gradually increase over a series of years, with a reset in 2032 based on the overall value of the building. Ex. 388 at 612:16-23, 613:16-19; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000041-42.
143. For several years, the supporting data for Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition reported a valuation for 40 Wall Street that was calculated using the “income capitalization approach,” a method for estimating the value of real property based on the net operating income the property generates. Under the valuation method used by the Trump Organization, a property’s net operating income is divided by a capitalization rate to arrive at an estimate of market value.19
144. Net operating income is typically defined as “[t]he actual or anticipated net income that remains after all operating expenses are deducted from the effective gross income but before mortgage debt service and book depreciation are deducted.” Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 158 (6th ed. 2015).
145. OAG has obtained evidence raising questions regarding the true value of the Trump Organization’s leasehold interest in 40 Wall Street as reported on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition.
146. For example, evidence obtained by OAG suggests that Capital One (which held a $160 million mortgage on the property at the time) raised substantial concerns about cash flow at the property in approximately August and September 2009, leading to in-person meetings with Mr. Trump, Mr. Weisselberg, and others. See, e.g., Ex. 404 at CAPITALONE-00348244 (notes from August 2009 meeting); Ex. 405 at CAPITALONE-00348333 (notes from September 2009 meeting).
147. Those discussions led to a loan modification executed in 2010 attaching the Trump Organization’s own 2010 budget for the property. Ex. 406 at CAPITALONE-00349593- 96. That budget reflected a net operating income (described in the budget as “cash flow before debt service”) of $12.3 million, see Ex. 406 at CAPITALONE-00349595; a figure bank personnel described as “very optimistic.” Ex. 407 at CAPITALONE-00348988.
148. Other materials indicate the Trump Organization’s own budget as submitted to Capital One for 40 Wall Street for 2011 projected a net operating income of just over $4.4 million. Ex. 408 at CAPITALONE-00350719, -23 (figure results from starting with $25,183,244 in “total income accounts” and subtracting “total expense accounts” figure of $20,722,238; debt service and depreciation are not listed in such expenses).
149. In connection with the 2010 Capital One loan modification, an appraisal was performed by Cushman & Wakefield valuing the Trump Organization’s interest at $200 million as of August 1, 2010. Ex. 409 at CAPITALONE-00350131. Similar appraisals were performed in 2011 and 2012 reaching a similar valuation conclusion. Ex. 410; Ex. 411. In the 2012 appraisal, in addition to reaching a valuation of $220 million as of November 1, 2012, the appraisers also calculated a valuation “upon stabilized occupancy” as of November 1, 2015 at $260 million. Ex. 411 at TTO_220765. A key component of the 2012 appraisal and in valuing the Trump Organization’s interest in the building was the reset value of the ground lease in 2032. The 2012 appraisal reached a conclusion that the ground lease rent (a Trump Organization expense) would reset from $2.8 million a year to more than $15.5 million a year beginning on January 1, 2033. Ex. 411 at TTO_220826-846.
150. A copy of the 2012 appraisal was contained in the files of the Trump Organization.
151. Mr. Weisselberg testified that he recalled having an appraisal of 40 Wall Street from approximately 2011 or 2012 that valued the property in the $200 million range, but he determined the property was worth a different amount and listed that amount on the Statement of Financial Condition. Ex. 357 at 134:25-138:02.
152. During the same period, Mr. Trump presented a value for 40 Wall Street on his Statements of Financial Condition of $601.8 million in 2010, $524.7 million in 2011, $527.2 million in 2012, and $530.7 million in 2013.20 Ex 308 at 3, 7; Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00003134, -3139; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006311, -6316; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000037, -41-42. These values are between two and three times the value recorded in the three consecutive appraisals noted above. They rested, in part, on the use of figures for net operating income that differed markedly from the Trump Organization’s own contemporaneous budgets which also were known to Mr. McConney or Mr. Weisselberg.21
153. An exchange between the Trump Organization and Capital One in 2015 establishes that Capital One harbored great skepticism regarding the Trump Organization’s valuations. In 2014 the Trump Organization valued 40 Wall Street at $550 million. Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000714, -717. Mr. Weisselberg then brought that valuation to Capital One on January 12, 2015 in an effort to restructure the loan on the building and avoid a principal payment of $5 million due in November 2015. Ex. 413 at TTO_123039, -40. Touting his own assertion of a favorable loan to value ratio of 30%, Mr. Weisselberg wrote to Capital One:
Ex. 413 at TTO_123040.
154. Capital One had performed its own internal valuation analysis as of October 31, 2014, however, which reached a starkly different conclusion. That analysis valued 40 Wall Street at $257 million and estimated a much less favorable loan to value ratio of 62%. Ex. 414 at CAPITALONE-06262020-00000170.
155. Based on its valuation and analysis, Capital One declined to restructure the loan. Ex. 413 at TTO_123039.
156. Rebuffed by Capital One, Mr. Weisselberg then began working with his son, Jack Weisselberg, a Director at Ladder Capital Finance LLC, in an effort to arrange financing on more favorable terms using the valuation of 40 Wall Street from the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition. Ladder Capital reached out to Cushman & Wakefield about preparing an appraisal for 40 Wall Street. Ex. 415.
157. Cushman had prepared the 2012 appraisal valuing the property at $220 million and the same team prepared the 2015 appraisal for Ladder Capital. Compare Ex. 411 at TTO_220760 with Ex. 416 at C&W_0009325. But the 2015 appraisal more than doubled the valuation of the building to $540 million.
158. Evidence obtained by OAG suggests that the Cushman & Wakefield valuation in the 2015 appraisal did not reflect a good faith assessment of value. The appraisal appears to have used demonstrably incorrect facts and aggressive assumptions to arrive at this much higher value.
159. Still, even this increased valuation for 40 Wall Street was not sufficient for purposes of Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition for the year ending June 30, 2015 (also prepared at least in consultation with Mr. Weisselberg). That Statement tacked nearly $200 million in additional value onto the 2015 appraised value of the property, valuing the building at $735.4 million. Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000691. Thereafter the valuation on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition rose to $796.4 million in 2016 and settled at $702.1 million in 2017. Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001983; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00001842.
B. Trump misrepresentations to counterparties
160. Mr. Trump’s financial statements were submitted to financial institutions to seek or obtain credit and insurance, and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements. E.g., Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003049. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed certain financial obligations to these counterparties; and those personal guarantees required that Mr. Trump certify that his financial statements presented his financial condition fairly in all material respects. E.g., Ex. 363 at DB-NYAG-059809-14; Ex. 346.
1. Trump misrepresentations to banks
161. OAG is investigating the Trump Organization’s representations to banks and whether those institutions relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements. The evidence to date indicates that Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition factored into banks’ decisions and that banks relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements in granting Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization access to credit. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were submitted to multiple banks to obtain credit and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements. Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003049; Ex. 363 at DBNYAG- 059810-13.
162. One financial institution noted that it had “received CPA prepared financial statements by WeiserMazar LLP dated June 30, 2014 verifying Donald J. Trump’s net worth of $5,777,540,000 and liquidity of $302,300,000.” Ex. 417 at FSI-Investors-00000003_0005.
163. That financial institution did not apply any adjustments to the reported net worth figure and treated it as a mitigant to potential weaknesses in the deal. Ex. 417 at FSI-Investors- 00000003_0028. The loan officer on the deal testified that, if he had been aware of material misstatements in the Statement of Financial Condition, the loan officer would not have brought the deal to his financial institution’s commercial lending committee. Ex. 418 at 100:10-101:04
164. Another financial institution—Deutsche Bank—considered Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition in the course of loan transactions related to three properties totaling more than $300 million. Ex. 368; Ex. 424; Ex. 419.
165. In particular, in evaluating whether to extend or maintain credit, Deutsche Bank accepted Mr. Trump’s personal guaranty and Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition, and the valuations listed thereon were incorporated into internal bank memoranda. At origination, the truth of Mr. Trump’s representations was a condition precedent to the bank’s obligation to lend. Ex. 420 at DB-NYAG-005911 (Doral); Ex. 421 at DB-NYAG-005025 (Old Post Office); Ex. 422 at DB-NYAG-006020 (Chicago hotel); Ex. 423 at DB-NYAG-005307-08 (Chicago residential). In addition, an “event of default” would occur if “[a]ny representation or warranty of Borrower or Guarantor herein or in any other Loan Document” (including a compliance certificate) “shall prove to have been false or misleading in any material respect at the time made or intended to be effective.” Ex. 420 at DB-NYAG-005916.22
166. Deutsche Bank’s assessments included the values asserted on the Statements of Financial Condition, and then apply that financial institution’s “haircuts”—or percentage reductions in estimated value—for arriving at adjusted net worth values to evaluate whether to extend or maintain credit. See, e.g., Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003054-55.
167. OAG has received evidence that those haircuts are standardized reductions based on the class of asset. Ex. 369 at 76:11-77:10. For instance, the haircut on cash is very small compared to residential or commercial real estate because cash is assumed to be liquid. Ex. 369 at 76:11-77:10, 78:08-17. If the bank is aware of potential restrictions on cash the bank would likely apply a steeper haircut. Ex. 369 at 153:03-156:05.
168. When applying a haircut, the assumption is that the client had accurately stated the asset value. Ex. 369 at 76:11-77:10. The haircut percentages applied during origination are carried forward to subsequent annual reviews. Ex. 369 at 90:19-25.
169. Incorrect or misleading valuations in the statement of financial condition would impact the adjusted net worth reached by the Bank, the risk rating for the loan, and the decision of whether or not to extend financing at all. Ex. 369 at 193:04-25, 200:25-202:09.
170. Internal bank memoranda emphasize the reported financial strength of Mr. Trump as a factor in lending. One loan from Deutsche Bank was issued to Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, an entity in the Trump Organization, and personally guaranteed by Mr. Trump. This loan relates to a property known as the Trump National Doral in Miami, Florida. This loan (initially comprised of one secured tranche and one unsecured tranche) was for a total of $125 million and closed in June 2012. Ex. 420; Ex. 356. An internal bank credit memorandum makes clear that the “Financial Strength of the Guarantor” (referring to Mr. Trump) and his personal guaranty were factors in favor of approving the loan. Ex. 368 at DB-NYAG-001693.
171. Deutsche Bank issued a second such loan (or group of two loans) to 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, an entity in the Trump Organization. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed this loan. The loan was issued in connection with the Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago for up to $107 million. Ex. 249. The loan was comprised of two components: a portion related to the condominium component of that property for up to $62 million, and a portion related to the hotel component of that property for up to $45 million. Ex. 424.
172. The bank’s internal credit memorandum, in recommending approval, noted the “unique nature” of the loans and stated that “the credit exposure is being recommended based on the financial profile of the Guarantor,” who was Mr. Trump. Ex. 424 at DB-NYAG-068526.
173. Deutsche Bank issued a third such loan to Trump Old Post Office LLC, an entity in the Trump Organization.23 Mr. Trump personally guaranteed this loan. The loan was issued in connection with the Trump Organization’s redevelopment of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., and was for up to $170 million. Ex. 421 at DB-NYAG-005055.
174. The internal bank approval memo for this loan stressed the unique nature of the loan and Mr. Trump’s financial profile in recommending approval. Ex. 419. The memo also incorporated figures from Mr. Trump’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 financial statements. Ex. 419.
175. In furtherance of Mr. Trump’s guaranty on the Doral loan, Mr. Trump provided certain prior financial statements (a Statement of Financial Condition), which he represented was “true and correct in all material respects” and “presents fairly Guarantor’s financial condition.”24 Mr. Trump signed that guaranty.25 Mr. Trump also provided a personal guaranty for a $170 million loan in connection with the Trump International Hotel, Washington, DC (“Old Post Office”) property, and similarly provided his Statement of Financial Condition for the year ending June 30, 2013, which he represented was “true and correct in all material respects” and “presents fairly [Mr. Trump’s] financial condition as of June 30, 2013.”26 Personal guaranties signed by Mr. Trump signed concerning the Chicago property reflected similar representations.27
176. Requisite documents in connection with these loans also required Mr. Trump to annually deliver his Statement of Financial Condition for the ensuing years accompanied by a similar certification, which Mr. Trump subsequently provided. For example, in a document dated November 11, 2014, Mr. Trump “hereby certifie[d]” that his Statement of Financial Condition for the year ending June 30, 2014 and other identified documents “presents fairly and accurately in all material respects the financial condition of Guarantor for the period presented.”28
177. Evidence obtained by the OAG establishes that Donald Trump, Jr. personally certified on an annual basis the truth and accuracy of the Statements of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. On some such certifications, Donald Trump, Jr. specified that he was doing so as “attorney in fact” for Donald J. Trump.29
2. Trump misrepresentations to an insurer
178. The Trump Organization also submitted Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition to insurers and its insurance broker, by allowing underwriters to review a copy of the financial statement at the Trump Organization’s offices. One of those entities was Zurich North American (“Zurich”).
179. From 2007 through 2021, Zurich underwrote a surety bond program (the “Program”) for the Trump Organization through insurance broker AON Risk Solutions (“AON”). Under the Program, Zurich issued surety bonds on behalf of the Trump Organization within specified dollar limits in exchange for a premium calculated based on a rate times the face amount of the bonds. Most of the bonds were statutorily required for the Trump Organization’s real estate business, such as liquor license bonds for golf courses or release of lien bonds for construction projects.
180. Over the course of the Program, based on the financial disclosures made by the Trump Organization, Zurich agreed to increasingly more favorable terms—periodically increasing the limits and decreasing the rate. For example, in 2011, the Program had a single bond limit of $500,000, an aggregate limit for all bonds of $2,000,000, and a rate of $20 per thousand. Ex. 435 at ZURICHNA_008481. When the Program was canceled in 2021, the single bond limit was $6,000,000, the aggregate limit was $20,000,000, and the rate was $10 per thousand. Ex. 436 at ZURICHNA_008993.
181. In accordance with its standard underwriting guidelines for surety business, Zurich required the Trump Organization to provide an indemnification against any loss should Zurich be required to pay under a bond. From the inception of the Program, the Trump Organization met this indemnification requirement through a General Indemnity Agreement (“GIA”) executed by Donald J. Trump, pursuant to which (similar to a personal guaranty on a loan) he personally agreed to indemnify Zurich for claims under the Program, and an annual requirement that Mr. Trump disclose to Zurich’s underwriter his personal financial statements. This annual financial disclosure requirement permitted Zurich to ensure that the indemnification from Mr. Trump was sufficient to support the continued renewal of the Program.
182. Indeed, on multiple occasions when AON was unable to secure in a timely manner the required financial disclosure—which took the form of an on-site review of the financial statements in a conference room at the Trump Organization’s offices—Zurich put the Program into “cut-off” status, which means Zurich ceased writing new bonds and would cancel existing bonds on expiration, until Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements were made available for review. Ex. 437 at ZURICHNA_008345.
183. The indemnity was such a critical aspect of the Program, that in early January 2017, with Mr. Trump’s inauguration fast approaching, Zurich insisted as a condition to renewing the Program that the indemnification be modified to address the potential difficulty Zurich might have in seeking to enforce the GIA against a sitting president. After some negotiation, during which the Trump Organization’s lawyers sought to persuade Zurich that there was no legal impediment to suing a sitting president, Zurich and the Trump Organization agreed to resolve the issue by adding DJT Holdings LLC as an additional indemnitor on the GIA effective January 17, 2017. Ex. 438 at ZURICHNA_008573; Ex. 439 at ZURICHNA_008276; Ex. 367 at 179:15:02-180:10.
184. Evidence indicates that the Trump Organization obtained Zurich’s approval to renew the Program on at least two occasions through intentional misrepresentations concerning Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements. During the on-site review of Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition that occurred on November 20, 2018 for the 2019 renewal, Zurich’s underwriter was shown the June 30, 2018 Statement. The Statement listed as assets the Trump Organization’s real estate holdings with valuations that CFO Allen Weisselberg represented to Zurich’s underwriter were determined each year by a professional appraisal firm “such as Cushman & Wakefield” “using cap rates and net operating income as factors.” Ex. 440 at ZURICHNA_008507.
185. Zurich’s underwriter considered the valuations to be reliable based on Weisselberg’s representation that they were prepared by a professional appraisal firm. Also, based on her interactions with Weisselberg during the review, Zurich’s underwriter found him to be “highly professional, well educated, and conscientious about” his work. Ex. 440 at ZURICHNA_ 008511. Weisselberg’s representations about how the valuations were determined and the underwriter’s impressions of Weisselberg factored favorably into her analysis leading to her recommendation that Zurich renew the Program for 2019 on the existing terms, which it did.
186. During the on-site review for the next renewal, the Trump Organization disclosed to Zurich’s underwriter Mr. Trump’s June 30, 2019 financial statement. Weisselberg again represented to Zurich’s underwriter that the valuations for the real estate holdings listed in the statements were appraised annually by a professional appraisal firm. He noted more specifically that the appraisals for the current statements were performed by Newmark Group and had previously been prepared by Cushman, explaining that “[t]he reason for the change is the individual at Cushman & Wakefield with whom [the Trump Organization] had a longstanding relationship with moved to work at Newmark.” Ex. 441 at ZURICHNA_009000.30
187. Again, Zurich’s underwriter considered the valuations to be reliable based on Weisselberg’s representation that they were prepared by the professional appraisal firm Newmark Group, and specifically by the same individual (Larson) who had historically determined the previous valuations when he was an employee of Cushman & Wakefield. She again assessed Weisselberg to be “highly professional, well educated, and conscientious about the operations” of the Trump Organization. Ex. 441 at ZURICHNA_009004. Her impressions of Weisselberg and the representation that Newmark prepared the valuations all factored favorably into her analysis leading to her recommendation that Zurich renew the Program in 2020 on the existing terms, which it did.
188. Weisselberg’s representations to Zurich’s underwriter that the valuations listed in Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements were prepared annually by professional appraisal firms were false. With respect to nearly all valuations, the Trump Organization did not retain Cushman & Wakefield, Newmark Group, or any other professional appraisal firm to prepare the valuations of the Trump Organization’s real estate holdings that appeared in Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements shown to Zurich’s underwriter. Rather, the valuations were prepared by Trump Organization staff, contrary to what Zurich’s underwriter was expressly told and believed.
189. Had Zurich’s underwriter been advised that the valuations listed on the personal financial statements she reviewed during her on-site visits had been determined by Trump Organization staff and not a professional appraisal firm, she would have accorded them less weight and it would have negatively impacted her underwriting analysis. Moreover, had Zurich’s underwriter discovered during the renewal process that Weisselberg had misrepresented to her how the valuations were prepared, it would have caused her to doubt the veracity of the rest of the information disclosed by the Trump Organization during the renewal and would have called into serious question whether Zurich should continue its insurance relationship with the Trump Organization, or renew on terms less favorable to the Trump Organization.
190. The Trump Organization also failed to disclose that the valuation for the golf courses listed on Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements, which was approximately $2.2 billion in the June 30, 2019 statement, Ex. 442 at ZURICHNA_008287, included a substantial brand premium baked into the reported valuations. See supra ¶¶ 80 - 98. Under Zurich’s underwriting guidelines, intangible assets such as brand value are to be excluded. Had Weisselberg disclosed to Zurich’s underwriter that the valuation listed for golf clubs included the Trump brand value, she would have been required under the guidelines to reduce that valuation to exclude the amount added for brand value.
II. The Misleading Appraisals Trump Submitted to the Internal Revenue Service
A. Trump National Golf Club – Los Angeles.
191. On December 26, 2014, two Trump Organization subsidiaries donated a conservation easement over land used as a driving range on the Trump National Golf Course – Los Angeles (“Trump Golf LA”) property. The donation meant foregoing the right to build 16 residential lots in the driving range’s location but did not preclude the Trump Organization from continuing to use the site as a driving range. In a process quarterbacked by Mr. Trump’s tax counsel, Sheri Dillon, two Cushman appraisers found that the development value donated was $25 million dollars. Mr. Trump submitted this valuation to the Internal Revenue Service to obtain a tax benefit.
192. The appraisal substantially overstated the value of the Trump Golf LA donation by overstating the speed with which the site could be developed and failing to value a reduction in affordable housing requirements that the donation enabled. The Cushman appraisers made these misstatements in an atmosphere of pressure applied to them by the Trump Organization— which one appraiser said was “fighting for every $1”—and Ms. Dillon.
1. Trump Golf LA’s misstated development timeline
193. Trump Golf LA was originally known as Ocean Trails Golf Club. Construction on the course started in 1997 and by June 1999, the golf course was almost complete—until a landslide dropped 300 yards of the 18th hole fairway into the Pacific Ocean. The landslide also caused most of the 18th hole to slide 50 feet toward the ocean, including the fairway and green. Development on the property ceased after the landslide and the Ocean Trails Golf Course construction project went into bankruptcy. VH Property Corp., a Trump Organization subsidiary, acquired the property out of bankruptcy in November 2002 for a reported price of $27 million.
194. Given the site’s instability, the landslide, and the site’s proximity to the Pacific Coast, the Trump Organization needed approval from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to develop the site. The Trump Organization’s geologist worked with a Rancho Palos Verdes geologist to develop a geologic model and reach an understanding of any improvements necessary before the site could be further developed. Ex. 443, at MLB_EM00004563. This presented a particular hurdle for 16 planned lots on the driving range and putting green: In June 2011, the Trump Organization’s geologist produced a report stating that 104 “shear pins,” stabilizing implements drilled into the ground to provide engineering stability, would be required to develop the lots safely.
195. Instead of developing the lots, the Trump Organization began to consider another option: donating a conservation easement over the 16 proposed lots that would allow it to continue to use the area as a driving range and putting green.
196. The Trump Organization’s outside counsel Sheri Dillon engaged an engineer and Cushman appraisers, Richard Zbranek and Brian Curry, to evaluate the value of a potential easement on Trump Golf LA. The Cushman appraisers would provide “initial valuation conclusions” for 16 lots on the Trump Golf LA driving range. This initial evaluation would not involve a formal written report or assess value enhancement for the full Trump-owned parcel. If this valuation met with the Trump Organization’s approval, the appraisers would then move on to provide a valuation suitable for income tax purposes. Ex. 444 at MLB_EM00005568.
197. The Trump Organization, through Bingham McCutchen LLP (Ms. Dillon’s law firm at the time), conveyed to the appraisers that it believed the lots might be worth $40 or $50 million. Ex. 445.
198. In December 2012, Cushman, relying on costs and other information prepared by an engineer (also retained by Dillon and Bingham), reached a preliminary value conclusion for the development potential of the lots of $17,725,000. Ex. 571 at MLB_EM00014024; Ex. 447 at MLB_EM00014028. As Mr. Curry described it to Mr. Zbranek, “They did paper napkin analysis and suggested 40 to 50 million dollars. I sent them my analyses, we walked through the whole thing, and they couldn’t argue with it. More like. ‘Oh’.” Ex. 445 at C&W_0079159.
199. After this valuation, the Trump Organization put the conservation easement project on hold and did not pursue it further in 2012 or 2013. Despite receiving a valuation of sixteen lots at $17,725,000 (or roughly $1.1 million per lot after accounting for development time), Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition for 2012 and 2013 valued unsold lots at the Trump Golf LA property at $4.5 million per lot and $2.5 to $4.5 million per lot. See Ex. 13 at row 471-477.
200. In August 2014, Ms. Dillon contacted the appraisers again. MLB_EM00014026. On September 8, 2014, Dillon’s law firm, Vinson & Elkins LLP, retained the appraisers to provide “a prospective market value estimate of the estimated value of 16 proposed lots, i.e., the development rights, on the driving range site of TNGC, as of December 15, 2014.” Ex. 448.
201. The engineer retained to provide hypothetical maps and cost estimates that Cushman would use to value the site sought estimates to build the shear pins, and also evaluated another hypothetical plan that would involve reconfiguring the Site. He estimated that approval of the final drawings, as required under the current approvals, would require a year, and that the necessary shear pins would cost about $1.5 million.
202. Alternatively, the Trump Organization could reconfigure the layout of the entitled map to yield the same number of lots without constructing the shear pins. This reconfiguration “would take at least 2-3 years to obtain the necessary planning approvals from the City and Coastal and about one year to obtain final engineering approval.” The planning and engineering cost would be about $2.5 million. Ex. 449 at MLB_EM00014148.
203. Higher development costs would decrease the imputed value of any easement donation. As Cushman appraiser Brian Curry explained in forwarding this email to Trump Organization attorney Ms. Dillon, writing, “Sheri. FYI. Higher costs of development decrease the value of the property.” Ex. 449 at MLB_EM00014148.
204. On September 29, 2014, the engineer provided preliminary cost estimates for the plan that involved reconfiguring the lots without shear pins. In forwarding the estimates to Cushman appraiser Mr. Curry and Trump Organization attorney Ms. Dillon, the engineer reiterated the need for further approvals for the new plan. Ex. 446 at MLB_EM00014214. Later that day, Mr. Curry provided Ms. Dillon with a value for the sixteen lots. Calculating that value in two ways—“lot sales” and “home construction”—Mr. Curry reached valuations of $27,991,535 and $25,461,652, respectively. Ex. 450 at MLB_EM00014195, -204, -205.
205. On or about October 8, 2014, Ms. Dillon and Mr. Curry had a conference call with Mr. Trump to discuss the valuation of the lots. On the call, Mr. Trump claimed that the 16 lots should be valued higher than previously sold lots in the Trump Golf LA project because they were in a “more prestigious” zip code and could thus command a “‘zip code’ premium.” Mr. Curry asked Ms. Dillon to confirm whether the lots were in a different zip code. Trump Organization in-house counsel concluded they were not. Ex. 451 at VE_00001662, -63.
206. On October 14, 2014, Ms. Dillon wrote to Mr. Curry that “we are now getting closer to year end so I would like to see where the estimates are so a final decision can be made.” Mr. Curry wrote back on October 16, 2014 with an increased estimate, reaching a value of “around $27 to $28MM for the driving range property.” Mr. Curry asked Ms. Dillon to “Let us know where we go from here”—adding a smiley-face emoticon. Ex. 452 at MLB_EM00014210.
207. In early November 2014, the Trump Organization engaged Mr. Curry and Mr. Zbranek for an appraisal to “document the value of a conservation easement placed over a parcel of land located on the Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles for Federal and State income tax purposes.” Ex. 453.
208. As the project neared the end of the tax year, Mr. Curry warned Ms. Dillon that his previous estimates may have been too high, writing on December 5, 2014, “I would like to go over the numbers, which may not be as favorable as expected due to recent Trump lot sales, and then coordinate a delivery of the ‘draft.’” Ms. Dillon replied, “I definitely would like to see the numbers first and am hopeful they don’t dramatically vary from the prior range.” C&W_0066474. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Curry provided a preliminary valuation of $20.5 million. Ex. 455; Ex. 456.
209. After providing this conclusion (reduced from his initial estimates), Mr. Curry learned that the engineer might increase his cost estimates. The engineer explained that a contractor providing an estimate for the cost of the stabilizing shear pins had said the engineer’s estimates could be too low. Ex. 457 at C&W_0079824.
210. Mr. Curry forwarded this email to Ms. Dillon who asked if there was “something wrong with the initial cost estimates.” Mr. Curry explained that the engineer had “underestimated.” Ex. 458 at C&W_0066566, -67. Mr. Curry explained that this cost increase would make him reconsider the lot arrangement he would choose to value. Ex. 459 at C&W_0066569, at -69.
211. On December 10, 2014, the engineer provided a final cost budget to Mr. Curry that reflected his updated view of the cost of shear pins to stabilize the Trump Golf LA site. The budget included $40,000 for shear pin design, $10,000 for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to review the shear pin plans, and $2,376,500 for installation of 99 shear pins. Ex. 460 at C&W_0079836, -37, -38. As the engineer had predicted to Mr. Curry, his estimates had risen-- substantially.
212. The estimates and final appraisal generated by the Cushman appraisers after this date did not reflect the engineer’s updated estimates, which would have decreased the value of the conservation easement. Rather, Cushman’s estimates continuously rose: indeed, value estimates rose from $20.5 on December 8, to $22.1 million on December 11, and finally to $25 million on December 12. Ex. 461 at 182:17-184:07, 188:21-190:18; Ex. 462 at MLB_EM00014577 (value conclusion of $22.1 million while noting “the engineer increased development costs by $1.25MM”); Ex. 463 at VE_00010729 (value conclusion of $25 million); Ex. 464 at C&W_0066803 (using costs of $8,086,050).31 In short, despite the engineer’s increased costs, the appraisers increased their valuation by an average of more than a million dollars a day from December 8 and December 12, 2014.
213. The final appraisal report made clear that it relied on the engineer’s estimates for the development timeline and cost estimates. The appraisal states, “According to the engineer, the planning and approvals could be completed in 1.5 years.” Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005409, at -501. It further states, “Land development costs were prepared and provided by the development engineer….The appraisers relied upon the cost budgets which were deemed reliable and assumed true and correct.” Ex. 460 at MLB_EM-00005419.
214. But instead of using the engineer’s final costs and estimates, the appraisal incorporated the preliminary cost budgets that the engineer had prepared in September 2014. These cost budgets did not include any provision for shear pins. Ex. 465 at VE_00010369-376. Rather, they were the estimates the engineer had said “would take at least 2-3 years to obtain the necessary planning approvals from the City and Coastal and about one year to obtain final engineering approval”—i.e., that planning and approvals would take at least three to four years, not 1.5 years. Ex. 449 at MLB_EM00014148.
215. By using the “1.5 year” timeline the appraisal misattributes to the engineer— shortening the timeline by at least one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half years—the Trump Golf LA appraisal significantly overstates the development value of the 16 lots. The reason, in colloquial terms, is that development revenue in the appraisal is worth much less for each year into the future in which it occurs. In particular, the appraisal assumes discount rates of 15% to 18%, meaning that a dollar received one year later is worth only 85 or 82 cents, and a dollar received two years later is worth only $.7225 or $0.6724, and so on. Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005409, - 5523. Thus, under the appraisal’s methodology, revenue earned (for example) in year 3 would be worth much less than revenue earned in year 1. Conversely, moving revenue to earlier years considerably increased estimated value. And, because the appraisal assumes that the 16 lots will sell for an average of $5,000,000 each (-5524), bringing forward the revenue from the sale of these lots by even a year and a half would increase the appraised value by millions of dollars.
216. The engineer testified to OAG that he never changed his estimate for the timeline. He further testified that he never intended the preliminary cost budgets or the maps they included to be integrated into the appraisal. Ex. 467 at 124:14-125:13. Instead, the engineer had prepared the December cost estimates, which reflected a different layout—and which budgeted over $2.4 for the design and construction of stabilizing shear pins—for use in the appraisal. Ex. 460 at C&W_0079836, -37, -38.
217. When asked to explain why he did not use the engineer’s most current estimates, the appraiser did not have any record of his reasoning. Ex. 461 at 182:17-184:07, 188:21-190:18; 193:13-195:14. Moreover, when asked about the apparent contradiction between the engineer’s timeline and the timeline stated in the appraisal, Mr. Curry admitted that, despite attributing the appraisal’s timeline to the engineer, he had come up with it himself:
Ex. 461 at 191:21-192:7.
2. Omitted reduction in affordable housing requirements
218. As a result of a settlement between the Trump Organization and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes over approvals for the Trump Golf LA development, the Trump Organization had agreed to build four affordable housing units offsite. However, the Trump Organization believed that, as a result of the Trump Golf LA easement donation, these requirements would be set aside. As Jill Martin, Trump Organization Assistant General Counsel, explained the requirement to Cushman appraiser Mr. Curry: the units “have not been buil[t] and ultimately may not need to be. The number of units is all dependent on the number of housing units built on the property. With our changes to the plan and elimination of several houses, I am optimistic that this requirement will go by the wayside.” Ex. 468 at VE_00001705; Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005452.
219. Martin further explained that “the affordable housing component is based on the number of houses built on the property- thus by eliminating some of the lots due to the easement, we are hopeful for elimination or a reduction of the requirement.” Ex. 469 at VE_00010655.
220. The Internal Revenue Service requires that an appraisal incorporate any enhancement a conservation easement donation provides to the value of other property held by the donor. If the appraisal were to accurately represent the value after the donation, it should have reflected the Trump Organization’s expectation that placement of the easement would reduce or eliminate the offsite affordable housing requirements—a significant cost to the Organization that Ms. Martin thought would be eliminated by the conservation easement donation.
221. Rather than account for the reduction in required affordable housing which Jill Martin thought would occur and was reflected in city resolutions, Mr. Curry told Trump Organization outside counsel Ms. Dillon, “Hi Sheri. I am going to add an ‘allowance’ in the cash flows for offsite affordable housing. As it will be in all of the cash flows it will not affect the bottom line,” adding a smiley-face emoticon. Ms. Dillon thanked Mr. Curry. Ex. 470 at C&W_0067736.
222. The Trump Golf LA appraisal includes a $1 million allowance for affordable housing. As Mr. Curry and Ms. Dillon discussed, it was included in both the “Before” and “After” scenarios, so the offsite affordable-housing requirement did not affect the valuation the Cushman appraisers reached. Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005500.
223. Consistent with the understanding reflected in the document Jill Martin received from Ranchos Palos Verdes that California Government Code Section 65590 required 10% affordable housing, when the Trump Organization received approval to add a driving range and reduce the total number of residential lots by 16, the City reduced the number of offsite affordable units required from 4 to 2. Ex. 471 at 5.
224. The Trump Organization thus obtained a benefit by donating the Trump Golf LA conservation easement that Mr. Curry chose not to recognize in the appraisal. This decision was not justified; the appraisal is misleading because it fails to disclose the likely reduction in affordable housing.
5. Trump Park Avenue
114. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition include a property called “Trump Park Avenue.” See, e.g., Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000034, 42-43. Trump Park Avenue is reflected on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition for the years 2011 through 2020. Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000037, -42-43; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006311, 6316-17; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000037, 0042-43; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000717, 722- 23; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-0000691, 96-97; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001983, 1988-89; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001842, 47-48; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00002725, 30-31; Ex. 317 at MAZARS-NYAG-00161790, 95-96; Ex. 318 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00162248, 58. In these years, the property was reported as representing between $135 and $350 million of Mr. Trump’s total assets. Id. Evidence obtained by the Attorney General establishes that unsold residential condominium units represented the lion’s share of reported value (in excess of 95% in some years). On the 2011 Statement of Financial Condition, the reported value of the asset was $311,600,000, with unsold residential units comprising $293,122,750 of that value. Ex. 320 at G163-178.
115. Evidence obtained by OAG indicates both that the reported values of the unsold residential units of the Trump Park Avenue building and representations regarding those values were inaccurate or misleading.
116. The earliest outside valuation of the property identified by OAG consists of an appraisal performed in 2010 by the Oxford Group in connection with a $23 million loan from Investors Bank. As the appraisal identified, the collateral consisted of twenty-three residential units (twelve of which were rent stabilized), two commercial spaces, and six storage spaces. Ex. 376 at TTO_233905; Ex. 377 at TTO_234022. The appraisal valued the collateral at $72.5 million. Ex. 376 at TTO_233905. Approximately $55.1 million of that was derived from the residential and storage units. Ex. 377 at TTO_234055-56.89 The appraisal valued twelve rentstabilized units at $750,000 total, noting that the rent-stabilized units “cannot be marketed as individual units” because the “current tenants cannot be forced to leave.” Ex. 377 at TTO_234022.
117. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition in 2010, 2011, and 2012 valued the unsold residential units in Trump Park Avenue at more than $292 million, or roughly six times the 2010 appraised value attributable to the residential and storage units. Ex. 320 at H163- 178; Ex. 320 at G163; Ex. 321 at H166.
118. Evidence indicates that the Trump Organization routinely prepared estimates of current market value for unsold residential units at Trump Park Avenue that conflicted with the much higher values reported on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition and failed to account for rent-stabilized units that could not be marketed.
119. In the Statements of Financial Condition for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (the last of which was finalized in March 2016), the Trump Organization used offering plan10 or selling prices to value unsold residential condominium units at Trump Park Avenue— not estimates of current market value. See Ex. 379 at TTO_009309; Ex. 380 at MAZARSNYAG- 00003290; Ex. 381 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003476; Ex. 382 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000184; Ex. 383 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000445; Ex. 384 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000846; see also, Ex. 352 at 398:15-399:15; 400:12-403:09.
120. But the Trump Organization maintained its own internal estimates of current market value that were considerably lower than the values employed for Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition. Evidence indicates that, as far back as 2012 (and perhaps earlier),11 the Trump Organization’s in-house real estate brokerage (Trump International Realty) prepared Sponsor Unit Inventory Valuation spreadsheets reflecting both offering plan prices and current market values that included unsold units at Trump Park Avenue. Ex. 385 (2012); Ex. 386 (2013); Ex. 387 (2014). These spreadsheets reflected market valuation information for multiple Trump Organization condominium buildings.
121. Evidence indicates that Trump Organization employees used these sponsor unit valuation spreadsheets—reflecting internal estimates of market value and offering plan prices— for day-to-day operations and business planning, but used offering plan prices rather than the company’s actual estimates of current market value when reporting the current market value of those units for Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition. Compare Ex. 381 at MAZARSNYAG- 3476 with Ex. 385 at TTO_01226369 Column C; Ex. 382 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000184] with Ex. 386 at Column F; Ex. 383 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000445 with Ex. 387 at Column F.
122. The results were considerable differentials in reported value as shown in the following chart:
Year / Total Offering Plan Price used for Statement of Financial Condition / Total Current Market Value Prepared by Trump / Difference in Value / Source
2012 / $293,122,750 / $236,425,000 / $56,697,750 / Ex. 385 at TTO_01226369
2013 / $326,854,500 / $285,795,000 / $41,059,000 / Ex. 386 TTO_010644
2014 / $326,854,500 / $246,265,000 / $80,589,500 / Ex. 387 at TTO_010663
123. The figures in the above charts, both offering plan prices and current market value prices, do not include any reductions to account for reduced marketability due to rent stabilization. If they had, information available to the Trump Organization indicates that the valuation of Trump Park Avenue would have significantly decreased. For instance, from 2010- 2012 the twelve rent stabilized units were valued collectively at $49,596,000—a rate 98.5 percent higher than the $750,000 valuation for those units in the 2010 appraisal, which valued them based on their rent-stabilized status. Ex. 377 at TTO_234022; Ex. 379 at TTO_009309; Ex. 380 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003290; Ex. 381 at MAZARS-NYAG-3476.
124. Valuations in future years also ignored the impact of rent stabilization on units owned by Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization. Unit 15A was rent stabilized and the subject of litigation in which the Trump Organization intervened.12 Yet the Trump Organization’s internal sponsor unit valuation merely computed the value of that unit based on a price per square foot figure and the unit’s square footage—without any consideration of the unit’s rent-stabilized status. See Ex. 352 at 405:10-406:19; Ex. 389; Ex. 390; Ex. 391.
125. The Trump Organization’s own conduct beginning in late 2016 or early 2017 reflects an understanding that reporting offering plan prices as the estimated current values of unsold Trump Park Avenue units—rather than its own, lower assessment of these units’ actual current market values—was incorrect and misleading. Beginning with the June 30, 2016 Statement of Financial Condition—finalized in March 2017—the Trump Organization changed its practice and began reporting its current market value estimates for purposes of that financial statement.13 Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001982; Ex. 392 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001433; Ex. 326 at H182.
126. Apart from those discrepancies, statements on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition reflecting the manner in which those valuations were reached appear to be inaccurate and misleading. In particular, the Statements of Financial Condition from at least 2011 through 2019 reflect, in sum and substance, that the reported values were “based upon an evaluation made by Mr. Trump in conjunction with his associates and outside professionals,”14 thereby leading the reader to believe that the manner of valuation included consultation with outside professionals. Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003140; see also Ex. 310 at MAZARSNYAG- 00006317; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000043; Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000724; Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-0000697; Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001989; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001848; Ex. 316 at MAZARS-NYAG-00002731; Ex. 317 at MAZARS-NYAG-00161796.
127. Despite review of considerable evidence, including backup material provided to the Mazars accounting firm, OAG has been unable to identify any evidence indicating that any consultation with any outside professional occurred in connection with reporting the value of unsold residential condominium units at Trump Park Avenue for the Statement of Financial Condition in those years.
128. In 2020, Jeffrey McConney was questioned about various references to “outside professionals” on the Statements of Financial Condition. Ex. 337 at 272:22-273:13 (reference to outside professionals regarding Seven Springs); 277:25-279:10 (same); 320:05-321:12 (club facilities); Ex. 388 at 772:19-776:21 (Niketown).
129. After Mr. McConney testified, the 2020 Statement of Financial Condition was issued. That Statement of Financial Condition, unlike those that came before it for many years, omitted any contention that any specific valuation was reached in consultation with any outside professional. Instead, the 2020 Statement references outside professionals as one factor that may have been included or “applicable” in preparing various unidentified valuations reflected on the statement. Ex. 318 at MAZARS-NYAG-00162251.
130. That abrupt removal of specific references to outside-professional consultation appears, among other things, to acknowledge that references to such professionals in prior years was inaccurate and misleading.
131. Evidence obtained by the Attorney General indicates that Ivanka Trump resided in two penthouse apartments in the Trump Park Avenue building and that Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition reported values for one of those units much higher than the price at which Ivanka Trump had obtained an option to purchase.
132. Ivanka Trump rented a penthouse unit in Trump Park Avenue starting in 2011. Ex. 380 at MAZARS-NYAG-00003293. Ms. Trump’s rental agreement included an option to purchase the unit for $8,500,000. Ex. 394. For the 2011 and 2012 Statements of Financial Condition, this unit was valued at $20,820,000—approximately two and a half times as much as the option price, with no disclosure of the existence of the option. Ex. 380 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00003292; Ex. 381 at MAZARS-NYAG-3476. For the 2013 Statement of Financial Condition, the unit was valued at $25,000,000—more than three times the option price, again, with no disclosure of the existence of the option. Ex. 382 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000184.
133. The Trump Organization’s own conduct acknowledges that reporting an offering plan price for a unit—instead of the price at which the Trump Organization already had agreed to sell the unit to Ms. Trump—was incorrect and misleading. In particular, in October 2015 Ivanka Trump acquired an option to purchase a different, larger penthouse unit at Trump Park Avenue for $14,264,000. Ex. 395 at TTO_02226839.
134. After Ms. Trump acquired that option to purchase, the backup to the Statement of Financial Condition for Trump Park Avenue in 2015 used a value of $14,264,000 instead of the offering plan price of $45,000,000 that had been used in 2014. See Ex. 385 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000846; Ex. 383 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000445.
6. Liquidity
135. As a general matter, when a financial statement reports “cash,” it is referring to an amount of liquid currency or demand deposits. See Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), Master Glossary - Cash. Similarly, when a financial statement reports “cash equivalents,” it is reporting “short-term, highly liquid investments” that both can be “readily converted to known amounts of cash” and is “so near their maturity that they present insignificant risk of changes in value because of changes in interest rates.” See FASB, Master Glossary – Cash Equivalents. When a financial statement refers to “marketable securities,” it refers to debt or equity securities for which market quotations are available, and such assets are valued at “their quoted market prices.” See, e.g., FASB, Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 274-10-35-5.15
136. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition for several years reported cash amounts in partnership entities Mr. Trump did not control as Mr. Trump’s own liquidity. In some years these restricted funds accounted for almost one-third of all the cash reported by Mr. Trump (for example $24 million of the total $76 million in cash reported for 2018). For the sake of simplicity, these entities will be referred to here as the Vornado partnership entities.
137. The Vornado partnership entities are entities through which Mr. Trump has a thirty-percent limited partnership stake in certain partnership entities that own 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York, NY and 555 California Street in San Francisco, CA. Vornado Realty Trust (“Vornado”), in which Mr. Trump has no ownership interest, holds the other seventypercent stake in the Vornado partnership entities and functions as the General Partner.
138. Under the pertinent partnership agreements, the General Partner has “full control over the management, operation and activities of, and dealings with, the Partnership Assets and the Partnership’s properties, business and affairs,” and “the Limited Partners shall not take part in the management of the business or affairs of the Partnership or control the Partnership business.” E.g., Ex. 396 at TTO_02545363.16 Moreover, “[t]he Limited Partners may under no circumstances sign for or bind the Partnership.” Id. The partnership agreements provide for cash distributions in an amount, if any, that is “determined by the General Partner in its sole discretion.” Id. at -338-339.
139. Internal Trump Organization records reflect an understanding that cash residing in the Vornado partnership entities could be distributed at Vornado’s discretion only.17 The Trump Organization maintained internal spreadsheets reflecting its own cash position and cash flow. One cash flow spreadsheet states, with respect to the Vornado partnerships: “Although there could be operating profits, distributions are at the discretion of Vornado at a rate of 30% to Trump. At this point we do not have all of the data that goes into Vornado’s decision making, thus we are attributing no distribution for these properties.” Ex. 397 (tab that says “Notes”). Similarly, spreadsheet documents with “cash position” in their filename include cash in a range of Trump Organization entities—but not cash in the Vornado partnership entities. See, e.g., Ex. 398 (email with attached document named “121517 Cash Position.xls”).
140. Contrary to what is reflected in these internal records (which are consistent with the terms of the governing trust documents), Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition from at least 2013 through 2020 included cash in the Vornado partnership entities as Mr. Trump’s “cash and marketable securities” or similarly identified liquid asset, often comprising a considerable portion of Mr. Trump’s reported liquidity.18
141. For example, the June 30, 2016 Statement of Financial Condition reported $114.4 million in cash, marketable securities, and hedge funds. Ex. 400. Approximately $19.6 million (17.6%) of that figure appears to have been derived from cash in or associated with the Vornado entities. Ex. 400. The June 30, 2018 Statement of Financial Condition reported $76.2 million in cash and cash equivalents. Ex. 401. Approximately $24.4 million (32%) of that figure apparently was derived from cash in or associated with the Vornado entities. Ex. 401. See also Ex. 402 (in 2019, $24.65 million out of $87 million); Ex. 403 (in 2020, $28.25 million out of $92.7 million).
7. 40 Wall Street
142. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition refer to a property identified as “40 Wall Street,” an office building located on Wall Street in New York, NY. The Trump Organization owns a “ground lease” pertaining to the property; in other words, it holds a leasehold interest in the land and buildings on the land, but pays rent (known as ground rent) to the fee owner. By the terms of the ground lease, the rent on 40 Wall Street would gradually increase over a series of years, with a reset in 2032 based on the overall value of the building. Ex. 388 at 612:16-23, 613:16-19; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000041-42.
143. For several years, the supporting data for Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition reported a valuation for 40 Wall Street that was calculated using the “income capitalization approach,” a method for estimating the value of real property based on the net operating income the property generates. Under the valuation method used by the Trump Organization, a property’s net operating income is divided by a capitalization rate to arrive at an estimate of market value.19
144. Net operating income is typically defined as “[t]he actual or anticipated net income that remains after all operating expenses are deducted from the effective gross income but before mortgage debt service and book depreciation are deducted.” Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 158 (6th ed. 2015).
145. OAG has obtained evidence raising questions regarding the true value of the Trump Organization’s leasehold interest in 40 Wall Street as reported on Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition.
146. For example, evidence obtained by OAG suggests that Capital One (which held a $160 million mortgage on the property at the time) raised substantial concerns about cash flow at the property in approximately August and September 2009, leading to in-person meetings with Mr. Trump, Mr. Weisselberg, and others. See, e.g., Ex. 404 at CAPITALONE-00348244 (notes from August 2009 meeting); Ex. 405 at CAPITALONE-00348333 (notes from September 2009 meeting).
147. Those discussions led to a loan modification executed in 2010 attaching the Trump Organization’s own 2010 budget for the property. Ex. 406 at CAPITALONE-00349593- 96. That budget reflected a net operating income (described in the budget as “cash flow before debt service”) of $12.3 million, see Ex. 406 at CAPITALONE-00349595; a figure bank personnel described as “very optimistic.” Ex. 407 at CAPITALONE-00348988.
148. Other materials indicate the Trump Organization’s own budget as submitted to Capital One for 40 Wall Street for 2011 projected a net operating income of just over $4.4 million. Ex. 408 at CAPITALONE-00350719, -23 (figure results from starting with $25,183,244 in “total income accounts” and subtracting “total expense accounts” figure of $20,722,238; debt service and depreciation are not listed in such expenses).
149. In connection with the 2010 Capital One loan modification, an appraisal was performed by Cushman & Wakefield valuing the Trump Organization’s interest at $200 million as of August 1, 2010. Ex. 409 at CAPITALONE-00350131. Similar appraisals were performed in 2011 and 2012 reaching a similar valuation conclusion. Ex. 410; Ex. 411. In the 2012 appraisal, in addition to reaching a valuation of $220 million as of November 1, 2012, the appraisers also calculated a valuation “upon stabilized occupancy” as of November 1, 2015 at $260 million. Ex. 411 at TTO_220765. A key component of the 2012 appraisal and in valuing the Trump Organization’s interest in the building was the reset value of the ground lease in 2032. The 2012 appraisal reached a conclusion that the ground lease rent (a Trump Organization expense) would reset from $2.8 million a year to more than $15.5 million a year beginning on January 1, 2033. Ex. 411 at TTO_220826-846.
150. A copy of the 2012 appraisal was contained in the files of the Trump Organization.
151. Mr. Weisselberg testified that he recalled having an appraisal of 40 Wall Street from approximately 2011 or 2012 that valued the property in the $200 million range, but he determined the property was worth a different amount and listed that amount on the Statement of Financial Condition. Ex. 357 at 134:25-138:02.
152. During the same period, Mr. Trump presented a value for 40 Wall Street on his Statements of Financial Condition of $601.8 million in 2010, $524.7 million in 2011, $527.2 million in 2012, and $530.7 million in 2013.20 Ex 308 at 3, 7; Ex. 309 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00003134, -3139; Ex. 310 at MAZARS-NYAG-00006311, -6316; Ex. 311 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00000037, -41-42. These values are between two and three times the value recorded in the three consecutive appraisals noted above. They rested, in part, on the use of figures for net operating income that differed markedly from the Trump Organization’s own contemporaneous budgets which also were known to Mr. McConney or Mr. Weisselberg.21
153. An exchange between the Trump Organization and Capital One in 2015 establishes that Capital One harbored great skepticism regarding the Trump Organization’s valuations. In 2014 the Trump Organization valued 40 Wall Street at $550 million. Ex. 312 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000714, -717. Mr. Weisselberg then brought that valuation to Capital One on January 12, 2015 in an effort to restructure the loan on the building and avoid a principal payment of $5 million due in November 2015. Ex. 413 at TTO_123039, -40. Touting his own assertion of a favorable loan to value ratio of 30%, Mr. Weisselberg wrote to Capital One:
This investment along with a very successful rental program has turned the Trump Building at 40 Wall St. into one of the great success stories post 2008. Mr. Trump's latest financial statement dated June 30, 2014 shows a valuation of $550,000,000 for the building based upon NOI & CaP rates on that date. This would put your loan at a 30% loan to value.
In light of the aforementioned valuation and considerable capital investment, along with a much improved cash flow (which will continue to grow as new tenant free rent continues to burn off) and an occupancy rate of 91%, which will be 96% after pending leases totaling 34,862 square feet are signed, we respectfully request that the required $5 million principal payment due in November 2015 be waived.
We look forward to a favorable response from Capital One Bank.
Very truly yours,
[Signature]
Allen Weisselberg
EVP/CFO
Ex. 413 at TTO_123040.
154. Capital One had performed its own internal valuation analysis as of October 31, 2014, however, which reached a starkly different conclusion. That analysis valued 40 Wall Street at $257 million and estimated a much less favorable loan to value ratio of 62%. Ex. 414 at CAPITALONE-06262020-00000170.
155. Based on its valuation and analysis, Capital One declined to restructure the loan. Ex. 413 at TTO_123039.
156. Rebuffed by Capital One, Mr. Weisselberg then began working with his son, Jack Weisselberg, a Director at Ladder Capital Finance LLC, in an effort to arrange financing on more favorable terms using the valuation of 40 Wall Street from the 2014 Statement of Financial Condition. Ladder Capital reached out to Cushman & Wakefield about preparing an appraisal for 40 Wall Street. Ex. 415.
157. Cushman had prepared the 2012 appraisal valuing the property at $220 million and the same team prepared the 2015 appraisal for Ladder Capital. Compare Ex. 411 at TTO_220760 with Ex. 416 at C&W_0009325. But the 2015 appraisal more than doubled the valuation of the building to $540 million.
158. Evidence obtained by OAG suggests that the Cushman & Wakefield valuation in the 2015 appraisal did not reflect a good faith assessment of value. The appraisal appears to have used demonstrably incorrect facts and aggressive assumptions to arrive at this much higher value.
159. Still, even this increased valuation for 40 Wall Street was not sufficient for purposes of Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition for the year ending June 30, 2015 (also prepared at least in consultation with Mr. Weisselberg). That Statement tacked nearly $200 million in additional value onto the 2015 appraised value of the property, valuing the building at $735.4 million. Ex. 313 at MAZARS-NYAG-00000691. Thereafter the valuation on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition rose to $796.4 million in 2016 and settled at $702.1 million in 2017. Ex. 314 at MAZARS-NYAG-00001983; Ex. 315 at MAZARS-NYAG- 00001842.
B. Trump misrepresentations to counterparties
160. Mr. Trump’s financial statements were submitted to financial institutions to seek or obtain credit and insurance, and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements. E.g., Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003049. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed certain financial obligations to these counterparties; and those personal guarantees required that Mr. Trump certify that his financial statements presented his financial condition fairly in all material respects. E.g., Ex. 363 at DB-NYAG-059809-14; Ex. 346.
1. Trump misrepresentations to banks
161. OAG is investigating the Trump Organization’s representations to banks and whether those institutions relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements. The evidence to date indicates that Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition factored into banks’ decisions and that banks relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements in granting Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization access to credit. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were submitted to multiple banks to obtain credit and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements. Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003049; Ex. 363 at DBNYAG- 059810-13.
162. One financial institution noted that it had “received CPA prepared financial statements by WeiserMazar LLP dated June 30, 2014 verifying Donald J. Trump’s net worth of $5,777,540,000 and liquidity of $302,300,000.” Ex. 417 at FSI-Investors-00000003_0005.
163. That financial institution did not apply any adjustments to the reported net worth figure and treated it as a mitigant to potential weaknesses in the deal. Ex. 417 at FSI-Investors- 00000003_0028. The loan officer on the deal testified that, if he had been aware of material misstatements in the Statement of Financial Condition, the loan officer would not have brought the deal to his financial institution’s commercial lending committee. Ex. 418 at 100:10-101:04
164. Another financial institution—Deutsche Bank—considered Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition in the course of loan transactions related to three properties totaling more than $300 million. Ex. 368; Ex. 424; Ex. 419.
165. In particular, in evaluating whether to extend or maintain credit, Deutsche Bank accepted Mr. Trump’s personal guaranty and Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition, and the valuations listed thereon were incorporated into internal bank memoranda. At origination, the truth of Mr. Trump’s representations was a condition precedent to the bank’s obligation to lend. Ex. 420 at DB-NYAG-005911 (Doral); Ex. 421 at DB-NYAG-005025 (Old Post Office); Ex. 422 at DB-NYAG-006020 (Chicago hotel); Ex. 423 at DB-NYAG-005307-08 (Chicago residential). In addition, an “event of default” would occur if “[a]ny representation or warranty of Borrower or Guarantor herein or in any other Loan Document” (including a compliance certificate) “shall prove to have been false or misleading in any material respect at the time made or intended to be effective.” Ex. 420 at DB-NYAG-005916.22
166. Deutsche Bank’s assessments included the values asserted on the Statements of Financial Condition, and then apply that financial institution’s “haircuts”—or percentage reductions in estimated value—for arriving at adjusted net worth values to evaluate whether to extend or maintain credit. See, e.g., Ex. 362 at DB-NYAG-003054-55.
167. OAG has received evidence that those haircuts are standardized reductions based on the class of asset. Ex. 369 at 76:11-77:10. For instance, the haircut on cash is very small compared to residential or commercial real estate because cash is assumed to be liquid. Ex. 369 at 76:11-77:10, 78:08-17. If the bank is aware of potential restrictions on cash the bank would likely apply a steeper haircut. Ex. 369 at 153:03-156:05.
168. When applying a haircut, the assumption is that the client had accurately stated the asset value. Ex. 369 at 76:11-77:10. The haircut percentages applied during origination are carried forward to subsequent annual reviews. Ex. 369 at 90:19-25.
169. Incorrect or misleading valuations in the statement of financial condition would impact the adjusted net worth reached by the Bank, the risk rating for the loan, and the decision of whether or not to extend financing at all. Ex. 369 at 193:04-25, 200:25-202:09.
170. Internal bank memoranda emphasize the reported financial strength of Mr. Trump as a factor in lending. One loan from Deutsche Bank was issued to Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, an entity in the Trump Organization, and personally guaranteed by Mr. Trump. This loan relates to a property known as the Trump National Doral in Miami, Florida. This loan (initially comprised of one secured tranche and one unsecured tranche) was for a total of $125 million and closed in June 2012. Ex. 420; Ex. 356. An internal bank credit memorandum makes clear that the “Financial Strength of the Guarantor” (referring to Mr. Trump) and his personal guaranty were factors in favor of approving the loan. Ex. 368 at DB-NYAG-001693.
171. Deutsche Bank issued a second such loan (or group of two loans) to 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, an entity in the Trump Organization. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed this loan. The loan was issued in connection with the Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago for up to $107 million. Ex. 249. The loan was comprised of two components: a portion related to the condominium component of that property for up to $62 million, and a portion related to the hotel component of that property for up to $45 million. Ex. 424.
172. The bank’s internal credit memorandum, in recommending approval, noted the “unique nature” of the loans and stated that “the credit exposure is being recommended based on the financial profile of the Guarantor,” who was Mr. Trump. Ex. 424 at DB-NYAG-068526.
173. Deutsche Bank issued a third such loan to Trump Old Post Office LLC, an entity in the Trump Organization.23 Mr. Trump personally guaranteed this loan. The loan was issued in connection with the Trump Organization’s redevelopment of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., and was for up to $170 million. Ex. 421 at DB-NYAG-005055.
174. The internal bank approval memo for this loan stressed the unique nature of the loan and Mr. Trump’s financial profile in recommending approval. Ex. 419. The memo also incorporated figures from Mr. Trump’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 financial statements. Ex. 419.
175. In furtherance of Mr. Trump’s guaranty on the Doral loan, Mr. Trump provided certain prior financial statements (a Statement of Financial Condition), which he represented was “true and correct in all material respects” and “presents fairly Guarantor’s financial condition.”24 Mr. Trump signed that guaranty.25 Mr. Trump also provided a personal guaranty for a $170 million loan in connection with the Trump International Hotel, Washington, DC (“Old Post Office”) property, and similarly provided his Statement of Financial Condition for the year ending June 30, 2013, which he represented was “true and correct in all material respects” and “presents fairly [Mr. Trump’s] financial condition as of June 30, 2013.”26 Personal guaranties signed by Mr. Trump signed concerning the Chicago property reflected similar representations.27
176. Requisite documents in connection with these loans also required Mr. Trump to annually deliver his Statement of Financial Condition for the ensuing years accompanied by a similar certification, which Mr. Trump subsequently provided. For example, in a document dated November 11, 2014, Mr. Trump “hereby certifie[d]” that his Statement of Financial Condition for the year ending June 30, 2014 and other identified documents “presents fairly and accurately in all material respects the financial condition of Guarantor for the period presented.”28
177. Evidence obtained by the OAG establishes that Donald Trump, Jr. personally certified on an annual basis the truth and accuracy of the Statements of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. On some such certifications, Donald Trump, Jr. specified that he was doing so as “attorney in fact” for Donald J. Trump.29
2. Trump misrepresentations to an insurer
178. The Trump Organization also submitted Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition to insurers and its insurance broker, by allowing underwriters to review a copy of the financial statement at the Trump Organization’s offices. One of those entities was Zurich North American (“Zurich”).
179. From 2007 through 2021, Zurich underwrote a surety bond program (the “Program”) for the Trump Organization through insurance broker AON Risk Solutions (“AON”). Under the Program, Zurich issued surety bonds on behalf of the Trump Organization within specified dollar limits in exchange for a premium calculated based on a rate times the face amount of the bonds. Most of the bonds were statutorily required for the Trump Organization’s real estate business, such as liquor license bonds for golf courses or release of lien bonds for construction projects.
180. Over the course of the Program, based on the financial disclosures made by the Trump Organization, Zurich agreed to increasingly more favorable terms—periodically increasing the limits and decreasing the rate. For example, in 2011, the Program had a single bond limit of $500,000, an aggregate limit for all bonds of $2,000,000, and a rate of $20 per thousand. Ex. 435 at ZURICHNA_008481. When the Program was canceled in 2021, the single bond limit was $6,000,000, the aggregate limit was $20,000,000, and the rate was $10 per thousand. Ex. 436 at ZURICHNA_008993.
181. In accordance with its standard underwriting guidelines for surety business, Zurich required the Trump Organization to provide an indemnification against any loss should Zurich be required to pay under a bond. From the inception of the Program, the Trump Organization met this indemnification requirement through a General Indemnity Agreement (“GIA”) executed by Donald J. Trump, pursuant to which (similar to a personal guaranty on a loan) he personally agreed to indemnify Zurich for claims under the Program, and an annual requirement that Mr. Trump disclose to Zurich’s underwriter his personal financial statements. This annual financial disclosure requirement permitted Zurich to ensure that the indemnification from Mr. Trump was sufficient to support the continued renewal of the Program.
182. Indeed, on multiple occasions when AON was unable to secure in a timely manner the required financial disclosure—which took the form of an on-site review of the financial statements in a conference room at the Trump Organization’s offices—Zurich put the Program into “cut-off” status, which means Zurich ceased writing new bonds and would cancel existing bonds on expiration, until Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements were made available for review. Ex. 437 at ZURICHNA_008345.
183. The indemnity was such a critical aspect of the Program, that in early January 2017, with Mr. Trump’s inauguration fast approaching, Zurich insisted as a condition to renewing the Program that the indemnification be modified to address the potential difficulty Zurich might have in seeking to enforce the GIA against a sitting president. After some negotiation, during which the Trump Organization’s lawyers sought to persuade Zurich that there was no legal impediment to suing a sitting president, Zurich and the Trump Organization agreed to resolve the issue by adding DJT Holdings LLC as an additional indemnitor on the GIA effective January 17, 2017. Ex. 438 at ZURICHNA_008573; Ex. 439 at ZURICHNA_008276; Ex. 367 at 179:15:02-180:10.
184. Evidence indicates that the Trump Organization obtained Zurich’s approval to renew the Program on at least two occasions through intentional misrepresentations concerning Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements. During the on-site review of Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition that occurred on November 20, 2018 for the 2019 renewal, Zurich’s underwriter was shown the June 30, 2018 Statement. The Statement listed as assets the Trump Organization’s real estate holdings with valuations that CFO Allen Weisselberg represented to Zurich’s underwriter were determined each year by a professional appraisal firm “such as Cushman & Wakefield” “using cap rates and net operating income as factors.” Ex. 440 at ZURICHNA_008507.
185. Zurich’s underwriter considered the valuations to be reliable based on Weisselberg’s representation that they were prepared by a professional appraisal firm. Also, based on her interactions with Weisselberg during the review, Zurich’s underwriter found him to be “highly professional, well educated, and conscientious about” his work. Ex. 440 at ZURICHNA_ 008511. Weisselberg’s representations about how the valuations were determined and the underwriter’s impressions of Weisselberg factored favorably into her analysis leading to her recommendation that Zurich renew the Program for 2019 on the existing terms, which it did.
186. During the on-site review for the next renewal, the Trump Organization disclosed to Zurich’s underwriter Mr. Trump’s June 30, 2019 financial statement. Weisselberg again represented to Zurich’s underwriter that the valuations for the real estate holdings listed in the statements were appraised annually by a professional appraisal firm. He noted more specifically that the appraisals for the current statements were performed by Newmark Group and had previously been prepared by Cushman, explaining that “[t]he reason for the change is the individual at Cushman & Wakefield with whom [the Trump Organization] had a longstanding relationship with moved to work at Newmark.” Ex. 441 at ZURICHNA_009000.30
187. Again, Zurich’s underwriter considered the valuations to be reliable based on Weisselberg’s representation that they were prepared by the professional appraisal firm Newmark Group, and specifically by the same individual (Larson) who had historically determined the previous valuations when he was an employee of Cushman & Wakefield. She again assessed Weisselberg to be “highly professional, well educated, and conscientious about the operations” of the Trump Organization. Ex. 441 at ZURICHNA_009004. Her impressions of Weisselberg and the representation that Newmark prepared the valuations all factored favorably into her analysis leading to her recommendation that Zurich renew the Program in 2020 on the existing terms, which it did.
188. Weisselberg’s representations to Zurich’s underwriter that the valuations listed in Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements were prepared annually by professional appraisal firms were false. With respect to nearly all valuations, the Trump Organization did not retain Cushman & Wakefield, Newmark Group, or any other professional appraisal firm to prepare the valuations of the Trump Organization’s real estate holdings that appeared in Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements shown to Zurich’s underwriter. Rather, the valuations were prepared by Trump Organization staff, contrary to what Zurich’s underwriter was expressly told and believed.
189. Had Zurich’s underwriter been advised that the valuations listed on the personal financial statements she reviewed during her on-site visits had been determined by Trump Organization staff and not a professional appraisal firm, she would have accorded them less weight and it would have negatively impacted her underwriting analysis. Moreover, had Zurich’s underwriter discovered during the renewal process that Weisselberg had misrepresented to her how the valuations were prepared, it would have caused her to doubt the veracity of the rest of the information disclosed by the Trump Organization during the renewal and would have called into serious question whether Zurich should continue its insurance relationship with the Trump Organization, or renew on terms less favorable to the Trump Organization.
190. The Trump Organization also failed to disclose that the valuation for the golf courses listed on Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements, which was approximately $2.2 billion in the June 30, 2019 statement, Ex. 442 at ZURICHNA_008287, included a substantial brand premium baked into the reported valuations. See supra ¶¶ 80 - 98. Under Zurich’s underwriting guidelines, intangible assets such as brand value are to be excluded. Had Weisselberg disclosed to Zurich’s underwriter that the valuation listed for golf clubs included the Trump brand value, she would have been required under the guidelines to reduce that valuation to exclude the amount added for brand value.
II. The Misleading Appraisals Trump Submitted to the Internal Revenue Service
A. Trump National Golf Club – Los Angeles.
191. On December 26, 2014, two Trump Organization subsidiaries donated a conservation easement over land used as a driving range on the Trump National Golf Course – Los Angeles (“Trump Golf LA”) property. The donation meant foregoing the right to build 16 residential lots in the driving range’s location but did not preclude the Trump Organization from continuing to use the site as a driving range. In a process quarterbacked by Mr. Trump’s tax counsel, Sheri Dillon, two Cushman appraisers found that the development value donated was $25 million dollars. Mr. Trump submitted this valuation to the Internal Revenue Service to obtain a tax benefit.
192. The appraisal substantially overstated the value of the Trump Golf LA donation by overstating the speed with which the site could be developed and failing to value a reduction in affordable housing requirements that the donation enabled. The Cushman appraisers made these misstatements in an atmosphere of pressure applied to them by the Trump Organization— which one appraiser said was “fighting for every $1”—and Ms. Dillon.
1. Trump Golf LA’s misstated development timeline
193. Trump Golf LA was originally known as Ocean Trails Golf Club. Construction on the course started in 1997 and by June 1999, the golf course was almost complete—until a landslide dropped 300 yards of the 18th hole fairway into the Pacific Ocean. The landslide also caused most of the 18th hole to slide 50 feet toward the ocean, including the fairway and green. Development on the property ceased after the landslide and the Ocean Trails Golf Course construction project went into bankruptcy. VH Property Corp., a Trump Organization subsidiary, acquired the property out of bankruptcy in November 2002 for a reported price of $27 million.
194. Given the site’s instability, the landslide, and the site’s proximity to the Pacific Coast, the Trump Organization needed approval from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to develop the site. The Trump Organization’s geologist worked with a Rancho Palos Verdes geologist to develop a geologic model and reach an understanding of any improvements necessary before the site could be further developed. Ex. 443, at MLB_EM00004563. This presented a particular hurdle for 16 planned lots on the driving range and putting green: In June 2011, the Trump Organization’s geologist produced a report stating that 104 “shear pins,” stabilizing implements drilled into the ground to provide engineering stability, would be required to develop the lots safely.
195. Instead of developing the lots, the Trump Organization began to consider another option: donating a conservation easement over the 16 proposed lots that would allow it to continue to use the area as a driving range and putting green.
196. The Trump Organization’s outside counsel Sheri Dillon engaged an engineer and Cushman appraisers, Richard Zbranek and Brian Curry, to evaluate the value of a potential easement on Trump Golf LA. The Cushman appraisers would provide “initial valuation conclusions” for 16 lots on the Trump Golf LA driving range. This initial evaluation would not involve a formal written report or assess value enhancement for the full Trump-owned parcel. If this valuation met with the Trump Organization’s approval, the appraisers would then move on to provide a valuation suitable for income tax purposes. Ex. 444 at MLB_EM00005568.
197. The Trump Organization, through Bingham McCutchen LLP (Ms. Dillon’s law firm at the time), conveyed to the appraisers that it believed the lots might be worth $40 or $50 million. Ex. 445.
198. In December 2012, Cushman, relying on costs and other information prepared by an engineer (also retained by Dillon and Bingham), reached a preliminary value conclusion for the development potential of the lots of $17,725,000. Ex. 571 at MLB_EM00014024; Ex. 447 at MLB_EM00014028. As Mr. Curry described it to Mr. Zbranek, “They did paper napkin analysis and suggested 40 to 50 million dollars. I sent them my analyses, we walked through the whole thing, and they couldn’t argue with it. More like. ‘Oh’.” Ex. 445 at C&W_0079159.
199. After this valuation, the Trump Organization put the conservation easement project on hold and did not pursue it further in 2012 or 2013. Despite receiving a valuation of sixteen lots at $17,725,000 (or roughly $1.1 million per lot after accounting for development time), Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition for 2012 and 2013 valued unsold lots at the Trump Golf LA property at $4.5 million per lot and $2.5 to $4.5 million per lot. See Ex. 13 at row 471-477.
200. In August 2014, Ms. Dillon contacted the appraisers again. MLB_EM00014026. On September 8, 2014, Dillon’s law firm, Vinson & Elkins LLP, retained the appraisers to provide “a prospective market value estimate of the estimated value of 16 proposed lots, i.e., the development rights, on the driving range site of TNGC, as of December 15, 2014.” Ex. 448.
201. The engineer retained to provide hypothetical maps and cost estimates that Cushman would use to value the site sought estimates to build the shear pins, and also evaluated another hypothetical plan that would involve reconfiguring the Site. He estimated that approval of the final drawings, as required under the current approvals, would require a year, and that the necessary shear pins would cost about $1.5 million.
202. Alternatively, the Trump Organization could reconfigure the layout of the entitled map to yield the same number of lots without constructing the shear pins. This reconfiguration “would take at least 2-3 years to obtain the necessary planning approvals from the City and Coastal and about one year to obtain final engineering approval.” The planning and engineering cost would be about $2.5 million. Ex. 449 at MLB_EM00014148.
203. Higher development costs would decrease the imputed value of any easement donation. As Cushman appraiser Brian Curry explained in forwarding this email to Trump Organization attorney Ms. Dillon, writing, “Sheri. FYI. Higher costs of development decrease the value of the property.” Ex. 449 at MLB_EM00014148.
204. On September 29, 2014, the engineer provided preliminary cost estimates for the plan that involved reconfiguring the lots without shear pins. In forwarding the estimates to Cushman appraiser Mr. Curry and Trump Organization attorney Ms. Dillon, the engineer reiterated the need for further approvals for the new plan. Ex. 446 at MLB_EM00014214. Later that day, Mr. Curry provided Ms. Dillon with a value for the sixteen lots. Calculating that value in two ways—“lot sales” and “home construction”—Mr. Curry reached valuations of $27,991,535 and $25,461,652, respectively. Ex. 450 at MLB_EM00014195, -204, -205.
205. On or about October 8, 2014, Ms. Dillon and Mr. Curry had a conference call with Mr. Trump to discuss the valuation of the lots. On the call, Mr. Trump claimed that the 16 lots should be valued higher than previously sold lots in the Trump Golf LA project because they were in a “more prestigious” zip code and could thus command a “‘zip code’ premium.” Mr. Curry asked Ms. Dillon to confirm whether the lots were in a different zip code. Trump Organization in-house counsel concluded they were not. Ex. 451 at VE_00001662, -63.
206. On October 14, 2014, Ms. Dillon wrote to Mr. Curry that “we are now getting closer to year end so I would like to see where the estimates are so a final decision can be made.” Mr. Curry wrote back on October 16, 2014 with an increased estimate, reaching a value of “around $27 to $28MM for the driving range property.” Mr. Curry asked Ms. Dillon to “Let us know where we go from here”—adding a smiley-face emoticon. Ex. 452 at MLB_EM00014210.
207. In early November 2014, the Trump Organization engaged Mr. Curry and Mr. Zbranek for an appraisal to “document the value of a conservation easement placed over a parcel of land located on the Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles for Federal and State income tax purposes.” Ex. 453.
208. As the project neared the end of the tax year, Mr. Curry warned Ms. Dillon that his previous estimates may have been too high, writing on December 5, 2014, “I would like to go over the numbers, which may not be as favorable as expected due to recent Trump lot sales, and then coordinate a delivery of the ‘draft.’” Ms. Dillon replied, “I definitely would like to see the numbers first and am hopeful they don’t dramatically vary from the prior range.” C&W_0066474. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Curry provided a preliminary valuation of $20.5 million. Ex. 455; Ex. 456.
209. After providing this conclusion (reduced from his initial estimates), Mr. Curry learned that the engineer might increase his cost estimates. The engineer explained that a contractor providing an estimate for the cost of the stabilizing shear pins had said the engineer’s estimates could be too low. Ex. 457 at C&W_0079824.
210. Mr. Curry forwarded this email to Ms. Dillon who asked if there was “something wrong with the initial cost estimates.” Mr. Curry explained that the engineer had “underestimated.” Ex. 458 at C&W_0066566, -67. Mr. Curry explained that this cost increase would make him reconsider the lot arrangement he would choose to value. Ex. 459 at C&W_0066569, at -69.
211. On December 10, 2014, the engineer provided a final cost budget to Mr. Curry that reflected his updated view of the cost of shear pins to stabilize the Trump Golf LA site. The budget included $40,000 for shear pin design, $10,000 for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to review the shear pin plans, and $2,376,500 for installation of 99 shear pins. Ex. 460 at C&W_0079836, -37, -38. As the engineer had predicted to Mr. Curry, his estimates had risen-- substantially.
212. The estimates and final appraisal generated by the Cushman appraisers after this date did not reflect the engineer’s updated estimates, which would have decreased the value of the conservation easement. Rather, Cushman’s estimates continuously rose: indeed, value estimates rose from $20.5 on December 8, to $22.1 million on December 11, and finally to $25 million on December 12. Ex. 461 at 182:17-184:07, 188:21-190:18; Ex. 462 at MLB_EM00014577 (value conclusion of $22.1 million while noting “the engineer increased development costs by $1.25MM”); Ex. 463 at VE_00010729 (value conclusion of $25 million); Ex. 464 at C&W_0066803 (using costs of $8,086,050).31 In short, despite the engineer’s increased costs, the appraisers increased their valuation by an average of more than a million dollars a day from December 8 and December 12, 2014.
213. The final appraisal report made clear that it relied on the engineer’s estimates for the development timeline and cost estimates. The appraisal states, “According to the engineer, the planning and approvals could be completed in 1.5 years.” Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005409, at -501. It further states, “Land development costs were prepared and provided by the development engineer….The appraisers relied upon the cost budgets which were deemed reliable and assumed true and correct.” Ex. 460 at MLB_EM-00005419.
214. But instead of using the engineer’s final costs and estimates, the appraisal incorporated the preliminary cost budgets that the engineer had prepared in September 2014. These cost budgets did not include any provision for shear pins. Ex. 465 at VE_00010369-376. Rather, they were the estimates the engineer had said “would take at least 2-3 years to obtain the necessary planning approvals from the City and Coastal and about one year to obtain final engineering approval”—i.e., that planning and approvals would take at least three to four years, not 1.5 years. Ex. 449 at MLB_EM00014148.
215. By using the “1.5 year” timeline the appraisal misattributes to the engineer— shortening the timeline by at least one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half years—the Trump Golf LA appraisal significantly overstates the development value of the 16 lots. The reason, in colloquial terms, is that development revenue in the appraisal is worth much less for each year into the future in which it occurs. In particular, the appraisal assumes discount rates of 15% to 18%, meaning that a dollar received one year later is worth only 85 or 82 cents, and a dollar received two years later is worth only $.7225 or $0.6724, and so on. Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005409, - 5523. Thus, under the appraisal’s methodology, revenue earned (for example) in year 3 would be worth much less than revenue earned in year 1. Conversely, moving revenue to earlier years considerably increased estimated value. And, because the appraisal assumes that the 16 lots will sell for an average of $5,000,000 each (-5524), bringing forward the revenue from the sale of these lots by even a year and a half would increase the appraised value by millions of dollars.
216. The engineer testified to OAG that he never changed his estimate for the timeline. He further testified that he never intended the preliminary cost budgets or the maps they included to be integrated into the appraisal. Ex. 467 at 124:14-125:13. Instead, the engineer had prepared the December cost estimates, which reflected a different layout—and which budgeted over $2.4 for the design and construction of stabilizing shear pins—for use in the appraisal. Ex. 460 at C&W_0079836, -37, -38.
217. When asked to explain why he did not use the engineer’s most current estimates, the appraiser did not have any record of his reasoning. Ex. 461 at 182:17-184:07, 188:21-190:18; 193:13-195:14. Moreover, when asked about the apparent contradiction between the engineer’s timeline and the timeline stated in the appraisal, Mr. Curry admitted that, despite attributing the appraisal’s timeline to the engineer, he had come up with it himself:
You know, I'm talking two to three years. He didn’t have any final timing. I looked at that and assessed my own timing and figured you could probably get through the process maybe a little more aggressively than [the engineer] estimated. I found that you could probably get lot sales done by quarter eleven started and home sales by quarter thirteen, which is a full three years subsequent.
Ex. 461 at 191:21-192:7.
2. Omitted reduction in affordable housing requirements
218. As a result of a settlement between the Trump Organization and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes over approvals for the Trump Golf LA development, the Trump Organization had agreed to build four affordable housing units offsite. However, the Trump Organization believed that, as a result of the Trump Golf LA easement donation, these requirements would be set aside. As Jill Martin, Trump Organization Assistant General Counsel, explained the requirement to Cushman appraiser Mr. Curry: the units “have not been buil[t] and ultimately may not need to be. The number of units is all dependent on the number of housing units built on the property. With our changes to the plan and elimination of several houses, I am optimistic that this requirement will go by the wayside.” Ex. 468 at VE_00001705; Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005452.
219. Martin further explained that “the affordable housing component is based on the number of houses built on the property- thus by eliminating some of the lots due to the easement, we are hopeful for elimination or a reduction of the requirement.” Ex. 469 at VE_00010655.
220. The Internal Revenue Service requires that an appraisal incorporate any enhancement a conservation easement donation provides to the value of other property held by the donor. If the appraisal were to accurately represent the value after the donation, it should have reflected the Trump Organization’s expectation that placement of the easement would reduce or eliminate the offsite affordable housing requirements—a significant cost to the Organization that Ms. Martin thought would be eliminated by the conservation easement donation.
221. Rather than account for the reduction in required affordable housing which Jill Martin thought would occur and was reflected in city resolutions, Mr. Curry told Trump Organization outside counsel Ms. Dillon, “Hi Sheri. I am going to add an ‘allowance’ in the cash flows for offsite affordable housing. As it will be in all of the cash flows it will not affect the bottom line,” adding a smiley-face emoticon. Ms. Dillon thanked Mr. Curry. Ex. 470 at C&W_0067736.
222. The Trump Golf LA appraisal includes a $1 million allowance for affordable housing. As Mr. Curry and Ms. Dillon discussed, it was included in both the “Before” and “After” scenarios, so the offsite affordable-housing requirement did not affect the valuation the Cushman appraisers reached. Ex. 466 at MLB_EM00005500.
223. Consistent with the understanding reflected in the document Jill Martin received from Ranchos Palos Verdes that California Government Code Section 65590 required 10% affordable housing, when the Trump Organization received approval to add a driving range and reduce the total number of residential lots by 16, the City reduced the number of offsite affordable units required from 4 to 2. Ex. 471 at 5.
224. The Trump Organization thus obtained a benefit by donating the Trump Golf LA conservation easement that Mr. Curry chose not to recognize in the appraisal. This decision was not justified; the appraisal is misleading because it fails to disclose the likely reduction in affordable housing.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36172
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests