Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Trump was warned that FBI could raid Mar-a-Lago months ahead of time, lawyer's notes show: Trump attorney Evan Corcoran saved his recollections in a series of voice memos.
by Katherine Faulders and Mike Levine
abc news
September 6, 2023, 1:46 PM

In May of last year, shortly after the Justice Department issued a subpoena to former President Donald Trump for all classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump's then-lead attorney on the matter, Evan Corcoran, warned the former president in person, at Mar-a-Lago, that not only did Trump have to fully comply with the subpoena, but that the FBI might search the estate if he didn't, according to Corcoran's audio notes following the conversation.

Only minutes later, during a pool-side chat away from Trump, Corcoran got his own warning from another Trump attorney: If you push Trump to comply with the subpoena, "he's just going to go ballistic," Corcoran recalled.

Corcoran's recollections, captured in a series of voice memos he made on his phone the next day, help illuminate Trump's alleged efforts to defy a federal grand jury subpoena, and appear to shed more light on his frame of mind when he allegedly launched what prosecutors say was a criminal conspiracy to hide classified documents from both the FBI and Corcoran, his own attorney.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him and has denied any wrongdoing.

The recordings, which have become a key piece of evidence in special counsel Jack Smith's classified documents case against Trump, contain information that was later described in Smith's publicly released indictment and in media reports -- but many of the details in them have never been made public.

ABC News has reviewed copies of transcripts of the recordings, which appear to show the way Trump allegedly deceived his own attorney, and how classified documents, according to prosecutors, ended up at Mar-a-Lago in the first place.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, responding to the development, told ABC News, "The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles in our legal system, and its primary purpose is to promote the rule of law. Whether attorneys' notes are detailed or not makes no difference -- these notes reflect the legal opinions and thoughts of the lawyer, not the client."

Cheung added that Trump "offered full cooperation with DOJ, and told the key DOJ official, in person, 'Anything you need from us, just let us know.'"

A spokesperson for the special counsel's office declined to comment to ABC News. Corcoran did not immediately return ABC News' request for comment.

'Complying with that subpoena'

When Corcoran joined Trump's legal team in April last year, the FBI had already launched a criminal investigation into Trump's handling of classified information. Nearly 200 classified documents had been found in 15 boxes that Trump reluctantly returned to the National Archives "after months of demands," as the indictment stated.

But Justice Department officials believed Trump was holding onto even more classified documents in other boxes at Mar-a-Lago and refusing to return them -- so on May 11, 2022, the Justice Department issued a federal grand jury subpoena demanding the return of any and all classified documents.

Corcoran and another Trump attorney, Jennifer Little, flew to Florida to meet with Trump. "The next step was to speak with the former president about complying with that subpoena," Corcoran recalled in a voice memo the next day.

But while sitting together in Trump's office, in front of a Norman Rockwell-style painting depicting Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton and Trump playing poker, Trump, according to Corcoran's notes, wanted to discuss something else first: how he was being unfairly targeted.

As Corcoran later recalled in his recordings, Trump continuously wandered off to topics unrelated to the subpoena -- Hillary Clinton, "the great things" he's done for the country, and his big lead in the polls in the run-up to the 2024 Republican presidential primary race that Trump would officially join in November. But Corcoran and Little "kept returning to the boxes," according to the transcripts.

Corcoran wanted Trump to understand "we were there to discuss responding to the subpoena," Corcoran said in the memos.

The FBI 'could arrive here'

As Corcoran described it in his recordings, he explained to Trump during that meeting what the former president was facing. "We've got a grand jury subpoena and the alternative is if you don't comply with the grand jury subpoena you could be held in contempt," Corcoran recalled telling Trump.

Trump responded with a line included in the indictment against him, asking, "what happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?"

The transcripts reviewed by ABC News reveal what Corcoran says he then told Trump. "Well, there's a prospect that they could go to a judge and get a search warrant, and that they could arrive here," Corcoran recalled warning the former president as they sat at Mar-a-Lago.

Still, as depicted in Corcoran's recordings and in the public indictment, Trump repeatedly suggested it might be better if they refused to cooperate.

The indictment says that although Corcoran -- who ABC News believes to be "Attorney 1" in the indictment -- and Little -- believed to be "Attorney 2" -- "told Trump that they needed to search for documents that would be responsive to the subpoena and provide a certification that there had been compliance with the subpoena," Trump still insisted to them, "I don't want anybody looking through my boxes," and, "Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?"

And in a private, pool-side conversation during a break at Mar-a-Lago that day, according to Corcoran's recordings, Little relayed to him what she was told herself by two other Trump attorneys: that Trump would "go ballistic" over complying with the subpoena -- "that there's no way he's going to agree to anything, and that he was going to deny that there were any more boxes at all," Corcoran recalled on his recordings.

In the indictment, prosecutors allege Trump did something just like that.

The indictment describes how, before the May 23 meeting with Corcoran at Mar-a-Lago ended, Trump "confirmed" a plan for Corcoran to return to Mar-a-Lago two weeks later to search for any classified documents. And, according to the indictment, Corcoran "made it clear to Trump" that he would conduct that search in a basement storage room.

Corcoran's recordings suggest he was told by others that the only location at Mar-a-Lago that contained classified documents was the basement storage room. "I've got boxes in my basement that I really wouldn't want you to go through," Corcoran recalled Trump telling him.

And sources told ABC News that, when speaking to investigators, Corcoran explained that he checked with many people about where classified documents could be found, and everyone, including Trump, created the impression that any classified documents would be in the boxes in the storage room.

A 'shocking break-in'

Over the next two weeks, before Corcoran returned to Mar-a-Lago to search for classified documents in the storage room, Trump's two co-defendants in the documents case, Mar-a-Lago staffers Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, allegedly removed dozens of boxes from the storage room -- all "at Trump's direction" and with the goal "that many boxes were not searched and many documents responsive to the May 11 Subpoena could not be found," according to the indictment.

Corcoran ultimately found 38 classified documents in the boxes that remained in the storage room, and he handed them over to the FBI, along with a certification -- allegedly endorsed by Trump -- that the former president had now fully complied with the subpoena.

But when FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago three months later, they found 102 more classified documents in Trump's office and elsewhere.

Despite Corcoran warning him months earlier, according to the recordings, that the FBI might show up at Mar-a-Lago if he didn't fully comply with the subpoena, Trump called the FBI move a "shocking BREAK-IN," with "no way to justify" it, in posts on his social media platform.

According to the indictment, Trump "knowingly" deceived the FBI and his own attorney, providing "just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully."

'Should be declassified'

The transcripts of Corcoran's recordings also appear to offer new insight into how classified documents ended up in boxes at Mar-a-Lago in the first place, and whether Trump truly believed those documents had been declassified.

As Trump described it to Corcoran according to the transcripts, he had a nightly practice while still in the White House: He would bring newspaper articles, photos and notes to his bedroom so he could review them.

He would also bring classified documents, according to Corcoran.

"That's the only time I could read something, and I had to read them so I could be ready for calls or meetings the next day," Trump told Corcoran, according to Corcoran's recordings.

However, in their meeting, Trump insisted to Corcoran that he made clear to those around him that "anything that comes into the residence should be declassified," the transcript reads.

"I don't know what was done," Corcoran recalled Trump telling him. "I don't know how they were marked. But that was my position."

Those comments from Trump, as recalled by Corcoran, suggest Trump understood that -- despite subsequent public claims to the contrary -- classified documents were not declassified simply by bringing them to the residence.

As for how classified documents ended up in boxes, Trump "had a lot of boxes" in his bedroom, and when he was done reading a newspaper article or a classified document, he'd "throw them" into one of the boxes, according to Corcoran.

So when it came time for Trump to leave the White House in January 2021, many of those boxes from the bedroom ended up at Mar-a-Lago in the storage room.

Corcoran provided special counsel Smith's team with his recordings after, as previously reported by ABC News, the now-former chief judge of the federal court in Washington ordered him to do so, finding that Smith's office had made a "prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations" by deliberately misleading his attorneys about his handling of classified materials, sources familiar with the matter said at the time.

As a result of that legal fight, Corcoran recused himself from continuing to represent Trump in the documents case. But when Trump was arraigned in Washington on federal charges accusing him of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Corcoran attended the hearing and sat in the courtroom behind Trump.

In other developments in the classified documents case, the former attorney for the Mar-a-Lago IT worker who decided to cooperate with the government confirmed the cooperation agreement publicly in a court filing Wednesday.

ABC News previously reported that IT worker Yuscil Taveras entered into the agreement after he was sent a target letter warning him that he was likely to be charged with perjury for allegedly making false statements to investigators in grand jury testimony last March, according to sources.

Taveras is set to be a central witness for Smith in his allegations that Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira essentially attempted a cover-up as the government investigated Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House.

[admin]

Trump Assistant [Molly Michael] FLIPS and Provides DEVASTATING EVIDENCE to Jack Smith
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Sep 18, 2023

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how Donald Trump’s assistant Molly Michael delivered smoking gun evidence of obstruction at Mar-A-Lago to Special Counsel Jack Smith.



Transcript

I'm Ben Meiselas from the Meidastouch
Network this is big news folks in the
criminal prosecution of Donald Trump
relating to his theft of thousands of
government records which he hid and
concealed at Mar-A-Lago Donald Trump's
former long-time assistant Molly Michael
has been cooperating with the FBI and
with special counsel Jack Smith's team
and what we are learning that she is
saying is incredibly damning to Donald
Trump and it has made the prosecution
against Donald Trump even stronger than
it was already specifically Molly
Michael said that Donald Trump would
write notes to her and to-do lists on
classified documents Donald Trump would
take classified information and he would
write notes to her on the classified
documents themselves and sometimes on
the back of those classified documents
Donald Trump in essence used it as a
notepad Molly Michael also told the FBI
and special counsel Jack Smith's team
that she grew increasingly concerned
with Donald Trump's refusal to turn over
records to the National Archives back in
2022 and then refusing to turn him over
to the Department of Justice in response
to a subpoena she says that she
repeatedly expressed these concerns to
Donald Trump but he did not want her to
cooperate and then according to this new
reporting that's out there Donald Trump
told her to say you don't know anything
about the boxes that comes from
exclusive reporting by ABC although ABC
says in its report that it's unclear
what Donald Trump meant by that it seems
pretty clear to me when Donald Trump
told Molly Michael you don't know
anything about the boxes seems very
clear what he meant by that but
otherwise good reporting by ABC breaking
this story here it is right here Trump
wrote to-do lists for assistant Molly
Michael on White House documents marked
classified sources say Molly Michael
told investigators about the documents
according to sources one of former
president Donald Trump's longtime
assistants Molly Michael told Federal
investigators that Trump repeatedly
wrote to-do lists for her on documents
from the White House that were marked
classified according to sources that
told this to ABC as described to ABC the
aide Molly Michael told investigators
that more than once she received
requests or tasks from Trump that were
written on the back of note cards which
she later recognized to be sensitive
classified White House materials with
visible classification markings used to
brief Trump while he was still in office
about phone calls with foreign leaders
or other International related matters
you see Molly Michael was Trump's
executive assistant at the white house
so she knew what these documents looked
like the report goes on to say the note
cards with classification markings were
at Trump's Mar-A-Lago estate when FBI
agents searched the property on August 8
2022 but the materials were not taken by
the FBI according to sources familiar
with what Michael told investigators you
see what happened was I don't know if
those documents were missed by the FBI
or if the FBI just left them there to
see how Donald Trump and his staff would
respond but under the desk or right
around the desk of Molly Michael when
she returned the day after the search
she found these documents and then she
immediately contacted the FBI and said
hey I think you missed this basically
and did the right thing
the Articles explains when Michael who
was not present for the search returned
to Mar-A-Lago the next day to clean up
her office space she found the documents
underneath a draw organizer and then she
helped transfer them to the FBI the same
day sources told ABC News so it's
unclear if the FBI left it there to test
her and to test to leave it there and
see if they would be self-reported but
she did the right thing it's unclear if
as part of her cooperation with the FBI
if she told Donald Trump or anybody else
at Mar-A-Lago that she was cooperating
or turn them over to the FBI the sources
that spoke with ABC said that Michael
also told F Federal investigators that
last year she grew increasingly
concerned with how Trump handled
recurring requests from the national
archives for the return of all
government documents being kept in boxes
at Mar-A-Lago and she felt that Trump's
claims about it at the time would be
easy to disprove according to sources by
the way this is what she's told the FBI
and Jack Smith so Jack Smith is armed
with this information and she'll be a
star witness in the case against Donald
Trump sources said that after Trump
heard the FBI wanted to interview
Michael last year Trump allegedly told
her you don't know anything about the
boxes Molly ABC claims it's unclear
exactly what he meant by that seems
pretty clear to me what he meant by that
as ABC and we here at Midas Touch
previously reported Michael is believed
to be the person identified in special
counsel Jack Smith's indictment As Trump
employee 2 described in the indictment
as someone who handled many of Trump's
White House era boxes at Mar-A-Lago and
Who provided Trump with photos of those
boxes that were included in the
indictment
Michael's statements to investigators
described by ABC describe two ABC by
sources shed further light on the
breadth of evidence that Smith has
amassed in his prosecution of Donald
Trump
what do you think Trump's response is to
this news about Molly Michael a trump
spokesperson said that ABC News was told
through what the spokesperson called
illegal leaks lacks proper context and
information that's what they're whining
about illegal leaks these people worked
with you in 2018 Molly Michael became
Trump's executive assistant in the White
House and she continued to work for him
when Trump left office but she resigned
last year in the wake of Trump's alleged
refusal to comply with the federal
request and the FBI's subsequent search
of Mar-A-Lago speaking to Federal
investigators Michael recounted how by
late 2021 as many as 90 boxes of
materials from Trump's time as president
were moved into a basement storage room
at Mar-A-Lago as pressure from the
National Archives Mountain she and Trump
aide walty nowta would bring boxes to
Trump's residence for him to view Trump
eventually agreed to turn over 15 boxes
of materials which he cherry-picked and
then Molly Michael became concerned
knowing that Trump had lied to the FBI
she knew there were scores of other
boxes in storage and As Trump continued
to claim that there were no more boxes
Michael even pointed out to him that
many people including the maintenance
workers knew otherwise because they had
all seen that there were many more boxes
than the 15 boxes by the way if you
remember Molly Michael she did testify
before the January 6 committee there's
this famous clip right here where
January 6 Committee Member Adam
kinzinger published with top Trump aides
including Molly Michael all testified
that Trump watched the violence at the
Capitol unfold on TV from the White
House and did nothing you remember this
clip of Molly Michael back then play the
clip who is the president in that
private dining room the whole time that
the attack on the capitol was going on
or did he ever go again only to your
knowledge to the Oval Office to the
White House Situation Room anywhere else
so that's my recollection he was always
in the dining room yeah dude what did
they say Mr Meadows are the president
at all during that Brief Encounter that
you were in the dining room what are you
I think everybody was watching the TV do
you know whether he was watching TV in
the dining room when uh you talked to
him on January 6th
uh it's my understanding he was watching
television
when you were in the dining room in
these discussions was the aunt was the
finalist Capital visible on the screen
on the hotel room television yes right
so folks this is big news from someone
very close to Donald Trump no longer
working for him cooperating with special
counsel Jack Smith you see the callous
disregard for our classified information
and let's be clear Molly Michael is not
a Democrat Molly Michael is not liberal
she worked for Trump
she saw what was going on she was
uncomfortable with violations of the law
these are just objective facts folks
objective facts I'm Ben Marcellus from
the Midas touch Network hat tip to ABC
for that exclusive check us out at
patreon.com Midas Touch
p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com slash Midas Touch
subscribe on our YouTube it is free have
a great day

[admin]

Judge rules Trump engaged in repeated fraud, effectively deciding central question in $250M civil trial: The civil case is scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 2.
by Aaron Katersky and Peter Charalambous
abc news
September 26, 2023, 4:37 PM

Former President Donald Trump submitted "fraudulent valuations" for assets that were then used by himself, his eldest sons and his business to obtain better loan and insurance terms, a judge in New York decided Tuesday before ordering the cancelation of the company's business certificates in New York.

The judge's determination came as he granted partial summary judgment in New York Attorney General Letitia James' multimillion-dollar civil fraud lawsuit.

Judge Arthur Engoron cites "false and misleading square footage" of Trump's Fifth Avenue apartment among other faulty valuations.

The judge immediately canceled all of the defendants' business certificates in New York, and ordered that they must recommend no more than three potential independent receivers to manage the dissolution of the canceled LLCs within 10 days.

This severely restricts Trump's ability to conduct business in New York going forward.

The judge said Trump and the other defendants have a "propensity to engage in persistent fraud," severely undercutting the defense Trump will offer when the case goes on trial next month.

Engoron wrote in his order that Trump, his adult sons, Eric and Don Jr., and the other defendants fraudulently inflated the value of properties including Mar-A-Lago, Trump's own triplex apartment, 40 Wall Street, Trump Park Avenue, multiple golf courses and an estate in upstate New York.

Eric Trump, who runs the Trump Organization's day-to-day operations, responded on X, previously known as Twitter, saying, "Today, I lost all faith in the New York legal system. Never before have I seen such hatred toward one person by a judge."

"We have run an exceptional company -- never missing a loan payment, making banks hundreds of millions of dollars, developing some of the most iconic assets in the world. Yet today, the persecution of our family continues..." he said.

Donald Trump, also on X, reposted a previous post in which he said, "THE BANKS WERE PAID BACK IN FULL, SOMETIMES EARLY, THERE WERE NO DEFAULTS, THE BANKS MADE MONEY, WERE REPRESENTED BY THE BEST LAW FIRMS, & WERE VERY 'HAPPY.' THERE WERE NO VICTIMS!"

He added, "ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THERE IS A STRONG "DISCLAIMER CLAUSE" TELLING ... ANYONE REVIEWING THE DATA, INCLUDING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS -- IT IS A NON RELIANCE CLAUSE, AND COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR."

In a statement to ABC News, Trump attorney Alina Habba said they intend to "immediately" appeal the decision, calling the Trump Organization "an American success story."

Trump inflated the value of his own Trump Tower residence between $114 million and $207 million, including claiming the property was triple its actual size in square feet, Engoron ruled.

"A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud," Engoron said in his order.

Engoron also found that Trump inflated the value of his Mar-a-Lago club by at least 2,300%, claiming the property assessed by the county between $18 million and $27.6 million was actually worth between $426,529,614 and $612,110,496.

In total, Engoron wrote that the New York attorney general "submitted conclusive evidence" that the defendants overvalued their assets between $812 million and $2.2 billion.

Across his 35-page order, the judge described the conduct of the defendants in the case as belonging in a "fantasy world," and sharply criticized some of the "bogus arguments" made by defense.

"In defendants' world: rent regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can evaporate into thin air; a disclaimer by one party casting responsibility on another party exonerates the other party's lies..." Engoron wrote, citing multiple arguments made by defense to justify the allegedly inflated valuations of Trump's assets. "That is a fantasy world, not the real world."

Engoron also appeared to use the words of former President Trump against him, citing a transcript from a deposition of Trump about the inclusion of so-called "worthless clauses," disclaimers included in financial statements which defense has argued insulate the defendants from liability.

"However, defendants' reliance on these 'worthless' disclaimers is worthless," Engoron wrote, rejecting a frequent argument cited by the defense.

Engoron similarly disagreed with the defense's argument that property values were "subjective" and therefore could not be fraudulent.

"The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without basis in law or fact," Engoron wrote, saying that the documents presented to the court "clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business."

Engoron also sanctioned Donald Trump's lawyers for peddling "bogus arguments," ordering five attorneys to pay $7,500 each. Christopher Kise, Michael Madaio, Clifford S. Robert, Michael Farina and Armen Morian were each ordered to pay within 30 days.

A lawyer for the New York attorney general's office had earlier described "staggering" misrepresentations about the value of Trump's properties and assets, arguing that Trump engaged in a prolonged "bait-and-switch" to lower his tax burden while inflating his assets to obtain favorable loan terms.

ABC News' Olivia Rubin and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

Decision + Order on Motions [for summary judgment]
People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Donald Trump, et al.
Case No. 452564/2022
by Judge Arthur F. Engoron, J.S.C.
9/26/23

INDEX NO. 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1531
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR F. ENGORON
Justice

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATIORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

Plaintiff,

-v-

DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP JR, ERIC TRUMP, ALLEN WEISSELBERG, JEFFREY MCCONNEY, THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC, DJT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER, TRUMP ENDEAVOR 12 LLC, 401 NORTH WABASH VENTURE LLC, TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, 40 WALL STREET LLC, SEVEN SPRINGS LLC, Defendants.

PART: 37

INDEX NO. 452564/2022

MOTION DATES: 08/30/2023, 08/30/2023, 09/05/2023

MOTION SEQ. NO.: 026, 027, 028

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTIONS

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 026) 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148. 1149. 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190. 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1247, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403,1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447

were read on this motion for PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 027) 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1374

were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 028) 1263, 1264, 1265, 1276, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473

were read on this motion for SANCTIONS

Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part, and plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in part, all as detailed herein.

This action arises out of a years-long investigation that plaintiff, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York ("OAG"), conducted into certain business practices that defendants engaged in from 2011 through 2021 . OAG alleges that the individual and entity defendants committed repeated and persistent fraud by preparing, certifying, and submitting to lenders and insurers false and misleading financial statements, thus violating New York Executive Law § 63(12),

Procedural Background

In 2020, OAG commenced a special proceeding seeking to enforce a series of subpoenas against various named defendants and other persons and entities. This Court presided over that proceeding and issued several orders compelling compliance with OAG's subpoenas. See People v The Trump Org., Sup Ct, NY County, Index No. 54 1685/2020. During that proceeding, OAG and the Trump Organization entered into an agreement, which, broadly speaking, tolled the statute of limitations from November 5, 2020, through May 31, 2022, NYSCEF Doc, No. 1260.

On November 3, 2022, this Court found preliminarily that defendants had a propensity to engage in persistent fraud by submitting false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition ("SFCs") on behalf of defendant Donald j, Trump ("Donald Trump"). NYSCEF Doc, No, 183, Accordingly, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against any further fraud and appointed the Han. Barbara S. Jones (ret.) as an independent monitor to oversee defendants' financial statements and significant asset transfers. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 193 and 194.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In a Decision and Order dated January 6, 2023, this Court denied the motion. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 453. Defendants appealed, resulting in a January 6, 2023 Order wherein the Appellate Division, First Department modified this Court's order to the extent of: (I) declaring that the " continuing wrong doctrine does not delay or extend [the statute of limitations]"; (2) finding that claims are timely against defendants subject to the tolling agreement if they accrued after July 13, 2014, and timely against defendants not subject to the tolling agreement if they accrued after February 6, 2016; and (3) dismissing the complaint as against defendant Ivanka Trump on statute of limitations grounds, finding that she was not an employee of the Trump Organization at the time at which the parties entered into the tolling agreement. People v Trump, 217 AD3d 609 (1st Dept 2023).

The Appellate Division declined to dismiss any other defendants or any causes of action.

Discovery ended on July 28, 2023, and OAG filed a note of issue shortly thereafter. NYSCEF Doc. No. 644. OAG now moves for partial summary judgment on its first cause of action, for fraud under Executive Law § 63(12). NYSCEF Doc. No. 765. Separately, plaintiff now moves, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to sanction defendants for frivolous motion practice. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1263. Defendants also move for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. NYSCEF Doc. No. 834.

Executive Law § 63(12)

Executive Law § 63(12) provides, as here pertinent, as follows:

Whenever 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, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

Arguments Defendants Raise Again

Standing and Capacity to Sue

Defendants' arguments that OAG has neither capacity nor standing to sue under Executive Law § 63(12), and that the disclaimers of non-party accountants Mazars insulate defendants, invoke the time-loop in the film "Groundhog Day." This Court emphatically rejected these arguments in its preliminary injunction decision and in its dismissal decision, and the First Department affirmed both. Defendants' contention that a different procedural posture mandates a reconsideration, or a fortiori, a reversal, is pure sophistry1.

As this Court and others have made abundantly clear, "[it] is not disputed that the Attorney General is empowered to sue for violations of [Executive Law § 63(12)]." People v Greenberg, 21 NY3d 439, 446 (2013) (finding Executive Law § 63(12) to be broadly worded anti-fraud device); People v Ford Motor Co., 74 NY2d 495, 502 (I989) ("Executive Law § 63(12) is the procedural route by which the Attorney-General may apply to Supreme Court for an order enjoining repeated illegal or fraudulent acts" ).

Parens Patriae and Consumer Ambit

Defendants repeat the erroneous argument that the complaint must be dismissed because OAG cannot demonstrate the requirements of a parens patriae action, which is one in the public interest. "Parens patriae is a common-law standing doctrine that permits the state to commence an action to protect a public interest, like the safety, health or welfare of its citizens." People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 72 at n 4 (2008). Invocation of such doctrine, or its requirements, is not necessary where, as here, the New York legislature has specifically empowered the Attorney General to bring such an action pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12). People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 31 NY3d 622, 633 (2018) (" it is undisputed that Executive Law § 63(12) gives the Attorney General standing to redress liabilities recognized elsewhere in the law, expanding the scope of available remedies" ); People v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 137 AD3d 409, 417 (1st Dept 2016) ("[E]ven apart from prevailing authority, the language of the statute itself appears to authorize a cause of action; like similar statutes that authorize causes of action, § 63(12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek").

In any event, even if compliance with the requirements of the parens patriae doctrine is necessary, which it is not, OAG has easily satisfied those requirements, as it is well-settled that " [ i]n varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace." Grasso at 69 n 4; People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) ("the claim pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State's regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace" ); People v Amazon.com. Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-13 1 (SD NY 202 1) ("[T]he State's statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either 'fraudulent or illegal ' business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government's interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness ... " ).

Defendants' rehashed argument that OAG's complaint must be dismissed because it is not designed to protect consumers is unavailing. New York v Feldman, 210 F Supp 2d 294, 299-300 (SD NY 2002) ("[D]efendants' claim that section 63(12) is limited to consumer protection actions is simply incorrect. The New York Attorney General has repeatedly used section 63(12) to secure relief for persons who are not consumers in cases that are not consumer protection actions").

Defendants cite to the trial court decision People v Domino's Pizza. Inc., NY Slip Op 300l5(U) (Sup Ct, NY County 2021), which is not binding on this Court, as authority for the proposition that any relief sought here should come in the form of private contract litigation, not "a law enforcement action under a statute designed to address public harm." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 39. However, Domino's is wholly distinguishable from the instant case. There, the Court found that "OAG did not establish that Domino's representations to franchisees ... were false, deceptive, or misleading. Accordingly, the Court concludes that OAG has not established that Domino's engaged in conduct that ' tends to deceive or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud.'" Domino's at 262• Here, as discussed infra, OAG demonstrates that defendants repeatedly submitted fraudulent financial documents to obtain financial benefits which otherwise they would not have received.

Defendants glaringly misrepresent the requirements of an Executive Law § 63(12) cause of action. Citing to People v Northern Leasing Sys .. Inc., 70 Misc 3d 256, 267 (Sup Ct, NY County 202 1), defendants assert that OAG must show " the practice is one likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 42. However, the word "consumer" does not appear anywhere in the referenced decision. and defendants' characterization of its holding is inaccurate3. Northern Leasing confirms that the " test for fraud under Executive Law § 63(12) is whether an act tends to deceive or creates an environment conducive to fraud." Northern Leasing at 267 (further holding " Executive Law § 63(12) expands fraud to encompass new liability, while including non-statutory fraud claims" and finding that "[a] claim under Executive Law § 63(12) is the exercise of 'the State's regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace" ').

Non-Party Disclaimers

Defendants, yet again, argue that OAG's complaint must be dismissed because the SFCs contain language, provided by non-party accountants Mazars, that indicate that they have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and therefore cannot express an opinion as to whether the financial statements comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). However, as this Court already ruled, these non-party disclaimers do not insulate defendants from liability, as they plainly state that " Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and for designing, implementing, and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement." NYSCEF Doc. No. 183.

As this Court explained in its November 3, 2022 Decision and Order: "[t]he law is abundantly clear that" using a disclaimer as a defense to a justifiable reliance claim requires proof that: " (I) the disclaimer is made sufficiently specific to the particular type of fact misrepresented or undisclosed; and (2) the alleged misrepresentations or omissions did not concern facts peculiarly within the [defendant' s] knowledge." Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Grp .. Inc., 115 AD3d 128, 137 (151 Dept 2014) (" a [plaintiff] may not be precluded from claiming reliance on misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the [defendant's] knowledge" ); People v Bull Inv. Gm., Inc., 46 AD2d 25, 29 (3d Dept 1974) ("It has been stated that '[t]he rule is clear that where one party to a transaction has superior knowledge, or means of knowledge not open to both parties alike, he is under a legal obligation to speak and his silence constitutes fraud"). As the SFCs did not particularize the type of fact misrepresented or undisclosed and were unquestionably based on information peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, defendants may not rely on such purported disclaimers as a defense.

In sum, the Mazars disclaimers put the onus for accuracy squarely on defendants' shoulders.

Scienter and "Participation" Requirements

Defendants erroneously claim that Fletcher v Dakota. Inc, 99 AD3d 43, 49 (1st Dept 2012), stands for the proposition that the purported "participation element [of a cause of action under Executive Law § 63(12)] is satisfied where the defendant ' directed, controlled, or ratified the decision that led to plaintiffs injury.'" However, Fletcher is not an Executive Law § 63(12) action, it was brought as a corporate tort; accordingly, is not relevant here.4 Executive Law § 63(12) is much more than a mere codification of common law fraud.

Defendants also incorrectly rely on Abrahami v UPC Const. Co., 224 AD2d 23 1, 233 (1st Dept 1996), for the proposition that "[m]erely providing copies of purportedly false financial statements is insufficient." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 55. However, as Abrahami was not brought pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), its analysis regarding " intent to deceive" is irrelevant. Unlike the situation in Abrahami. where an action is brought pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), " good faith or lack of fraudulent intent is not in issue." People v Interstate Tractor Trailer Training. Inc., 66 Misc 2d 678, 682 (Sup Ct, NY County 1971) (holding liability under Executive Law § 63(12) does not require demonstrating an «intent to defraud" ); Trump Entrepreneur Initiative at 417 ("fraud under section 63(12) may be established without proof of scienter or reliance"); Bull Inv. Gro. at 27 (" [ i]t is well-settled that the definition of fraud under subdivision 12 of section 63 of the Executive Law is extremely broad and proof of scienter is not necessary").

Disgorgement of Profits

In flagrant disregard of prior orders of this Court and the First Department, defendants repeat the untenable notion that "disgorgement is unavailable as a matter of law" in Executive Law § 63(12) actions. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 70. This is patently false, as defendants are, or certainly should be, aware that the Appellate Division, First Department made it clear in this very case that " [w]e have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12)." Trump. 2 17 AD3d at 610.

Defendants nonetheless rely on the trial court decision in People v Direct Revenue. LLC, 19 Misc 3d I I 24(A) (Sup Ct, NY County 2008), for the proposition that Executive Law § 63(12) "do[es] no[t] authorize the general disgorgement of profits received from sources other than the public." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 71-72. However, defendants' neglect to mention that Direct Revenue was superseded, and essentially overruled, in 2016 by the New York Court of Appeals in People v Greenberg, which unequivocally held that " disgorgement is an available remedy under the Martin Act and the Executive Law." People v Greenberg, 27 NY3d 490, 497 (20 16).

Also fatally flawed is defendants' reliance on People v Frink Am., Inc., 2 AD 3d 1379, 1380 (4th Dept 2003), as it relies on the outdated proposition that Executive Law § 63(12) " does not create any new causes of action" and thus, the remedy of disgorgement is unavailable. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 73-74. However, in Trump Entrepreneur initiative, in which at least three of the instant defendants were parties, the First Department unambiguously declared that "the Attorney General is, in fact, authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud under Executive Law § 63(12)." Trump Entrepreneur Initiative at 418; see also People v Pharmacia Corp., 27 Mise 3d 368, 373 (Sup Ct, NY County 2010) (holding " Executive Law § 63(12) applies to fraudulent conduct actionable at common law, as well as to conduct for which liability arises solely from the statute" ).

Defendants incorrectly posit that, under People v Ernst & Young, LLP, 114 AD3d 569 (1st Dept 2014), disgorgement is available under the Martin Act but not under Executive Law § 63(12). NYSCEF Doc. No. 836 at 73. This is simply untrue. In Ernst & Young, the First Department specifically held that disgorgement was an available and potentially "crucial" remedy in an Executive Law § 63(12) action. Ernst & Young at 570.

Defendants correctly assert that "the record is devoid of any evidence of default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harm" and argue that as none of the recipients of the subject SFCs ever lodged a complaint with OAG or otherwise claimed damages, disgorgement of profits would be inappropriate. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 40.

However, that is completely irrelevant. As the Ernst & Young Court noted:

[W]here, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is "immaterial."

Id. (disgorgement is not impermissible penalty "since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct") (internal citations omitted); see also Amazon.com at 130 ("Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive and other relief', and finding " the Attorney General can seek disgorgement of profits on the State's behalf" ).

Sanctionable Conduct for Frivolous Motion Practice

In response to both OAG's request for a preliminary injunction and to defendants' motions to dismiss, this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments. In rejecting such arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that "sophisticated counsel should have known better." 5 NYSCEF Doc. No. 453 at 5. However, the Court declined to impose sanctions, believing it had " made its point." Id.

Apparently, the point was not received.

One would not know from reading defendants' papers that this Court has already twice ruled against these arguments, called them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the First Department.

"In its discretion, a court may award costs and financial sanctions against an attorney or party resulting from frivolous conduct." Kamen v Diaz-Karnen, 40 AD3d 937, 937 (2d Dept 2007). See Yan v Klein, 35 AD3d 729, 729- 30 (2d Dept 2006) ("The plaintiff, following two prior actions, has 'continued to press the same patently meritless claims, ' most of which are now barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel " ).

Defendants' conduct in reiterating these frivolous arguments is egregious. We are way beyond the point of "sophisticated counsel should have known better"; we are at the point of intentional and blatant disregard of controlling authority and law of the case. This Court emphatically rejected these arguments, as did the First Department. Defendants' repetition of them here is indefensible.

Pursuant to New York Administrative Code § 130-1.1, "[t]he Court, as appropriate, may make such an award of costs or impose such financial sanctions against either an attorney or a party to the litigation or against both." The provision further states that:

[quote]For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if:

(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.

22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Defendants' inscrutable persistence in re-presenting these arguments clearly satisfies the first of these three possible criteria.

When considering imposing sanctions "[a]mong the factors [the court] is directed to consider is whether the conduct was continued when it became apparent, or should have become apparent, that the conduct was frivolous, or when such was brought to the attention of the parties or to counsel." Levy v Carol Mgmt. Corp., 260 AD2d 27, 34 (1st Dept 1999) (further finding that sanctions both " punish past conduct" and "they are goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct").

In its January 6, 2023 Decision and Order, this Court warned defendants that their "reiteration of [these previously rejected arguments] scattered across five different motions to dismis[s] was frivolous." NYSCEF Doc. No. 453 at 3.

In a last-ditch attempt to stave off sanctions, defendants have submitted an affirmation by the Hon. Leonard B. Austin (ret.), who had a supremely distinguished judicial career, culminating in 12 years on the Appellate Division, Second Department. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1449. Justice Austin presents what is essentially a primer on the interplay between motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, and every point of law is valid.

However, it is wholly invalid as a reason for this Court to deny sanctions. First, legal arguments are for counsel to make, not for experts to submit. "The rule prohibiting experts from providing their legal opinions or conclusions is 'so well-established that it is often deemed a basic premise or assumption of evidence law- a kind of axiomatic principle.'" In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 174 F Supp 2d 61, 64 (SD NY 200 I) (citing Thomas Baker, The Impropriety of Expert Witness Testimony on the Law, 40 U Kan LRev 325, 352 (1992) (precluding " expert affidavits" on the law); accord, Note, Expert Legal Testimony, 97 Harv LRev 797, 797 (1984) ("it remains black-letter law that expert legal testimony is not permissible"). Neither defendants nor Justice Austin has sought permission to file an amicus brief. In their own submissions, defendants have expounded on the law of capacity, standing, disclaimers, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and sanctions. The heft and prestige of a legal lion adds nothing.

More importantly, the subject affirmation utterly fails to fit the specific facts of this case into the general principles it enunciates. In many situations, discovery, and a complete record, and the reversal of the burden of proof, will turn the tide, requiring that a valid complaint be dismissed because there is no evidence to support it. But standing and capacity are legal questions, not factual issues. Crucially, while defendants have, by their own account, conducted extensive discovery and have created a complete record, they fail to point to a single fact that discovery has uncovered, let alone a single fact in the record, that changes the calculus of their denied and doomed capacity and standing arguments.

Capacity and standing are not esoteric concepts. Infants, legally declared incompetents, and persons under certain legal disabilities are not allowed to sue. The New York Attorney General is none of the above. If my sibling or neighbor is harmed, I do not have standing to sue for his or her injury. Citizens may not sue to prevent governmental actions unless they may suffer some personal harm. Executive Law § 63(12) was promulgated to give the Attorney General standing to sue on behalf of the people of New York to prevent or deter the precise type of fraud here at issue. Arguments to the contrary are risible.

Defendants' arguments that the factual record developed in discovery changed the landscape under which standing should be viewed is legally preposterous. The best that defendants could muster at oral argument was to contend (incorrectly) that plaintiff cannot sue because the subject transactions were between private entities, and nobody lost money. However, that is purely an argument on the merits, not an argument on standing. Taken to its logical extreme, absolutely any time a defendant denies liability, it could move to dismiss on the ground of lack of standing.

Exacerbating defendants' obstreperous conduct is their continued reliance on bogus arguments, in papers and oral argument. In defendants' world: rent regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can evaporate into thin air; a disclaimer by one party casting responsibility on another party exonerates the other party's lies; the Attorney General of the State of New York does not have capacity to sue or standing to sue (never mind all those cases where the Attorney General has sued success fully) under a statute expressly designed to provide that right; all illegal acts are untimely if they stem from one untimely act; and square footage subjective.

That is a fantasy world, not the real world.

There is also a larger context to the sanctions issue. Several defendants are no strangers to sanctions and why courts are sometimes constrained to issue them. In the investigatory special proceeding this Court found Donald Trump in contempt of Court and sanctioned him $10,000 per day for failing to comply with his discovery obligations. This Court lifted the contempt after 11 days. The First Department affirmed the contempt and the fines. People v Trump, 213 AD3d 503, 504 (1st Dept 2023) ("[T]he financial sanction to compel compliance was a proper exercise of the court's discretionary power and was not excessive or otherwise improper, under the particular circumstances" ).

In Donald J. Trump v Hillary R. Clinton, 22-1 4102-CV-DMM, ("Order on Motion for Indicative Ruling") (filed September 15, 2023) (SD FL), Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks denied what in New York legal parlance would be called " a motion to reargue, " pursuant to which Donald Trump asked Judge Middlebrooks to vacate sanctions imposed on him and his legal team totaling close to one million dollars. Judge Middlebrooks wrote, on the first page thereof, that "Movants acted in bad faith in bringing this lawsuit and that this case exemplifies Mr. Trump's history of abusing the judicial process.6" Id.

Unfortunately, sanctions are the only way to impress upon defendants' attorneys the consequences of engaging in repetitive, frivolous motion practice after this Court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, expressly warned them against doing so. Boye v Rubin & Bailin. LLP, 152 AD3d I, II 1st Dept 20 17) ("sanctions serve to deter future frivolous conduct" and their " goals include preventing the waste of judicial resources, and deterring vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics" ).

It is of no consequence whether the arguments were made at the direction of the clients or sua sponte by the attorneys; counsel are "ethically obligated to withdraw any baseless and false claims, if not upon [their] own review of the record, certainly by the time [the] Supreme Court advised [them] of this fact." Boye at 11 (upholding sanctions against attorneys because "counsel continued to ... pursue claims which were completely without merit in law or fact."); see also Nachbaur v Am. Transit Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 74, 75 (1st Dept 2002) (motion court properly sanctioned attorneys for "repetitive and meritless motions"); Leventritt v Eckstein, 206 AD2d 313, 314 (1st Dept 1994) (affirming sanctions imposed on attorney for " repeated pattern of frivolous conduct"); William Stockier & Co. v Heller, 189 AD2d 601, 603 (1st Dept 1993) (affirming sanctions against attorney upon finding "there was no factual or legal basis for defendant's original cross motion, or for the reargument motion, that both motions were ' totally frivolous' and were submitted 'just really to delay'''). Counsel should be the first line of defense against frivolous litigation.

Accordingly, this Court grants OAG's motion for sanctions, in part, to the extent of sanctioning each of defendants' attorneys who signed their names to the instant legal briefs7, in the amount of $7,500 each, to be paid to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York no later than 30 days from the date of this Order.

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

Arguments Defendants Raise for the First Time

Summary Judgment Standard

To prevail on its motion for summary judgment on all causes of action, defendants must first "make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case." Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985). "Failure [of the movant] to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regard less of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." Id. If the defendants make out their prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to plaintiff to offer evidence sufficient to rebut that showing by identifying disputed issues of fact that should go before a trier of fact.

Defendants strenuously argue throughout their briefs that OAG has not met her burden sufficient to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, defendants misstate the black letter law applicable to summary judgment, citing to City Dental Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut., 34 Misc 3d 127(A) (App Term 2d, 11th, 13th Jud Dists 2011) for the flatly wrong proposition that " in order to defeat summary judgment on these claims of predicate illegality, the NY AG must, with respect to each predicate illegality attached, 'establish[] each element of its cause with respect to those causes of action.", NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 62.

Not only does City Dental not stand for that proposition (it merely found that under the circumstances of that case, plaintiffs evidence failed to meet her burden on summary judgment), but the law is well-settled that "to defeat a motion for summary judgment the opposing party must 'show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact, "not make out its own case. Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980). While OAG must establish each and every element of its cause(s) of action in order to prevail on its own motion for summary judgment, in order to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment (provided defendants are able to demonstrate a prima facie case) "an opposing party must 'show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.'" Guzman v Strab Const. Com., 228 AD2d 645, 646 (2d Dept 1996) ("evidentiary facts derived from the documents submitted [in opposition to summary judgment motion] are sufficient to present a triable issue of fact").

The "Worthless Clause"

Defendants rely on what they call a "worthless clause" set forth in the SFCs under the section entitled "Basis of Presentation" that reads, as here pertinent, as follows:

Assets are stated at their estimated current values and liabilities at their estimated current amounts using various valuation methods. Such valuation methods include, but are not limited to, the use of appraisals, capitalization of anticipated earnings, recent sales and offers, and estimates of current values as determined by Mr. Trump in conjunction with his associates and, in some instances, outside professionals. Considerable judgment is necessary to interpret market data and develop the related estimates of current value. Accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amount that could be realized upon the disposition of the assets or payment of the related liabilities. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated current value amounts.

NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769 at 7; 770 at 7; 771 at 7; 772 at 7; 773 at 7.

In his sworn deposition, Donald Trump spent a lot of time invoking this clause: "Well, they call it a 'disclaimer.' They call it 'worthless clause' too, because it makes the statement 'worthless.'" NYSCEF Doc. No. 859 at 67. Donald Trump goes on to say that "I have a clause in there that says, don't believe the statement, go out and do your own work. This statement is 'worthless.' It means nothing." Id. at 68. Furthermore, Donald Trump implies that he did not consider it important to review the SFCs for accuracy because of the existence of this purported " worthless clause":

OAG: Does this refresh your recollection of the process whereby you would get final review of the Statement of Financial Condition?

DJT: Yeah, I think generally. It's interesting. I would say as years went by, I got less and less and then once I became President, I would - if I saw it at all, I'd see it, you know, after it was already done.

OAG: So in the period -

DJT: Again, you know, I hate to be boring and tell you this. When you have the worthless clause on a piece of paper and the first - literally the first page you're reading about how this is a worthless statement from the standpoint of your using it as a bank or whatever - whoever may be using it, you tend not to get overly excited about it. I think it had very little impact, if any impact on the banks.

...

OAG: So am I understanding that you didn't particularly care about what was in the Statement of Financial Condition?

DJT: I didn't get involved in it very much. I felt it was a meaningless document, other than it was almost a list of my properties, with good faith effort of people trying to put some value down. It was a good faith effort.

Id. at 107-108. Defendants further submit the affidavit and deposition transcript of Robert Unell, who purports to be an expert in commercial real estate, for the proposition that because of "the worth less clause" in the SFC, "no lender relies on these for what it is." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 103001 183- 184; 1031.

However, defendants' reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words "worthless" or "useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years." Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.

Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as the valuations of the subject properties are, obviously, peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.

Furthermore, "[t]his 'special facts doctrine' applies regardless of the level of sophistication of the parties." TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC, 127 AD3d 75, 87 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added) (holding disclaimer does not bar liability [or fraud where facts were peculiarly within disclaiming party's knowledge).

Thus, the "worthless clause" does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, even vis-a-vis sophisticated recipients.

The Tolling Agreement

The First Department has declared that claims are timely against defendants subject to the tolling agreement if they accrued after July 13, 2014, and claims against defendants not subject to the tolling agreement are timely if they accrued after February 6, 2016. Trump. 217 AD3d at 611. Defendants concede that the tolling agreement binds each of the LLC-defendants and the Trump Organization. However, they argue that each of the individual defendants and the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (the "DJT Revocable Trust") are not bound by the agreement.

Alan Garten, the Trump Organization's Chief Legal Officer, originally entered into the tolling agreement on behalf of "the Trump Organization" on August 27, 2021; the agreement was extended one time by an amendment dated May 3, 2022. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1260. It tolls the statute of limitations for the period from November 5, 2020, through May 31, 2022. Id. at 2. The agreement contains a footnote to the entity "the Trump Organization" that reads as follows:

As noted in the December 7, 2019 subpoena issued in this investigation to the Trump Organization, the "Trump Organization" as used herein includes The Trump Organization, Inc; DJT Holdings LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC; and any predecessors, successors, present or former parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, whether direct or indirect; and all directors, officers, partners, employees, agents, contractors, consultants, representatives, and attorneys of the foregoing, and any other Persons associated with or acting on behalf of the foregoing, or acting on behalf of any predecessors, successors, or affiliates of the foregoing.

Id. at 4 n 1.

Thus, the tolling agreement at issue here binds "all directors [and] officers" and " present or former parents" of the Trump Organization and its affiliates and subsidiaries. Id. It is undisputed that at the time the tolling agreement was executed, each individual defendant, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, and Jeffrey McConney, were all directors and/or officers of the Trump Organization. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1293 at, ⁋⁋ 673, 680, 696, 710, 736.

Defendants argue that the non-signatory defendants are not bound by the agreement, citing Highland Crusader Offshore Partners. L.P. v Targeted Delivery Techs. Holdings. Ltd., 184 AD3d 116, 121 (1st Dept 2020), for the "general principal that only the parties to a contract are bound by its terms." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 27. However, defendants fail to quote the following sentence, which provides that "[a] non-signatory may be bound by a contract under certain limited circumstances." Highland at 122. See also Oberon Sec., LLC v Titanic Ent. Holdings LLC, 198 AD3d 602, 603 (1st Dept 2021) (non-signatory companies bound by agreement with language defining signatory to include "all subsidiaries, affiliates, [and] successors").

In People v JUUL Labs, Inc., 212 AD3d 414, 417 (1st Dept 2023), in a case involving nearly identical language in a corporate tolling agreements, the First Department recently held that nonsignatory corporate affiliates, officers, and directors were bound by the agreement. Similarly, here all the individual defendants are bound by the instant tolling agreement's terms and may be held liable for any claims that accrued after July 13, 2014.

Defendants argue that OAG is judicially estopped from asserting that the agreement binds the individual defendants based on statements OAG's counsel made during oral argument in the investigatory special proceeding. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1292 at 26. Specifically, on April 25, 2022, while seeking to hold Donald Trump in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, OAG's counsel stated: "[t]here is hard prejudice because Donald Trump is not a party to the tolling agreement, that tolling agreement only applies to the Trump Organization." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1041 at 59.

For judicial estoppel to be applicable: "First, the party against whom the estoppel is asserted must have argued an inconsistent position in a prior proceeding; and second, the prior inconsistent position must have been adopted by the court in some manner." Bates v Long Island R. Co., 997 F2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir 1993).

Defendants are correct that the first prong is satisfied, in that the statements OAG's counsel made during oral argument are inconsistent with the position OAG is now taking. However, defendants cannot demonstrate that this Court adopted the prior position. Indeed, this Court did not need to, and did not, consider the tolling agreement when it issued its April 26, 2022 Decision and Order finding Donald Trump in contempt. See Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC, 181 AD3d 909, 911 (2d Dept 2020) ("For the doctrine [of judicial estoppel] to apply, there must be a final determination endorsing the party's inconsistent position in the prior proceeding").

This Court has not addressed the tolling agreement until now. Accordingly, defendants cannot demonstrate that this Court adopted OAG's prior inconsistent position.

Moreover, "[t]he party asserting estoppel must show with respect to himself: '(1) lack of knowledge of the true facts; (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped; and (3) a prejudicial change in his position.'" BWA Corp. v Alltrans Exp. U.S.A., Inc., 112 AD2d 850, 853 (1st Dept 1985). Here, none of the defendants claim that they changed their positions or courses of conduct in reliance upon the statement of OAG's counsel during oral argument.

Finally, while judicial estoppel may be applied to prohibit inconsistent changes in factual positions, courts have declined to extend the doctrine to changes in legal positions. Seneca Nation of Indians v New York, 26 F Supp 2d 555, 565 (WD NY 1998), affd, 178 F3d 95 (2d Cir 1999) (finding "[t]here is no legal authority" for "broadening of the doctrine" to "include seemingly inconsistent legal positions"). Who physically signed the agreement is a question of fact; whom it binds is a question of law.

Defendants' argument that the OJT Revocable Trust is not bound by the tolling agreement falls flat. In his deposition, Donald Trump affirmed under oath that the assets of the Trump Organization are held in the OJT Revocable Trust, for which he is the sole donor and beneficiary. NYSCEF Doc. No. 859 at 21. Donald Trump also affirmed that at the time the trust was formed, he was the sole trustee and remained the sole trustee until 2017, when defendants Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump, Jr. became the sole trustees. Id. at 20-24.

As every beneficiary, donor, and trustee of the DJT Revocable Trust is a defendant bound by the tolling agreement, and as the trust is unquestionably a "parent" of the Trump Organization, so too does the tolling agreement bind the OJT Revocable Trust. See People v Leasing Expenses Co. LLC, 199 AD3d 52 1, 522 (1st Dept 2021) ("It may likewise be inferred that the trustees had knowledge of the activities of the businesses they controlled through the trust mechanism. Hence, under Executive Law § 63(12), the family trusts and trustees may likewise be held liable for the fraud',); see e.g. Kuranan v Graham, 12 Misc 3d 586, 590 (Sup Ct, NY County 2006) ("courts will not allow the owner of assets to evade creditors by placing the property in a trust while retaining a right to revoke the trust" ).

Defendants cite to New York Estates, Powers and Trust Law § 11-1.1 (b)(17) for the proposition that only a trustee may bind a trust to an agreement. However, § 11-1.1 (b)(17) does not state this; rather, it states:

(b) In the absence of contrary or limiting provisions in the court order or decree appointing a fiduciary, or in a subsequent order or decree, or in the will, deed or other instrument, every fiduciary is authorized:
...
(17) To execute and deliver agreements, assignments, bills of sale, contracts, deeds, notes, receipts and any other instrument necessary or appropriate for the administration of the estate or trust.

This provision simply says what a fiduciary is permitted to do in the absence of a contrary provision. It does nothing to advance defendants' argument that only a trustee may bind a trust, particularly since defendants fail to cite to any provision of the DJT Revocable Trust restricting who can bind it, as § 11-1.1 (b)(17) anticipates.

Moreover, Korn v Korn, 206 AD3d 529, 530 (1st Dept 2022), upon which defendants inexplicably rely, is irrelevant to the instant analysis, as that case involved an examination by the court as to whether a fiduciary had a right or duty to negotiate on behalf of an estate pursuant to § 11-1.1 (b)(13), not pursuant to § 11-1.1 (b)(17), to which defendants cite.

Finally, "the Attorney General should not be limited, in [her] duty to protect the public interest, by an ... agreement [s]he did not join." People v Coventry First LLC, 13 NY3d 108, 114 (2009) (holding Attorney General not bound by arbitration agreement when pursuing Executive Law § 63(12) claim and finding "[s]uch an arrangement between private parties cannot alter the Attorney General's statutory role or the remedies that [s]he is empowered to seek").

The tolling agreement was a mutually beneficial and common arrangement pursuant to which OAG agreed to hold off suing, and Alan Garten, on behalf of the Trump Organization, agreed to toll the statute of limitations. All defendants received the benefit of the bargain; OAG held off suing. OAG is entitled to its benefit of the bargain, the tolling of the statute of limitations, for the limited agreed-upon time, as against anyone it could have sued for the matters at issue at the time at which the agreement was executed. OAG clearly did not intend to permit defendants' principals to evade the tolling agreement based on a technicality contrary to the spirit of the agreement and controlling caselaw.

Statute of Limitations

As a general rule, statutes of limitation start running when a claim accrues, that is, when it can be sued upon. In arguing that OAG 's causes of action are untimely, defendants incorrectly assert that the statute of limitations starts running on the date the parties entered into the subject agreements, or when the loans closed. However, the First Department did not use the word "closed," it used the word "completed." Trump, 217 AD3d at 611. Obviously, the transactions were not "completed" while the defendants were still obligated to, and did, annually submit current SFCs to comply with the terms of the loan agreements.

Defendants further assert that any continuing documentation provided after the agreements were entered into, or when the loans closed, is of no consequence if the proceeds were distributed prior to July 2014. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 18. This argument is unavailing. As OAG asserts. each submission of an SFC after July 13, 2014, constituted a separate fraudulent act. Indeed, each submission of a financial document to a third-party lender or insurer would "requir[e] a separate exercise of judgment and authority," triggering a new claim. Yin Shin Leung Charitable Found. v Seng, 177 AD3d 463, 464 (1st Dept 2019) (finding continuous series of wrongs each of which gave rise to its own claim).

Defendants mistakenly assert that if a loan agreement was entered into and its proceeds were dispersed prior to the applicable statute of limitations, then a claim arising out of submitting any subsequent contractually required financial documentation is also untimely, irrespective of when that documentation is submitted. Defendants would have this Court apply a bizarre, invented, inverted form of the " relation back" doctrine, pursuant to which if one aspect of fraudulent business conduct falls outside the statute of limitations, then all subsequent aspects of fraudulent conduct also fall outside the statute, no matter how inextricably intertwined.

Of course, this is contrary to controlling case law, which holds that a cause of action accrues at the time "when one misrepresents a material fact." Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v Moskovitz, 86 NY2d 11 2, 12 (1995). Moreover, even the plain language of Executive Law § 63(12) states: "[t]he term 'repeated' as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act" (emphasis added). Clearly, the submission of each separate fraudulent SFC is a distinct fraudulent act.

OAG is not challenging the loans, the closings, or the disbursements; it is challenging defendants' submissions of financial documents containing false and misleading information. Thus, any SFC that was submitted after July 13, 2014, falls within the applicable statute of limitations. CW Capital Cobalt VR Ltd. v CW Capital Invs., LLC, 195 AD3d 12, 19-20 (1st Dept 2021) (each instance of wrongful conduct a "separate, actionable wrong" giving rise to a new claim").

Materiality

It is settled that a standalone cause of action under Executive Law § 63(12) does not require a demonstration of materiality but merely that an "act has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud." People v Gen. Elec. Co., 302 AD2d 314, 314-315 (1st Dept 2003) (holding that, unlike GBL § 349, plaintiff need not prove "the challenged act or practice 'was misleading in a material way''').

Although the Domino's court found that "evidence regarding falsity, materiality, reliance and causation plainly is relevant to determining whether the Attorney General has established that the challenged conduct has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud" (Domino's at 11 ), every Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals now hold that materiality and scienter are not requirements for liability under § 63(12).

However, as discussed infra, although materiality is required under the second through seventh causes of action, it is not required under a standalone cause of action under Executive Law § 63(12), the OAG's first cause of action.

Defendants argue that the SFCs were not materially misleading, claiming, inter alia that: (1) "[t]here is no such thing as objective value"; (2) "a substantial difference between valuation in the SOFCs and appraisal, per se, is not evidence of inflated values"; (3) there is nothing improper about using " fixed assets" valuations as opposed to using the current market valuation approach; and (4) it was proper to include "internally developed intangibles, such as the brand premium used in the valuation of President Trump's golf clubs, in personal financial statements." NYSCEF Doc No. 1292 at 20-23.

Thus, defendants essentially argue that value is inherently subjective; that because internal brand valuations are in the eye of the beholder (here, Donald Trump), they cannot be overvalued. Defendants argue that "[n]o bank or underwriter would have reasonably been materially misled by the alleged misstatements or omissions in the SOFCs and other information the Defendants made available to their counterparties because no sophisticated counterparty would have considered the SOFCs and other information provided by the Defendants alone as material to extend credit or set an interest rate, or issue an insurance policy or price a risk, without doing their own due diligence." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 45.

Defendants also argue: "[ i]t follows that if the user [of the SFCs] is in possession of the correct information, then the financial statements are not materially misstated." Id. at 39. Defendants' stance is, practically speaking, that they may submit false SFCs so long as the recipients know, from their own due diligence, that the information is false.

Accepting defendants' premise would require ignoring decades of controlling authority holding that financial statements and real property valuations are to be judged objectively, not subjectively. FMC Corp. v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 191 (1998) ("objectively reasonable conclusion, drawn by a competent and experience appraiser, was based on credible evidence" that demonstrated "property was overvalued") (emphasis added); Assured Guar. Mun. Corp. v DLJ Mortg. Cap. Inc., 44 Mise 3d 1206(A) (Sup Ct, NY County 2014) ("Credit Suisse is reading this as a subjective standard, dependent on Assured's expectations. Credit Suisse is wrong. It is well settled that this is an objective standard").

Moreover, courts have long found that "generally, it is the 'market value' which provides the most reliable valuation for assessment purposes." Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan. 42 NY2d 236, 239 (1977); Consol. Edison Co. o[ New York v City of New York, 33 AD3d 915, 916 (2d Dept 2007) ("the standard for assessment remains market value"), affd 8 NY3d 591. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but value is in the eye of the marketplace.

Further, defendants' assertion that the discrepancies between their valuations and the OAG's are immaterial is nonsense. What OAG has established, in many cases by clear, indisputable documentary evidence (as discussed infra), is not a matter of rounding errors or reasonable experts disagreeing. OAG has submitted conclusive evidence that between 2014 and 2021, defendants overvalued the assets reported in the SFCs between 17.27-38.51 %; this amounts to a discrepancy of between $812 million and $2.2 billion dollars. NYSCEF Doc. No. 766 at 70. Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be "immaterial." Defendants have failed to identify any authority for the notion that discrepancies of the magnitude demonstrated here could be considered immaterial.

The Second through Seventh Causes of Action

The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action allege violations of Executive Law § 63(12) based on underlying violations of the New York Penal Law prohibiting falsification of business records, issuance of false financial statements, and insurance fraud.

Liability under New York Penal Law § 175.05 (falsifying business records in the second degree) requires that a person "[m]akes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise."

Liability under New York Penal Law § 175.45 (issuing a false financial statement) requires that a person "represents in writing that a written instrument purporting to describe a person's financial condition or ability to pay as of a prior date is accurate with respect to such person's current financial condition or ability to pay, whereas [that person] knows it is materially inaccurate in that respect."

Liability under New York Penal Law § 176.05 (insurance fraud) requires that a person submitted an application for insurance either: (1) knowing that it "contain[ed] materially false information concerning any fact material thereto"; or (2) "conceal[ed], for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto."

Accordingly, unlike a standalone cause of action under Executive Law § 63(12). the second through seventh causes of action require demonstrating some component of intent and materiality. People v Alamo Rent A Car. Inc., 174 Mise 2d 501, 505 (Sup Ct, NY County 1997) ("As in all other situations requiring mens rea, however, petitioners may prove, by reference to facts and circumstances surrounding the case, that respondents knew that their conduct was unlawful. Moreover, petitioners need not prove respondents acted with an 'evil motive, bad purpose or corrupt design''') (internal citations omitted).

OAG has demonstrated that there remain, at the very least, disputed issues of fact as to whether defendants violated these statutes, intentionally and materially. Thus, there are issues of fact as to causes of action two through seven that require a trial.

The Court has considered defendants' remaining arguments and finds them to be unavailing and/or non-dispositive.

Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing every cause of action is denied in its entirety.

OAG'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Summary Judgment Burden on Standalone Executive Law § 63(12) Cause of Action

OAG moves for partial summary judgment, seeking to hold defendants liable under OAG's first cause of action, for fraud under Executive Law § 63(12).

As this Court has noted ad nauseum, Executive Law § 63(12) "authorizes the Attorney General to bring a special proceeding against any person or business that engages in repeated or persistent fraudulent or illegal conduct, while broadly construing the definition of fraud so as to include acts characterized as dishonest or misleading and eliminating the necessity for proof of an intent to defraud." People v Apple Health & Sports Club, Ltd., Inc., 206 AD2d 266-267 (1st Dept 1994).

As OAG's first cause of action, the only one upon which it moves for summary judgment, alleges a standalone violation of Executive Law § 63(12), OAG need only prove: (1) the SFCs were false and misleading; and (2) the defendants repeatedly or persistently used the SFCs to transact business.

This instant action is essentially a "documents case." As detailed infra, the documents here clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business, satisfying OAG's burden to establish liability as a matter of law against defendants. Defendants' respond that: the documents do not say what they say; that there is no such thing as " objective" value; and that, essentially, the Court should not believe its own eyes.9

The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without basis in law or fact. He claims that if the values of the property have gone up in the years since the SFCs were submitted, then the numbers were not inflated at that time (i.e.; "But you take the 2014 statement, if something is much more valuable now - or, I guess, we'll have to pick a date which was a little short of now. But if something is much more valuable now, then the number that I have down here is a low number"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 1363 at 69-75). He also seems to imply that the numbers cannot be inflated because he could find a "buyer from Saudi Arabia" to pay any price he suggests.10 Id. at 30-33, 60-62, 79-80.

The Trump Tower Triplex

This Court takes judicial notice that the Trump Tower apartment in which Donald Trump resided for decades (the ''Triplex'') is 10,996 square feet. NYSCEF Doc. No. 816 at 2. Between 2012- 2016, Donald Trump submitted SFCs falsely claiming that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet, resulting in an overvaluation of between $114-207 million dollars. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 782 at Rows 833-834, 1028, 783 at Rows 799-800, 1199, 784 at Rows 843-844, 785 at Rows 882-883, 789 at Row 913, 8 17. The misrepresentation continued even after defendants received written notification from Forbes that Donald Trump had been overestimating the square footage of the Triplex by a factor of three.11

In opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that "the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation.12" NYSCEF Doc. No. 1293 at 20. Well yes, perhaps, if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, it is possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error. Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20%, not 200%. A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud.13

OAG unquestionably satisfies its two-prong burden of demonstrating the SFCs from 2012-2016 calculated the value of the Triplex based on a false and misleading square footage, and that some of the defendants repeatedly and persistently used the SFCs to transact business.

Seven Springs Estate

Defendant Seven Springs LLC owns over 200 acres of contiguous land in the towns of Bedford, New Castle and North Castle in Westchester County, New York.

In 2000, non-party the Royal Bank of Pennsylvania appraised the "as is" market value of Seven Springs to be $25 million if converted to residential development. NYSCEF Doc. No. 825. In 2006, the same bank performed a new appraisal, which showed Seven Springs had an "as is" market value of $30 million. NYSCEF Doc. No. 826.

In 2012, Seven Springs LLC received another appraisal that estimated a six-lot subdivision on the New Castle portion of the property to have a fair market value of approximately $700,000 per-lot. NYSCEF Doc. No. 829 at 203-206.

In July 2014, because the Trump Organization was considering donating a conservation easement, it retained Cushman & Wakefield to provide a "range of value" of the Seven Springs property. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 830, 831. Cushman & Wakefield's appraiser, David McArdle, analyzed the sale of eight lots in Bedford, six lots in New Castle, and ten lots in North Castle and determined the fair market value for all 24 lots was approximately $30 million. NYSCEF Doc. No. 831, 832.

Notwithstanding receiving market values from professional appraisals in 2000, 2006, 2012, and 2014 valuing Seven Springs at or below $30 million, Donald Trump's 2011 SFC reported the value to be $261 million, and his 2012, 2013 and 2014 SFCs reported the value to be $291 million." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769, 770, 771, 772.

In early 2016, Cushman & Wakefield performed another appraisal of Seven Springs, which included the planned development, and determined that as of December I, 2015, the entire parcel was worth $56.6 million. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 824 at 9; 875; 876.

Even giving defendants the benefit of the $56.6 million figure as of December 1, 2015, the value submitted on Donald Trump's 2014 SFC was inflated by over 400%. Accordingly. OAG has demonstrated liability for the false 2014 SFC for fraudulently inflating the value of Seven Springs.

Trump Park Avenue

Trump Park Avenue is a residential building included as an asset on Donald Trump's SFCs for the years 2011-2021. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779. In 2011, 12 of the unsold residential condominium units were subject to New York City's rent regulation laws. NYSCEF Doc. No. 948 at 3. By 2014, nine units remained subject to rent restrictions. NYSCEF Doc. No. 966. By 2020, six units remained subject to rent restrictions. NYSCEF Doc. No. 971.

A 2010 appraisal performed by the Oxford Group valued the 12 rent-stabilized units at $750, 000 total, or $62,500 per unit. NYSCEF Doc. No. 952. A 2020 appraisal performed by Newmark Knight Frank valued the six units that remained subject to stabilization at $22,800,090 total, or $3, 800, 315 per unit. NYSCEF Doc. No. 972.

Notwithstanding, for the years 20 14-2021, the Trump Organization submitted SFCs that valued these rent-restricted units as if they were unencumbered, inflating the value of each unit between as much 700% (in 2014) and 64% (in 2021). NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 772-779.

In an unsuccessful attempt to rebut OAG's prima facie demonstration, defendants proffer that the units are not overvalued because " the rent-stabilized units have the potential at some point in the future to be converted into unencumbered (by rent stabilization) units."15 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1292 at 57. They further concede that "[t]his is the assumption the owner made when assessing potential asset pricing or value." Id.

However, the SFCs are required to state "current" values, not "someday, maybe" values. At the time defendants provided the subject SFCs to third parties they unquestionably falsely inflated the value of the units based on a false premise that they were unrestricted.16

[admin]

Part 3 of 3

40 Wall Street

The Trump Organization, through defendant 40 Wall Street LLC, owns a ground lease at 40 Wall Street and pays ground rent to the landowner.

In 2010, Cushman & Wakefield appraised the Trump Organization's interest in 40 Wall Street at $200 million. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 878-79. Cushman & Wakefield appraised again in 2011 and 2012, reaching valuations of between $200 and $220 million. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 881-82. The Trump Organization possessed and was familiar with these appraisals. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 817 at 135-138; 883.

Despite these appraisals, the 2011 and 2012 SFCs valued the Trump Organization's interest in the property at $524.7 million and $527.2 million, respectively, an overvaluation of more than $300 million each year.l7 NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769, 770.

In 2015, Cushman & Wakefield once again appraised the property, and valued it at $540 million.18 NYSCEF Doc. No. 887. Notwithstanding this appraised value, the 2015 SFC listed the value of 40 Wall Street at $735.4 million.19 NYSCEF Doc. No. 773.

Defendants assert that overvaluations of two hundred million dollars are immaterial, as the "NYAG has produced no evidence to suggest... that Ladder Capital would have been uncomfortable allowing President Trump to guarantee the 40 Wall Street Loan if his net worth was only $1.9 billion, as the NYAG contends." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 48. They further emphasize that " Ladder Capital has received in excess of $40 million in interest and 40 Wall Street LLC has never defaulted under the Loan."20 Id.

Defendants' argument misses the mark. As has been explained to defendants many times, in many legal proceedings, and in painstaking detail, "where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity [under Executive Law 63(12)], disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution." Ernst & Young at 569 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is not significant that the banks made money (or did not lose money)21, or that they would have done business with the Trump Organization notwithstanding. The law is clear that the only requirements for liability to attach under a standalone Executive Law § 63(12) cause of action are (1) a finding that the SFCs were false and misleading; and (2) that defendants repeatedly or persistently used the SFCs to conduct business.

Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of 40 Wall Street in the 201S SFC.

Mar-a-Lago

Donald Trump purchased Mar-a-Lago in 1985. In 1993, he sought, and obtained, permission from the Town of Palm Beach to turn the property into a social club (NYSCEF Doc. No. 900), and on August 10, 1993, he entered into a "Declaration of Use Agreement" by which he agreed "the use of Land shall be for a private social club" and that "[a]ny additional uses of the Land shall be subject to approval by the applicable governmental authority including but not limited to the Town Council of the Town, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the Town, the Architectural Review Commission of the Town, Palm Beach County, the State of Florida, the United States Government, and/or any agencies under the foregoing governmental authorities." NYSCEF Doc. No. 915.

In 1995, Donald Trump signed a "Deed of Conservation and Preservation Easement" in which he gave up his right to use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than as a social club (the "1995 Deed"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 901. In 2002. Donald Trump signed a "Deed of Development Rights." NYSCEF Doc. No. 902. As part of granting a conversation easement to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Donald Trump agreed that "Trump intend[s] to forever extinguish [his] right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use" (the "2002 Deed"). The 2002 Deed also specifically " limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, the division or subdivision of the Property for any purpose, including use as single family homes, the interior renovation of the mansion, which may be necessary and desirable for the sale of the Property as a single family residential estate, the construction of new buildings and the obstruction of open vistas." rd. In exchange for granting the easement, Mar-a-Lago was taxed at a significantly lower rate (the club rate) than it otherwise would have been (the private home rate). NYSCEF Doc. No. 903.

From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a-Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million. NYSCEF Doc. No. 905.

Notwithstanding, the SFCs' values do not reflect these land use restrictions. Donald Trump's SFCs for 2011-2021 value Mar-a-Lago at between $426,529,614 million and $612,110,496, an overvaluation of at least 2,300%, compared to the assessor's appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779.

In an attempt to rebut the OAG's demonstration, defendants rely on the opinion affidavit of Lawrence Moens, who they purport is "the most accomplished and knowledgeable ultra-high net worth real estate broker in Palm Beach, Florida."22 Moens claims that "the SOFC were and are appropriate and indeed conservative." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1292 at 35-36 (emphasis added). The Moens' affidavit states in a conclusory fashion that because he believes "this unique property offers to an elite purchaser the unparalleled opportunity to own an exclusive and extensive family compound in the most desirable sections of Palm Beach ... the valuations in the SOFC were reasonable and below my estimate for the market value of the property each year." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1435. Moreover, Moens opines that "[ i]f Mar-A-Lago was available for sale, I am confident that in short order, I would be in a position to produce a ready, willing and able buyer who would have interest in securing the property for their personal use as a residence, or even, their own club." Id. at 29. Critically, Moens does not opine at what price he is "confident" he could find a buyer (although he opines separately, without relying on any objective evidence, that he believes that as of2023 the property is worth $1.51 billion).

It is well-settled that: "[w]here the expert's ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, however, the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to withstand summary judgment." Diaz v New York Downtown Hasp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 (2002); see also Gardner v Ethier, 173 AD2d 1002, 1003-4 (3d Dept 1991) ("the expert affidavit is also inadmissible because it is conclusory and the views are apparently based to a great extent on hearsay statements from unspecified witnesses as well as upon speculations on the part of the expert"). Accordingly, defendants' reliance on the Moens affidavit is unpersuasive and certainly insufficient to rebut OAG's prima face case.

Defendants further imply that they may ignore the plain language of the 2002 Deed restrictions because they would likely be able to use the Florida judicial system to get out of their contractual requirements; they further assert that because they may successfully breach their contract in the future, they were not required to consider the restrictions of the 2002 Deed when valuing the property. NYSCEF Doc. 1292 at 48-51. This argument is wholly without merit. At the time in which the defendants submitted the SFCs, the restrictions were in effect, and any valuations represented to third-parties must have incorporated those restrictions; failure to do so is fraud. Assets values that disregard applicable legal restrictions are by definition materially false and misleading.

Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of Mar-a-Lago as appears in the SFCs from 2014-2021.

Aberdeen

The Trump Organization owns a golf course located in Aberdeen, Scotland ("Aberdeen"). The value assigned to Aberdeen was comprised of two parts: a value for the golf course and a value for the development of the non-golf course property, the latter of which is the focus here. Developing any of the non-golf course property required that the local Scottish authorities approve any proposed plans.

From 2011-2014, Donald Trump's SFC reported that he had "received outline planning permission [from local Scottish authorities] in December 2008 for ... a residential village consisting of 950 holiday homes and 500 single family residences and 36 golf villas." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-776.

The Trump Organization had "outline planning permission" to build a total of 1, 486 homes. Notwithstanding, the 2014-2018 SFCs valuations of Aberdeen assumed the Trump Organization had received approval to build 2,500 homes, despite never having received such approval. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 772-776, 907.

Additionally. the approval of the 950 holiday homes and 36 golf villas came with severe restrictions on their use: they could be used solely as rental properties and could be rented for no more than 12 weeks in any calendar year. NYSCEF Doc. No. 908 at 13. The Trump Organization submitted financial documentation to the local Scottish authorities representing that these short-term rentals would not be profitable and therefore would not add any value to Aberdeen. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 909 at 36, 910 at 7. Consequently, the only profitable development of Aberdeen would have been the 500 single family residences. In July 2017, nonparty Ryden LLP, acting on behalf of the Trump Organization, prepared a development appraisal for Aberdeen wherein it assessed the profit from developing 557 homes and estimated profits in the range of £16,525,000-£18,546,000. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1231 at 10.

In May 2018, the Trump Organization applied to the Aberdeen City Council to reduce the scope of the development project to 550 dwellings, consisting of 500 private residences, 50 leisure/resorts units, and zero holiday homes (having determined they were not profitable). NYSCEF Doc. No. 911. In September 2019, the Aberdeen City Council approved the proposal for a reduction in the proposed development, but restricted the 50 leisure/resort units, as they had the holiday homes, to be "occupied on a holiday letting or fractional ownership basis only and for no other purposes whatsoever including use as a permanent residential unit... ." NYSCEF Doc. No. 907 at 7.

Notwithstanding, the 2019 SFC, finalized a month after the latest approval, derived a value based on the assumption that 2,035 private residential homes could be developed. Adjusting the values to reflect the permissible 500 private residences reduces the value of the Aberdeen undeveloped property as reflected in the 2019 SFC by £164,196.704. NYSCEF Doc. No. 777 at 16,789 at Cells G561-619, 912.

Although defendants wholly fail to address Aberdeen in any of their three memos of law, in their response to OAG's statement of material facts, they state that "Defendants dispute the veracity of the appraisal because President Trump, as a land developer, took optimistic views of potential future value which is not contemplated in the appraisal, thereby undervaluing Trump Aberdeen." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1293 at 82-83. For all the reasons discussed supra, this defense fails.

Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of Aberdeen as appears in the SFCs from 2014-2019.

US Golf Clubs

Donald Trump owns or leases a number of golf clubs across the United States and abroad that are included as assets on his SFCs. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779. The value for these golf clubs is provided in the aggregate in the SFCs, although supporting accounting spreadsheets evidence the breakdown of the values assigned to each club. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 781-791.

The "Trump Brand Premium"

The evidence indicates that for the years 2013-2020, the SFCs relied on values that included a 15% or 30% "premium" based on the "Trump brand" for the following seven golf clubs: Trump National Golf Course ("TNGC" ) Jupiter, TNGC LA, TNGC Colts Neck, TNGC Philadelphia, TNGC DC, TNGC Charlotte, and TNOC Hudson Valley. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 783-790. However, the SFCs for those years (and, indeed, all the years before this Court), also contained express language stating: "The goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant value that has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the SFCs "double dip," both purporting not to include a brand premium while simultaneously including one of 15% or 30%.

In opposition, defendants submit the affidavit of Eli Bartov, an accounting professor at New York University, who distinguishes between overall brand value and brand value ascribed to individual golf courses. His point, ensconced in numerous lines of academic jargon, seems to be that defendants said that they were eschewing the former and opting only for the latter. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1378 at 14-15. This is a red herring and factually incorrect. The SFCs clearly state that they do not include a brand value for any of the properties included in the SFCs; indeed, the SFCs emphatically declare that "[t]he goodwill attached to the Trump name has significant financial value that has not been reflected in the preparation of this financial statement." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779 (emphasis added). Perhaps Donald Trump could have ascribed a brand value to golf courses that he viewed as "special," but he was obligated to disclose those exceptions when he represented that the SFCs did not reflect his brand value.

TNGC Briarcliff and TNGC LA

The valuations of TNGC Briarcliff and TNGC LA were each comprised of a value for the golf course and a value for the undeveloped land. As the Trump Organization was considering donating a conservation easement over both properties, they had both properties appraised.

An April 2014 appraisal valued the golf club portion of TNGC Briarcliff at $16,500,000; later that same year, Donald Trump valued the golf club portion of TNGC Briarcliff at $73,430,217, an inflation of more than 300%, in his SFC. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 923 at 147; 785 at Row 257. A 2015 appraisal valued the golf club portion of TNGC LA at $16,000,000 as of December 26, 2014; the 2015 SFC valued the golf club portion of TNGC LA at $56,615,895, an inflation of more than 200%. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 924 at 151; 785 at Row 386.

In an attempt to rebut this strong showing of fraud, defendants argue that they were not obligated to use market value, but, instead, were permitted to use the " fixed assets" approach to valuation, pursuant to which defendants may "value" a property by aggregating the money spent to acquire and maintain a property. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1292. They further rely on the Bartov affidavit, which states, in wholly conclusory fashion that: "[t]he assertion that 'Using fixed assets approach does not present the golf clubs at their estimated current value because the approach ignores market conditions and the behavior of in fanned buyers and sellers' is unsubstantiated and false." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1378 at 29.

Bartov is incorrect. Each of the corresponding SFCs include representations that "[a]ssets are stated at their estimated current values ..." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779.24 Accordingly, it is false and misleading to use a fixed-assets evaluation, which is completely different. The price for which you purchase property is not necessarily the price for which you can sell it. The latter, not the former, matters to lenders who want adequate collateral.

The Membership Liabilities

As part of the purchase of several of the golf club properties, Donald Trump agreed to assume the obligation to pay back refundable non-interest-bearing long-term membership deposits. However, notwithstanding that these liabilities must be satisfied in the future, the SFCs from 2012-2021 value them at $0. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779. This is false; they are a liability in the millions of dollars.

However, the SFCs all state: "The fact that Mr. Trump will have the use of these funds for that period without cost and that the source of repayment will most likely be a replacement membership has led him to value this liability at zero." Sec e.g., NYCSCEF Doc. No. 772.

Although it was false to report the membership liabilities as $0, it was not, under the circumstances, misleading, as the SFCs state that the reason for so doing. Accordingly, OAG cannot prevail on liability as a result of the failure to report the membership liabilities.

Yet, as discussed supra, OAG has demonstrated liability for submitting fraudulent SFCs in 2014- 2020 that falsely value the aforementioned US Golf Clubs based on undisclosed brand premiums and failure to report "current" values.

Vornado Partnership Properties

Donald Trump has a 30% limited partnership interest with non-party Vornado Realty Trust in entities that own office buildings in New York City (at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, hereinafter "1290 AOA") and San Francisco at 555 California Street.

Cash/Liquid Classification

Donald Trump's 30% limited partnership stake does not permit him to use or withdraw funds held by the partnerships. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 916, 917. Notwithstanding, Donald Trump and his trustees classified his 30% interest in the Vornado partnership as a liquid/cash asset on his SFCs for the years 20 13-202!. NYSCEF Doc. o. 771-779. This was even though it is "undisputed" by defendants that Donald Trump does not have " the right to use or withdraw [these] funds." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1293 at ⁋387-388.

Defendants assert that "[e]ven if the cash held in the partnership was misclassified and should have been reported elsewhere on the SOFCs as an asset (e.g., in the value of the partnership interest), it would not have inflated the total value of cash or President Trump's net worth reported on the SOFCs." NYSCEF Doc No. 1292 at 39.

This argument does not hold any water. Put simply, it was false and misleading for defendants to indicate that it had access to between $14,221,800 and $93,126,589 in liquid assets, sometimes nearly a third of the total cash it claimed, when in fact those assets were completely illiquid. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1293 ⁋403.

The Appraisals

Cushman & Wakefield appraised the value of 1290 AOA at $2 billion as of November 1, 2012, and $2.3 billion as of November 1, 2016. NYSCEF Doc. No. 919 at 5-6.

However, Donald Trump's 2014 SFC calculated his 30% share based on a purported value of $3,078,338,462; his 2015 SFC was based on a purported value of $2,985,819,936; and his 2016 SFC was based on a purported value of $3,055,000,000. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 784 at Rows 709-715, 785 at Rows 748-755, 785 at Rows 779-784. This resulted in overvaluations of Donald Trump's 30% interest in 1290 AOA of between $205-$233 million dollars for those years.

CBRE appraised 1290 AOA and determined its value at $2 billion as of October 7, 2021. NYSCEF Doc. No. 947. Nonetheless, the 2021 SFC was calculated based upon a purported value of $2,574,813,800, an overvaluation of Donald Trump's 30% share by $172 million dollars. NYSCEF Doc. No. 791 at Row 918.

The instant motions do not task this Court with determining which appraisals arc the most accurate, which would present issues of fact.25 Rather, time and time again, the Court is not comparing one appraisal to another; it is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a pie-in-the-sky dream of concocted potential.

Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for submitting fraudulent SFCs overvaluing Donald Trump's interest in the Vornado partnership in 2014-20 16 and 2021.

Licensing Deals

Each of Donald Trump's SFCs from 2011-2021 has an asset category entitled " Real Estate Licensing Deals, "which the SFC represents is value derived from "associations with others for the purpose of developing and managing properties" and the "cash flow that is expected to be derived ... from these associations as their potential is realized." NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779. The SFCs further state that "[ i]n preparing [these] assessment[s], Mr. Trump and his management considered only situations which have evolved to the point where signed arrangements with the other parties exist and fees and other compensation which he will earn are reasonably quantifiable." Id.

Despite this express language, the SFCs from 2014-2018 and 2020-2021 include valuations of intra-organization deals, all between entities under the Trump Organization umbrella, in this category of assets. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1014, 1018, 1019, 1021, 1023, 1024, 1062, 1063, 1064. It was flatly false and misleading to include values of deals between Trump Organization entities while expressly representing in the SFCs that such assets included only valuations derived from "association with others." Improperly including these intra-organization deals resulted in an overvaluation of up to $224 million in 2014, $110 million in 20 15, $120 million in 2016, $113 million in 2017, $115 million in 2018, $97 million in 2020, and $106 million in 2021. Id.

OAG has demonstrated liability for the false and misleading valuation of intra-company licensing deals on the SFCs from 2014-2018 and 2020-2021.

The Other Loans

OAG has established that defendants submitted false SFCs after July 13, 2014, pursuant to their other loan commitments. Defendants submitted SFCs to Deutsche Bank as part of their contractual obligations arising out of three different loans: (1) a Chicago Loan, undertaken by 401 North Wabash Venture LLC; (2) a Doral Loan, undertaken by Trump Endeavor LLC; and (3) an Old Post Office Loan, undertaken by Trump Old Post Office LLC. Defendants certified the accuracy of these SFCs to Deutsche Bank for the years 2014-2019 and 2021 26 as part of their contractual obligations. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1104, 1106, 1124, 1126, 1155, 1156, 1157.

The Individual Defendants

OAG has demonstrated liability on behalf of all the named individual defendants: (1) Donald Trump, as each and every SFC was issued on behalf of "Donald J. Trump"; (2) Donald Trump, Jr., who, along with Allen Weisselberg, certified the accuracy of the SFCs for 2016-2020, and who singlehandedly certified the accuracy of the 2021 SFC (NYSCEF Docs. No. 808-813); (3) Eric Trump, who is the listed source for the Seven Springs valuation in 2014, 27 and who signed several guarantor compliance certificates in 2020 and 2021 for Donald J. Trump (NYSCEF Doc. No. 802); (4) Allen Weisselberg. who certified the accuracy of the SFCs from 2014-2021 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 806-812); (5) and Jeffrey McConney, who led the process of preparing all the SFCs since the 1990s 28 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 822 at 52-68).

The Entity Defendants

It is settled law that "[a] parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over the subsidiary." Potash v Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 279 AD2d 562, 562 (2d Dept 2001) (emphasis added). Here, it is undisputed that Donald Trump, through one corporate form or another, exercised complete control over the umbrella of entities operating in furtherance of, or on behalf of, "the Trump Organization."

Defendants do not dispute that DJT Holdings LLC and DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC are entities that sit at the top of the Trump Organization's organizational chart and together own many of the Trump-affiliated entities that comprise the Trump Organization. OJT Holdings Managing Member LLC owns 100% of the Trump Organization and OJT Holdings LLC owns 100% of the Trump Organization LLC. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 4, 819 at ⁋1.

Accordingly, OAG has established liability on behalf of all the named entity defendants: (1) The Trump Organization Inc., the Trump Organization LLC. DJT Holdings LLC, and DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, as each participated in the preparation, submission and certification of the SFCs after July 13, 2014 through the acts of the individual defendants as described supra; (2) the DJT Revocable Trust, as both Donald Trump Jr. and Allen Weisselberg certified the accuracy of the 2016-20 19 SFCs in their capacities as "Trustee, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust dated April 7, 2014, as amended" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 808); (3) Trump Endeavor LLC, which was the borrower on the Doral Loan, for which SFCs were submitted after July 13, 2014; (4) 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, which was the borrower on a loan for "Trump Chicago," under which SFCs were required to be (and were) submitted after July 13, 2014; (5) Trump Old Post Office LLC, as it was the borrower on the "Old Post Office" loan, under which SFCs were required to be (and were) submitted after July 13, 2014; and Seven Springs LLC, the borrowing entity (as described supra) under which SFCs were required to be (and were) submitted after July 13, 2014.

Injunctive Relief

OAG has prevailed on liability on its first cause of action pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) as against all defendants: Donald J. Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; Eric Trump; Allen Weisselberg; Jeffrey McConney; the DJT Revocable Trust; the Trump Organization Inc; the Trump Organization LLC; DJT Holdings LLC; DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC; Trump Endeavor 12 LLC; 40 I North Wabash Venture LLC; Trump Old Post Office LLC; 40 Wall Street LLC; and Seven Springs LLC.

If liability is established under Executive Law § 63(12), the statute itself provides that the attorney general may obtain "an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts ... and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of ... section one hundred thirty of the general business law .... "

"[T]he Attorney General may obtain permanent injunctive relief under... Executive Law § 63(12) upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation based upon the totality of the circumstances." People v Greenberg, 27 NY3d at 49 6~97 (further stating "[t]his is not a 'run of the mill' action for an injunction, but rather one authorized by remedial legislation, brought by the Attorney-General on behalf of the People of the State and for the purposes of preventing fraud and defeating exploitation") (internal citations omitted).

Having found, at the commencement of the action, that OAG had preliminarily demonstrated defendants' "propensity to engage in persistent fraud," this Court appointed the Hon. Barbara S. Jones (ret.) as an independent monitor "to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality that violates § 63(12) pending the final disposition of this action." NYSCEF Doc. No. 194. On August 3, 2023, Judge Jones reported as follows:

[S]ince my appointment I have reviewed material financial and accounting information submitted by the Trump Organization. As part of my review, I have made preliminary observations regarding certain current financial disclosures with respect to the Trump Organization's reporting of financial information. Specifically, I have observed that information regarding certain material liabilities provided to lenders - such as intercompany loans between or among Trust entities and Donald J. Trump, certain of the Trust's contingent liabilities, as well as refundable golf club membership deposits - has been incomplete. The Trust also has not consistently provided all required annual and quarterly certifications attesting to the accuracy of certain financial statements.

In addition, annual audited financial statements for certain entities, prepared by an external accounting firm, list depreciation expenses. However, interim internally prepared financial statements provided to third parties for these same entities inconsistently report depreciation expenses.

NYSCEF Doc. No. 647. Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance, defendants have continued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business. This ongoing flouting of this Court's prior order, combined with the persistent nature of the false SFCs year after year, have demonstrated the necessity of canceling the certificates filed under GBL § 130, as the statute provides. People v Northern Leasing. 70 Mise 3d 256, 279-80 (Sup Ct, NY County 2020) (denying a trial on the petition and ordering the LLC respondents to dissolve upon a finding of persistent fraud under Executive Law § 63(12)).

Having prevailed on liability on a standalone Executive Law § 63(12) cause of action, the Attorney General is entitled to the first two prayers for relief sought in her complaint: (1) canceling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of New York General Business Law § 130 for all the entity defendants found liable, as well as any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by the individual defendants found liable herein, which and who participated in or benefitted from the foregoing fraudulent schemes; and (2) appointing an independent monitor to oversee compliance, financial reporting, valuations, and disclosures to lenders, insurers, and tax authorities at the Trump Organization. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 at 213.

Remaining Issues to be Determined at Trial

Anything presented in the parties' moving papers that this Court has not ruled upon in this Decision and Order, including determinations on liability for the second through seventh causes of action, the amount of disgorgement of profits to which OAG is entitled, and determinations on the third through ninth prayers for relief sought by OAG in its complaint, presents disputed issues of fact that shall proceed to trial.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in part, to the extent of sanctioning Michael Madaio, Esq. (Habba Madaio & Associates, LLP), Clifford S. Robert, Esq. (Robert & Robert PLLC), Michael Farina Esq. (Robert & Robert PLLC), Christopher M. Kise, Esq., (admitted pro hac vice) (Continental PLLC), and Armen Morian (Marian Law PLLC) in the amount of $7,500 each, to be paid to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York no later than 30 days from the date of this Decision and Order; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on its first cause of action is granted in part, to the extent of finding defendants Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, the DJT Revocable Trust, the Trump Organization Inc, the Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, and Seven Springs LLC to be liable as a matter of law for persistent violations of Executive law § 63(12); and it is further

ORDERED that any certificates filed under and by virtue of GBL § 130 by any of the entity defendants or by any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, and Jeffrey McConney are canceled; and it is further

ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to recommend the names of no more than three potential independent receivers to manage the dissolution of the canceled LLCs; and it is further

ORDERED that the Han. Barbara S. Jones (ret.) shall continue to serve as an independent monitor of the Trump Organization until further Court order; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATE: 9/26/2023

ARTHUR F. ENGORON, J.S.C.
_______________

Notes:

1 Indeed, the Court made this crystal clear in its January 6, 2023 order when it found: " Here, the issues of capacity and standing, are pure issues of law and do not depend on a trial of disputed issues of fact. Simply put, who the instant parties are and what the law says, which determine capacity and standing, are not disputed issues of fact that need to be tried." NYSCEF Doc. No. 453 at 4.

2 As the failure to demonstrate false misrepresentations foreclosed the possibility of liability on that issue in Domino's, any commentary about the statute's requirements was pure dicta.

3 Although "consumer" does appear in the First Department's affirmance of Northern Leasing, it does not advance defendants' proposition that Executive Law § 63(12) actions be consumer oriented; it simply reaffirms that " the test for fraud is whether the targeted act has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud." 193 AD3d 67 (1st Dept 2021). The fact that Northern Leasing challenged actions targeted at consumers docs not mean that Executive Law § 63(12) is restricted to such actions.

4 In fact, had defendants not cut off the beginning of the sentence they cited, it would be evident on its face that such case is legally irrelevant, as the full sentence reads: "A leading treatise on corporations states that a director may be held individually liable to third parties for a corporate tort if he either participated in the tort or else 'directed, controlled, approved or ratified the decision that led to the plaintiffs injury.'" Fletcher at 49.

5 The Court even went so far as to caution that the "arguments were borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them." NYSCEF Doc. No. 453 at 3.

6 One factor Judge Middlebrooks considered was Donald Trump's "disregard for legal principles and precedent." Id. at 14. In short, Donald Trump, and his lawyers, are not sanctions neophytes. This is not their first rodeo.

7 The following attorneys signed their names to defendants' instant briefs and are, accordingly, sanctioned $7,500 each: Michael Madaio, Esq. (Habba Madaio & Associates, LLP); Clifford S. Robert, Esq. (Robert & Robert PLLC); Michael Farina Esq. (Robert & Robert PLLC); Christopher M. Kise, Esq., (admitted pro hac vice) (Continental PLLC); and Annen Morian (Morian Law PLLC).

8 The substantially similar tolling agreement at issue in Juul can be found under Index No. 45216812019, NYSCEF Doc. No. 176.

9 As Chico Marx, playing Chicolini, says to Margaret Dumont, playing Mrs. Gloria Teasdale, in "Duck Soup," "well, who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

10 This statement may suggest influence buying more than savvy investing.

11 Three days after receiving a written inquiry from Forbes, Trump Organization Vice President, Amanda Miller, sent an email to Trump Organization Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Alan Garten, indicating that she "spoke to Allen W[eisselberg] re: [Trump World Tower and Trump Tower] -- we are going to leave those alone." NYSCEF Doc. No. 821. Although OAG need not show intent to deceive under a standalone § 63(12) cause of action, this directive to continue to use a grossly inflated number despite clear knowledge it is false demonstrates the repetitive and ongoing nature of defendants' propensity to engage in fraud.

12 Despite this assertion in their motion papers, counsel for defendants, Christopher Kise, Esq, conceded during oral argument held on September 22, 2023, that square footage is, in fact, an objective number.

13 In fact, OAG demonstrates that as of 2012, no apartment sold in New York City had ever approached the price at which defendants valued the Triplex, noting that the highest overall sale at that time was $88 mill ion for a Central Park West penthouse. The SFCs valued the Triplex at a staggering $180,000,000- $327,000,000 for the years 2012-2016. NYSCEF Doc. No. I at 276.

14 The statutes of limitations have run for all claims that accrued before July 13, 2014. However, although not actionable by themselves, evidence of fraud that predates July 13, 2014, may still be used as evidence in evaluating OAG's request for permanent injunctive relief, wherein the Court must determine whether there has been "a showing of a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation based upon the totality of the circumstances." People v Greenberg, 27 NY3d 490, 496-97 (20 16)(detailing standard for permanent injunctive relief under Executive Law 63(12) and "reject[ing] defendants' arguments that the Attorney General must show irreparable harms in order to obtain a permanent injunction").

15 As every New Yorker knows, rent regulated units may be passed on from one generation to the next in perpetuity.

16 Mazars accountant Donald Bender testified that when he asked Jeffrey McConney, "Do you have any other appraisals?", Jeffrey McConney stated "I have nothing else," demonstrating an intent to conceal or mislead the accountants. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1262 at 243.

Further, Patrick Birney, a Trump Organization employee working directly under Jeffrey McConney, conceded that the Trump Organization maintained a spreadsheet for day-to-day operations on the Trump Park Avenue offering plan that included both the offering plan prices and the current market values, but that the Trump Organization concealed its own actual market estimates from Mazars by omitting the market value column in its spreadsheet and providing Mazars with only the offering plan prices. NYSCEF Doc. No. 946.

17 Although any liability arising out of the submission of the 2011 and 2012 SFCs is time barred; as previously discussed, these submissions may be considered as evidence in support of OAG's request for injunctive relief.

18 OAG plausibly asserts that this $540 million is also inflated; however, for purposes of this motion, OAG does not dispute the number, and argues that, even if the Court were to accept defendants' number as accurate, the 2015 SFC was still materially false, as it stated the value as nearly $200 million more than the $540 million appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. No. 766 at n 7.

19 An email exchange dated August 4, 2014, between Allen Weisselberg and his son, Jack Weisselberg, a Ladder Capital employee, discusses the 2015 $540 million Cushman & Wakefield appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. No. 888. Notwithstanding direct knowledge of it, the 2015 SFC valued 40 Wall Street al nearly $200 million more. NYSCEF Doc. No. 773.

20 The defendant borrowers did not default on any loan s; but we only know that with hindsight. Markets are volatile, and borrowers come in all shapes and sizes. The next borrower, or the one after that, might default, and if its SFCs are false, the lender might unfairly be left holding the bag. This will distort the lending marketplace and deprive other potential borrowers of the opportunity to obtain loans and create wealth.

21 The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principal of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did.

22 At oral argument, his domain of expertise was enlarged to nationwide status.

23 In his sworn deposition, when asked "[w]ho were the dozen or so (qualified] buyers that you were referencing in your report, Lawrence Moens replied: "I could dream up anyone from Elon Musk to Bill Gates and everyone in between. Kings, emperors, heads of state. But with net worths in the multiple billions. I don't know how many people in the world have a net worth of more than $10 billion, but I think it's quite a number. There are a lot." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1428 at 184-185. Obviously, this Court cannot consider an "expert affidavit" that is based on unexplained and unsubstantiated "dream[s]."

24 In their response to OAG's statement of material facts, defendants concede that "GAAP defines Estimated Current Value as 'the amount at which the item could be exchanged between a buyer and seller, each of whom is well informed and willing, and neither of whom is compelled to buy or sell." NYSCEF Doc No. 1293 at 17.

25 Nor is this Court asked to determine Donald Trump's total wealth.

26 The gap for 2020 may have been due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

27 Eric Trump also reaffirmed the SFCs accuracy on July 9, 2019. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 782 at Row 679, 783 at Rows 638-40, 784 at Row 660, 1183.

28 Jeffrey McConney acknowledged his personal role in preparing supporting data for Donald Trump's SFCs beginning in 2011, testifying that: "I assemble the documentation" and that he would send both supporting data spreadsheets and backup documentation to the accountants. He further conceded that the supporting data spreadsheets were referred to as "Jeff's supporting data" or "Jeff's supporting schedule." NYSCEF Doc. No. 822 at 40, 67-68, 212, 294.

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

Kristen Welker's interview with Trump: NBC's "Meet the Press" moderator Kristen Welker conducted a wide-ranging interview with former President Donald Trump.(Full transcript)
by Kristen Welker
NBC News
Sept. 17, 2023, 8:00 AM MDT

KRISTEN WELKER:

President Trump, welcome back to Meet the Press.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Thank you.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to dive right into this. A lot to get to.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Good.

KRISTEN WELKER:

There are a number of things that make your campaign unprecedented. You are the first former president to run for re-election in more than a hundred years. You are facing four indictments. You have an incredibly significant lead in the GOP primary polls. But I want to ask you this, Mr. President: Why do you want to be president again?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, it’s a very simple answer, and I can give it very easily. It’s called: “Make America Great Again.” Our country is in serious trouble. I don’t think we’ve ever been so low in terms of, certainly opinion, world opinion and country opinion. People are devastated. They look at what’s happening with millions of people coming in, millions of illegal immigrants coming into our country, flooding our cities, flooding the countryside. I think the number is going to be 15 million people by the time you end this — by the end of this year, I think the real number’s going to be 15 million people. They come from prisons. They come from mental institutions, insane asylums. They say, “Sir, please don’t use that term,” but it’s true. They’re terrorists at a level — you know, it was very interesting, on NBC, I saw a poll, and I saw some statistics, and it said in 2019, there were no terrorists. They caught no terrorists. There was nothing that they saw. There was no anything. And now, this year, it’s a record number like they’ve never seen before. So, we did a great job at the border. We did a great job with the military. We did a great job with inflation. We had essentially no inflation. We had a great economy. And, we didn’t have an Afghanistan disaster. We were getting out, but we were going to get out with dignity and pride, not the way they got out. That was a surrender, and an embarrassment, and horrible. We gave $85 billion worth of equipment to the Taliban. We had death, so much death, and so much horrible destruction. And it was a terrible thing. I think it was the lowest point in the history of our country. Now, with all of that, we can change it, and we can make America great again. And that’s why I’m doing this.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, and you have talked about a lot. We are going to delve into a number of issues —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– you brought up. You talked about all the people coming across the border. Of course, a lot of families also coming across the border as well —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to talk to you about that a little bit later on. But first, let’s talk about the breaking news today. We learned just a short time ago that the president’s son, Hunter Biden, was indicted by a federal grand jury on three gun charges. Given that, Mr. President, can you continue to say that there are two systems of justice?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I think there’s no question about it. He had a plea deal that was the deal of the century — the art of the deal. You could write a book on it. The art of the deal. And, all of a sudden, that was broken up by a judge who was able to — a brilliant judge, actually, who was able to see through what was happening. And it’s a sad situation. I mean, nobody should be happy about this. I’m not happy about it. Nobody is. It’s a very sad thing, and it’s so bad for our country. But, you know, if you think about it, I’ve been under investigation from the day I came down the escalator, and phony investigations, fake investigations, investigations that I beat every single time. Still under investigations. But it’s a very sad thing, and it’s a slippery slope —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– and dangerous, very dangerous for our country.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But you talked about the plea deal, but now, Hunter Biden’s been indicted. He’s facing —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah, sure, sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– very serious charges. So doesn’t that undercut your entire argument that there are two systems of justice in this country?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, look, it’s one of 12 charges. There are 12 possible charges, and this —

KRISTEN WELKER:

And he’s still under investigation.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– is the only charge that doesn’t affect his father.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, he’s still under investigation.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, sure, maybe. I mean, let’s see what happens. But this is the only charge that doesn’t affect Joe Biden. This was the gun charge. But gun charges are very serious. You know, people have had gun charges and gone to jail for a lot of, a lot of years. I pardoned some people who I thought it was just horrible what happened. But they were put in jail for many, many years, rappers and others. So, look, it’s a bad thing. But it’s one of 12, and it’s the one charge that doesn’t affect Joe Biden.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, of course, there’s no evidence that the president has any link to his son’s business dealings. Let me ask you, though —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I don’t —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– about a second —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– necessarily agree.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, there is no —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

He called in. I mean, he called in to all these meetings. He was calling in on the meetings. He was put on speakerphone and — every single day and —

KRISTEN WELKER:

The witness who testified —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– literally many, many calls. And what about the fact that he got rid of the prosecutor for a billion dollars? They said —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, the witness who testified —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

“You don’t get rid of this prosecutor, we’re not giving you a billion dollars to Ukraine.” He said that. I mean, there are a lot of things here, Kristen.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, the witness who testified though, said that he never heard any discussion of business when President Biden was put on the phone. But let’s —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But, wait, wait. You saw the prosecutor —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– let’s talk about —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– thing on television, because I saw it on your network. He said, “You don’t get rid of this prosecutor, I’m not giving $1 billion.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

That was looked into, as well. And, as you know, there was never any wrongdoing —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, come on.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– determined.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

If I ever said that —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s move on —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– quid pro quo.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s move on to what a second Trump term would look like.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

When you launched your campaign in March, you told the crowd, quote, “I am your retribution.” What does that mean? What does that look like?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think retribution is talking in terms of I have to protect people. What they’re doing to people is so horrible. They’re putting people in jail for long periods of time, firemen, policemen, accountants, even lawyers. They’re in prisons for years now and don’t even have trials in some cases. And if you look at antifa and other groups, practically nothing happened to them. They burned down Portland. They burned down Minneapolis. They took over Seattle. I mean, they literally took over a big chunk of the city. People died, and nothing happened to them. We have to protect all people.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But when you talk about retribution, are you talking about directing your attorney general to try to go after your political enemies?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

When I talk about retribution, I’m talking about fairness. We have to treat people fairly. These people on January 6th, they went — some of them never even went into the building, and they’re being given sentences of, you know, many years.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Are you going to pardon those people —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And nothing is happening.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– who’ve been convicted —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I’m going to look at them, and I certainly might if I think it’s appropriate. No, it’s a very, very sad thing. And it’s — they’re dividing the country so badly, and it’s very dangerous.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, Mr. President, we’re going to delve into that a little bit later on, but I want to stay on this idea of what you mean by retribution. Are you looking to appoint an attorney general who will prosecute the people you tell them to prosecute?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’m looking to appoint an attorney general who’s going to be tough on crime and fair. Very simple.

KRISTEN WELKER:

And go after your political enemies?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I would never do that. But Biden has done that. Look, Biden — these aren’t indictments against me. These are Biden indictments. This isn’t God coming down and very fairly said, “Oh, you spoke badly about an election.” The election was rigged. There’s no question about that. There’s so much proof on it. Even if you go to the more modern-day proof with the — they call it Twitter Files, FBI and Twitter, or you take a look at the Amazon stuff or the Google stuff, or you take a look at “2,000 Mules,” you take a look at all of the ballot stuffing that’s on tape, you take a look at the fact that the legislatures didn’t approve a lot of the things that were done in the elections, and they had to approve. And we could go on forever. We could go on forever. But, but no. I want somebody that’s going to be strong, respected, tough, and fair.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Just to go back to a couple of the points you said, the ballot stuffing. That’s something that’s been debunked.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It hasn’t been debunked. It’s on camera.

KRISTEN WELKER:

As you know, let’s — But I do want to keep moving forward.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah, but, Kristen, it’s on camera. Hundreds — even thousands and thousands of people. You take a look. True the Vote. Take a look. It’s on camera. They have thousands of —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, you know Republican officials and top law enforcement officials, they have told you that that’s debunked.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I know, but, Kristen, you can’t say — They have thousands of pictures of people — I know you have to say that for your network, but you shouldn’t say it, because that’s the problem.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But, Mr. President–

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

The news has lost such power.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s stay on track, though, Mr. President. Let’s stay on track with these questions —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, but you’re saying– It hasn’t. We have thousands of essentially motion pictures of people stuffing the ballot boxes. Tens of thousands.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But, Mr. President, they’re not stuffing the ballot boxes. And you’ve been told that by your top law enforcement officials. But let’s stay on track, because we have so much ground to cover. We have policy ground to cover, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You have people that went and voted in one place, another place, another place, as many as, I understand, 28 different places in one day with seven, eight, nine ballots apiece. They can’t do it anymore, because it would look too phony. These were professional people. They were stuffing the ballot boxes. It’s there.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I mean, it’s there to see. A lot of people don’t like looking at it.

KRISTEN WELKER:

— you took your case to court in 60 different cases all across the country. You lost that. But let’s stay on track because we have so many —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We lost because the judges didn’t want to hear them.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, we have so many topics to cover.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But if this were ever before a court, we would win so easy. There is so much evidence that the election was rigged. And you may not even put this section on your show, and you’ll have to decide what you want to do. But people know it was rigged. Look, the media —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, there’s no evidence of that. And you know there’s no evidence of that

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

When I first got involved in politics —

KRISTEN WELKER:

We have so many different topics —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Tremendous evidence.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to talk about what a potential —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, let me ask you this.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You agree there was Twitter Files, right?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You agree there were 51 intelligence agents that lied? You agree with that?

KRISTEN WELKER:

I’m not the one who’s being interviewed. Let’s stay on track —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, no, but — I know, but that’s rigging the election.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Because I want to talk about policy because that’s what voters want to hear about, Mr. President. Let’s talk about what’s happening on Capitol Hill right now.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Go ahead. Go ahead.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Speaker McCarthy announced that he was launching an impeachment inquiry this week into President Biden. Do you see this as a part of the retribution that you seek?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, not at all. I think, look, you look at the terrible things that have been happening with respect to Biden. Look at everything: Jamie Comer, Jim Jordan, who are fantastic people and very legitimate people. I watched Jamie Comer just a little while ago talking about a lot of different facets of what’s going on, and he was the one that said, “I guess there were — there were 12 things where it looks like it’s stone-cold guilty, and the gun charge is only one of the 12.” He said, “This is the only one that doesn’t implicate Joe Biden.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

So, but my question for you: Did you talk to Speaker McCarthy about this House impeachment inquiry?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I don’t talk to him like that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Did you tell him that he should open a House impeachment inquiry?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I don’t do that. I don’t think he’d do that. I mean, he wouldn’t do it based on me, no.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Did you talk to your Republican allies on Capitol Hill and say, “You should support this impeachment inquiry”?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I don’t have to talk — they’re more proactive than I am. They think it’s terrible. I will say this: They think I was treated very unfairly. I mean, when I was impeached for a perfect phone call, and now it turned out to be perfect. I hope you will admit that, at least. Because I was right, 100% right. But I was impeached for a perfect phone call. And how sad that is. And we had 196 to nothing vote — Republicans. Very unusual for the Republican Party. I was so proud of them. A hundred ninety six. The entire House, not one person dissented. And then — other than Romney, who sort of gave me half a vote. But we had 100% in the Senate. People think I was treated very unfairly.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, the people who —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And I know, I know I was treated —

KRISTEN WELKER:

The people who voted for that impeachment say that the phone call that you reference was about a quid pro quo.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It was perfect.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

My phone call was perfect. My phone call was saying, “Please investigate any crimes that you see.” And by the way, I’m mandated to do that as the president of the United States. And it was really, really a call to congratulate him on winning the election. But —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, let’s —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, what — when you talk about quid pro quo, please don’t talk about quid pro quo, because there was none in the call at all. Where there’s a quid —

KRISTEN WELKER:

That was the heart — what I’m saying is —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Where there is a quid pro quo —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– that was the heart of that impeachment.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– was when Biden said, very strongly, “We’re not going to give them the billion dollars unless they get rid of the prosecutor.” That’s a quid pro quo.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, let me take a step back here, because a lot of voters say what they want to talk about right now is your vision for the future.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

And I’ve been traveling to a lot of the early voting states, and they say that your focus on the past is a problem for them. What do you say to those voters?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I have no focus on the past except that you have to learn from history. You have to learn from the past. We had an election that was very, very terrible. It was a terrible thing for our country. And you have to learn from that. You can’t forget that and just go — now, with all of the things that we said, I had the best economy maybe in history.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’re going to talk about it next.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Right.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So, let’s stay on track with —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I had the best economy in history, and I’m going to do it again. I had the best energy. We were energy independent, soon to be energy dominant. Now, we’re begging for energy. I mean, what they’ve done to this country, they’re destroying our country.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’re going to talk about the economy in just a minute. But before we move on from Capitol Hill, do you think Republican hardliners should abandon their threat to shut down the government over their spending priorities now that there is this impeachment inquiry?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No. I think if they don’t get a fair deal — we have to save our country. We have $35 trillion in debt. We have to save our country. You know, the —

KRISTEN WELKER:

So, you would shut down the government? You’d support that?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’d shut down the government if they can’t make an appropriate deal, absolutely.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. Let’s talk about the economy. And I want to start by talking about this big standoff between the auto workers and the big three auto manufacturers.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

My question for you, Mr. President, whose side are you on in this?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’m on the side of making our country great. The auto workers are not going to have any jobs when you come right down to it, because if you take a look at what they’re doing with electric cars, electric cars are going to be made in China. The auto workers are not going to have any — I’ll tell you what. The auto workers are being sold down the river by their leadership, and their leadership should endorse Trump. The reason is: You’ve got to have choice, like in school. I want school choice. I also want choice for cars. If somebody wants gasoline, if somebody wants all electric, they can do whatever they want. But they’re destroying the consumer, and they’re destroying the auto workers. The auto workers will not have any jobs, Kristen, because the — all of these cars are going to be made in China. The electric cars, automatically, are going to be made in China.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So, let’s talk about UAW’s leadership. The president, Shawn Fain, has withheld his endorsement of President Biden. This is what he had to say about you. Quote, “Another Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster.” How would you win that endorsement?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, if that’s the case, I probably won’t win his — I don’t know the gentleman, but I know his name very well, and I think he’s not doing a good job in representing his union, because he’s not going to have a union in three years from now. Those jobs are all going to be gone, because all of those electric cars are going to be made in China. That’s what’s happening, number one. Number two, the electric cars are much more expensive and they don’t go far enough. So if somebody wants to take a little bit of a long — just like the trucks. If somebody wants to take a little bit of a long ride, let’s go to Maine, or let’s go to Kentucky from New York, let’s — you can’t do it. I mean, you have to stop all the time. They don’t go far enough. They’re very expensive. They have a lot of drawbacks. Now, with that being said, some people are going to want them. Some people are going to travel short distances. What they’re doing with our trucking industry is a disaster, because they want all electric trucks. And a truck on a — with a large tank, large gasoline or diesel capacity, can go up to 2,000 miles. An electric truck goes 300 miles. So, what are these guys going to do? They’re going to, they’re going to stop every 300 miles and recharge their truck and spend three hours?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s move on and talk about another big-picture issue when it comes to the economy: the issue of interest rates, inflation, something that you’ve —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– talked a lot about.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

The Federal Reserve is obviously independent, but I wonder, Mr. President, if you are reelected, would you direct your Federal Reserve chair to lower interest rates?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well you know that I put a lot of pressure on him. It was outside pressure, because nobody knows whether or not you can really do that, but I did, because I thought his interest rates were too high. And he ultimately dropped his interest rates. The same gentleman, as you know. And — but it was a lot of pressure. I mean, I was very active on that. Right now, interest rates are very high. They’re too high. People can’t buy homes. They can’t do anything. I mean, they can’t borrow money. The banks don’t have the money. The banks aren’t lending the money. The banks — by the way, Chase Manhattan Bank, Bank of America, they discriminate against conservatives. It’s a disgrace, and they shouldn’t be allowed to, and I’m going to do something about that. But you take a look at banks throughout the country. And I think because of the regulators — but you take a look at Bank of America and Chase, they discriminate against conservatives and Republicans.

KRISTEN WELKER:

What’s the evidence for that, Mr. President

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, we’ll give you plenty of evidence —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. All right, well, let’s stay on track with this question, though. So, just to be very clear, if you were reelected, would you direct your Fed chair to lower interest rates?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Depends. It depends.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You might.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Depends where inflation is. But I would get inflation down, because drill we must. We will be drilling for oil. We are going to become, again, energy independent. We are going to reduce our debt, because we’re also going to become energy dominant. You know, we were ready to go dominant within a matter of months. We would have been making so much money. We have more oil, I call it liquid gold, under our feet than any other country — Saudi Arabia, Russia. There’s no country with more — and it’s sweet. It’s the finest. We have the best. You know, we’re taking it from Venezuela. You know what it is? Tar.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Are you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s the worst.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, are you going to appoint a new Fed chair if you’re reelected?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I guess he would have two years left or something like that, so we’ll see.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. All right.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know the word jawboning? I did a lot of jawboning against him, and he ultimately lowered interest rates. We had low interest rates. We had the best housing market ever. We had people buying homes.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Economists —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Today, people can’t buy homes.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Economists are looking at some of the figures right now, the fact that the unemployment rate is at 3.8%, and they say it looks like the U.S. may not dip into a recession. What do you make of that assessment?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, I don’t know. You got — people are going to — they say that, and then you end up in a depression. They say you’re going to do great, you end up bad, and the opposite. These — most of them don’t know what they’re doing. It’s a touch. It’s a feel. And I predicted a lot of markets. I predicted a lot of things, frankly, you know? They say, “Trump was right about everything.” I think that the way it’s going now, you’re going to have to — things are not going, right now, very well for the consumer. Bacon is up five times. Food is up horribly, worse than energy. Energy is starting to go up at a level that we haven’t seen in a long time, meaning a couple of years — since he took over, because I had energy prices very low. I had gasoline very low. We have to get the energy down, which they will never do. And they kept it artificial because they took the strategic reserves, which I had a lot to do with filling up for the first time ever. They took the strategic reserves, and he issued it to everybody so that he could keep the gas prices down. Now, strategic reserves are at the lowest level they’ve ever been at, and we need that for war.

KRISTEN WELKER:

And there are a lot of factors —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We need that —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– that have contributed to that.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, no. The big factor is the fact that he took that oil —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s talk about taxes.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– he took that and he let — he wanted to have low gas prices for an election. And now, we have nothing left.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, there are a lot of factors, including global factors, that went into that. Let’s talk about taxes, though.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t know why people stick up for him so much —

KRISTEN WELKER:

You had —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– when he makes bad decisions, like you.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You — Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t know why, and I have a lot of respect for you, and you were very fair in the debate. But I don’t know why you and other people say, “Oh, it’s okay that he’s destroyed the strategic —

KRISTEN WELKER:

No. Just —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– petroleum reserves.” I mean, why do you do that? Or, “It’s okay that he has open borders.” Somebody who was —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– in your position, not quite as good, said this morning, “Oh, having open borders is a wonderful thing.” I don’t know why. And I think that’s why the media —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Not sticking up --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– has lost so much credibility.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– no, we’re not sticking up, Mr. President, we’re just having a conversation. Let me talk to you about taxes and your differences with President Biden over taxes.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

He wants to raise corporate tax rates to 28%. It’s reported you want to lower them to 15%. Is that true?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’d like to lower them a little bit if we could. But, what I want to do is we have to get some income coming in. You know, when I lowered taxes, we took in more revenue.

KRISTEN WELKER:

To 15%, Mr. President?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know, that when I — depends. It depends on where we are at the time. You know, a lot happens in a year. But when I lowered taxes, I cut taxes tremendously, created tremendous jobs. So more importantly, we had more revenue with lower taxes than we did with higher taxes.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You also added $8 trillion to the national debt. Your GOP challenger Nikki Haley made that point saying, quote, “The truth is that Biden didn’t do this to us. Republicans did this to us.” Does she have a point?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

So, we had a thing happen to us. We had the greatest economy in history, and then we got hit with Covid. And we had to keep this, this beautiful thing going. And if I didn’t do that, if we didn’t put some money — and nobody knew what Covid was. Remember this was a new thing that came in. Somebody said, “It’s dust coming in from China.” It came from China. They tried and denied it, or they tried for a little while, and we didn’t let it. It came from Wuhan actually, which now they agree. Everybody’s now agreeing that it came from Wuhan. I said that years ago. But we had to do things that were very severe. We had to let some money come out. We were going to — we were on the verge of doing something that was amazing. We were going to have energy at a level bigger than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined. That energy was going to be sold to Europe and all other places. The prices would have come down. We were going to make a fortune, and we were going to start paying off debt. Instead, we got hit with Covid. People didn’t need oil, because nobody was driving all over the world, I mean, frankly. It was a disaster. What China did to the world with Covid is something that we’re going to get to the bottom of. And they have to pay something back. You know, nobody can pay back the cost of all those lives and all the money that was lost. But nobody can back the lives and all of the damage that was caused, including China —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But to Nikki Haley’s key argument, Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But you know what, they have to, they have to pay something back. They have to do something —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– To Nikki Haley’s key argument, though, what do you say to her?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What does Nikki Haley know? I mean, I know Nikki Haley very well. She said I’m the greatest president. She left, she said I’m the greatest president. Now she’s running for office, and she says something. Look, look, Nikki Haley doesn’t know anything about it. She’s a politician. She knows nothing about it. Very nice woman. Some people like that, I would say. But she left office. She said very strongly, “I will never run. He was a great president,” and then in some cases said, “the greatest president in my lifetime,” in one case said, “ the greatest president ever.” Now she’s running. Nikki Haley has nothing to do with this. We will — we were going to make a fortune off our energy. We were going to send the energy to Europe. Europe was going to pay us tremendous amounts of money. And I’ll tell you, you would have never had the Ukraine monster at all. It would’ve never happened. Russia would’ve never gotten — just by sheer force of personality. But beyond personality, what happened is when oil hit $100 a barrel, and by the way, it’s right there right now again, Putin makes a fortune on this war. You know, everybody said, “Oh, he can’t afford it.” If Biden allowed my policies to stay in place, oil would right now be at $40 a barrel, and Putin wouldn’t be able to afford the war.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We are going to get to the war in Ukraine, but first, I do want to talk about the issue of abortion which is —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– important to a lot of voters all across the country. Just this week, women in Idaho and Tennessee, I don’t know if you saw this, filed suit against their states saying their lives were put at risk after they were denied abortion services, because of their states’ restrictive laws put in place after Roe was overturned. So my question for you, Mr. President, is: How is it acceptable in America that women’s lives are at risk, doctors are being forced to turn away patients in need, or risk breaking the law?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Ready? Little bit of a long answer. I hope you have time.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I hope you have time. I’m here for as long as you have.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

So you have Roe v. Wade, for 52 years, people including Democrats wanted it to go back to states so the states could make the right. Roe v. Wade — I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated, was put back to the states. Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time. They had no rights at all, because the radical people on this are really the Democrats that say, after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth you’re allowed to terminate the baby —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that. I just have to, Democrats are not saying that.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Of course they do —

KRISTEN WELKER:

That’s not true.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You have a Virginia governor, previous governor, who said, “After the baby is born, you will make a determination, and if you want, you will kill that baby.” The baby is now born.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, Democrats writ large are not talking about that. Only 1% of late-term abortions happen, and always in the state of —

FMR PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay. They are the —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– crisis.

FMR PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– radical people —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– because nobody wants to see —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But does —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– abortion after five months and six months and seven months. And, now it’s going to — it gave people the belief — and pro-life, look, just so you understand, it’s pretty much 50/50. It’s a 50/50 issue, amazing. If you look at the charts, it’s been 49/51. It’s been like that for many years, goes both ways — 51 — both ways. Ready? I was able to do something which gave at least pro-life people a voice. Now it’s going to work out. Now, the number of months will be determined.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can you answer this question?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And you’re going to have something where everybody comes together.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Does it bother you though that women say their lives are being put at risk? Do you feel you bear any responsibility, because as you say, you are responsible for having Roe v. Wade overturned.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What’s going to happen, this is an issue that’s been going on for a long time. And it’s a very polarizing issue. Because of what’s been done, and because of the fact we brought it back to the states, we’re going to have people come together on this issue. They’re going to determine the time, because nobody wants to see five, six, seven, eight, nine months. Nobody wants to see abortions when you have a baby in the womb. I said, with Hillary Clinton when we had the debate, I made a statement, “Rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, you’re allowed to do that, and you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Again, no one is arguing for that —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Again, listen, look —

KRISTEN WELKER:

That’s not a part of anyone’s argument, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Look, the Democrats are able to kill the baby after birth.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me talk to you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Nobody wants that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Democrats don’t want that either.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

So we’re going to come together —

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

KRISTEN WELKER:

But let’s — I want to — I want to know what you want. I want to know what you’re going to do if you’re —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We are going to come together —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you sign federal legislation that would ban abortion at 15 weeks?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. Let me just tell you what I’d do. I’m going to come together with all groups, and we’re going to have something that’s acceptable. Right now, to my way of thinking, the Democrats are the radicals, because after four and five and six months. But you have to say this, after birth. You have New York State and other places that passed legislation where you’re allowed to kill the baby after birth.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, I want to give voters who are going to be weighing in on this election —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– a very clear sense of where you stand on —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think they’ll — I think they’re all going to like me. I think both sides are going to like me.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But, let me, let me — but Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What’s going to have to happen is you’re going to have to —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, let me just ask this question, please--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, you’re asking me a question. What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months. You’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy. Because 92% of the Democrats don’t want to see abortion after a certain period of time.

KRISTEN WELKER:

If a federal ban landed on your desk if you were reelected, would you sign it at 15 weeks —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Are you talking about a complete ban?

KRISTEN WELKER:

A ban at 15 weeks.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, people, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you sign that?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something, and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years. I’m not going to say I would or I wouldn’t. I mean, DeSanctus is willing to sign a five-week and six-week ban.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you support that? You think that goes too far?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we’ll come up with a number, but at the same time, Democrats won’t be able to go out at six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. And Kristen, you have to look at this, because you said “no.” You have some states that are allowed to kill the child after birth, and you can’t allow that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, again, no one is calling for a child to be killed after birth. No one is calling for that to be allowed —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But you have legislation —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But let me just ask you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, you have legislation in certain states where it’s allowed.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

The governor of Virginia, previous governor, who was a whack job —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Previous governor.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I call him the Michael Jackson governor.

KRISTEN WELKER:

No one’s talking about that as part of their platform —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That governor —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to know what you want —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Excuse me, that governor said you can kill the baby after birth.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, this is about what you would do if you were reelected. As you know, you upset some anti —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We will agree to a number of weeks, which will be where both sides will be happy. We have to bring the country together on this issue.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, when you talk about negotiating, I think a lot of people think to themselves, this is an issue that they care about deeply in their hearts —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I care about it too. Oh, I care about it too.

KRISTEN WELKER:

And they know where they stand, and they want to know where you stand. As you know, some anti-abortion groups are really looking for some clarity from you. So let me just ask you to put a fine point on this. Should the federal government impose any abortion restrictions, or should it be completely left up to the states?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I don’t think you should have — I don’t think you should be allowed to have abortions well into a pregnancy.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But what about the question I just asked you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We’re going to agree — no — we’re going to agree to a number of weeks or months or however you want to define it. And both sides are going to come together and both sides — both sides, and this is a big statement, both sides will come together. And for the first time in 52 years, you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us.

KRISTEN WELKER:

At the federal level?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It could be state or it could be federal. I don’t frankly care.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So you’re not committed to a ban at the federal level.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I will say this. Everybody, including the great legal scholars, love the idea of Roe v. Wade terminated so it can be brought back to the states.

KRISTEN WELKER:

It sounds like that’s what you think too, that it should remain a state issue —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I, I would, I would say this: From a pure standpoint, from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better, but I can live with it either way. It’s much more important, the number of weeks is much more important. But something will happen with the number of weeks, the amount of time, after which you can’t do it. And you know what? The most — the most powerful people that are anti-abortion are okay with that now. And you know what? They weren’t okay with that even a year ago.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Your former vice president, Mike Pence, believes that a fetus should have constitutional rights. Do you believe that, Mr. president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, Mike Pence said something about 15 weeks too, which was a big change for Mike Pence, because Mike Pence had no exceptions. I have exceptions, by the way. I think people should have exceptions. I think if it’s rape or incest or the life of the mother, I think you have to have exceptions. It’s very important.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Does a fetus have constitutional rights, Mr. president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And a lot of people, when they don’t have exceptions — now, I will tell you that I think most people, most Republicans are willing. You go: life of the mother, rape, incest. I think most of them are there.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But should a fetus —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That’s a big statement.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– have constitutional rights, Mr. president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I don’t know, I don’t know what he’s saying, because before, he wanted, you know, you couldn’t have abortions at all —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But what are you saying? What do you think —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Now all of a sudden — excuse me — now all of a sudden he’s saying 15 weeks. I said, “Wow, where did that come from? That’s a radical change.” Look, something is going to happen that’s going to be good for everybody. And that’s what I’m — I’m almost like a mediator in this case. They wanted Roe v. Wade terminated because it was inappropriate. We got it done. Something is going to happen. It’s going to be a number of weeks. Something is going to happen where the both sides are going to be able to come together. And then we’ll be able to go onto other things, like, the economy, our military —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Are you saying a federal ban with exceptions, is that what you’re saying?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What I say is very simple, because you can’t put words in my mouth like that —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I just want to understand.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– because you’ve been hearing me talk about this--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– issue —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Yeah.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– and I think talk about it very productively. It could be a state ban, it could be a federal ban, but Democrats want that too. Democrats don’t want to see abortion in the seventh month, okay. I speak to a lot of Democrats. They want a number. There is a number, and there’s a number that’s going to be agreed to, and Republicans should go out and say the following. They — cause, I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about this subject. I watch some of them without the exceptions, et cetera, et cetera. I said, “Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t — you’re not going to win on this issue. But you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks.” Because Democrats don’t want to be radical on the issue, most of them, some do. They don’t want to be radical on the issue. They don’t want to kill a baby in the seventh month or the ninth month or after birth. And they’re allowed to do that, and you can’t do that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I have a very robust foreign policy section to get to. I do want to give you an opportunity to talk about some of your legal challenges, so if we could do that first, and then we’ll move on to foreign policy.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You are facing four indictments, 91 —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Biden indictments. Excuse me, Biden political indictments. He said to the attorney general —

KRISTEN WELKER:

He has said he’s had nothing to do with this. There’s no proof of that--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– he said to the attorney general, “Indict him.” They put in the New York DA case —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, there’s no proof of that, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– which everybody admits isn’t even a case.

KRISTEN WELKER:

There’s no proof of that, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Excuse me, but they’re Biden indictments —

KRISTEN WELKER:

You know there’s no proof of that.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know what? He started something that’s a very slippery slope. He said, “I’ve got a guy that’s beating me in the polls.” I’m beating all the Republicans by a lot, and I’m beating him by a lot. “I have somebody that’s beating me in the polls. Indict him.” And they, not only that, they took their top person in the Department of Justice and put him into the Manhattan DA’s office. They’re dealing with Fani Willis all the time.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, the attorney general —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

These are political indictments.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– appointed a special counsel to investigate you, President Biden, and President Biden’s son, Hunter, who was also indicted today. But I do want to move —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But President Biden does not fall within the Presidential Records Act. And frankly, you don’t ever hear anything about the special counsel. But they gave me this deranged person named Jack Smith. He’s a deranged lunatic. We — I fall within the Presidential Records Act. It’s very simple. It’s a civil thing. In fact, the New York Times of all institutions did a story, and it was headlined, “Please, please, please, Mr. President, could we take a look at the documents.” And they said in the story that “The only way you can get documents from a president is if you go there and say please.” Because this is civil. And they won’t even have a lawsuit. They may have a civil lawsuit at most, but they probably don’t even have a civil lawsuit. And this should never have been an indictment. There’s no criminal. Now there is criminal for Joe Biden, because he was a senator and he was a vice president. And as a senator and a vice president —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, the charges you’re facing don’t have anything to do with the Presidential Records Act. But let me ask my question so we can get to foreign policy.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But wait a minute. This comes within the Presidential Records Act —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Lets — let me just ask —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That’s what it’s about. It’s about records.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me just ask these questions, and then we can move on to some other topics. You are facing four indictments, 91 felony charges.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

If you would say it properly, I’m facing four Biden indictments. He told the Justice Department to indict him, or Merrick Garland said, “Let’s indict him.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me ask you this, Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They indicted their political opponent —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I just want to hear from you on this. I want to know what’s in your head. When you go to bed at night, do you worry about going to jail?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I don’t really. I don’t even think about it. I’m built a little differently I guess, because I have had people come up to me and say, “How do you do it, sir? How do you do it?” I don’t even think about it. These are corrupt people that I’m dealing with. They’re destroying our country. I don’t even think about it. All I think about is making the country great, making America great. Look, these are political, these are banana republic indictments. These are third-world indictments. The president of the United States sees how we’re doing. We have a movement the likes of which has never happened in this country before. And you see it with the polls. I mean, I’m up on these people by 60 points and 59 points. And, I don’t mean I’m at 59, I’m leading them by 59. You almost say, like, “Why are they campaigning?” Asa Hutchinson, he’s at zero. Christie’s at two. Other ones are at one. DeSanctimonious is at nine. I just see a poll come — I mean, I’m leading him by 60 points.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And you say, “Why are they doing that?” But here’s what they did. They saw this happening, and he went to the attorney general of the United States, and he told them, “Indict Trump.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

There is just no evidence of that, Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh why? Because you mean he’s honest —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But let’s, let’s stay on track —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Look at all the lies he’s told--

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, I want to talk about you.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, wait a minute, wait, wait. Could I say one thing? Look at all the lies he’s told over the last couple of weeks. He said he was at the World Trade Center and he wasn’t. He said he flew airplanes, right? He didn’t. He said he drove trucks, and he didn’t. Everything he says is, like, a lie. It’s terrible.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, I want —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Even his handicap in golf, he said he’s a six —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to stick —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

He’s not a six.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to stay focused on you, for the purposes of this interview —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– okay? Because it’s important that we hear from you about all of this. Tell me —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I’d like you to, but you keep interrupting me.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Tell me — Mr. President, tell me what you see when you look at your mugshot?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I see somebody that loves this country, and me, that loves this country. I see tremendous unfairness. I think very few people would have been able to handle what I handled. When I was coming down the escalator with Melania, I was already under investigation, because they saw how well I was doing in the polls. And it just got worse and worse, and we caught them. We said, “They were spying on our campaign.” It turned out to be true. They had the fake dossier. That turned out to be true. It was paid for by the Democratic party. It was all fiction. All of these things happened. Impeachment hoax number one, impeachment hoax number two. I’ve been treated very badly. And, I’ve won every single time. When you say, “Do I sleep?” I sleep, I sleep. Because I truly feel that in the end, we’re going to win. I think we’re going to win an election the likes of which nobody’s ever seen before. I don’t think anything’s going to stop it. Nothing’s going to stop it, because people see what’s happened to our country. We’re not respected in the world. Look at other countries. Look at what’s happened. Everybody’s going to the side of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia —

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’re going to talk about that. Mr. President, I want to —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. China is taking over the world —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– I want to delve into foreign policy, but let’s get through this. And then I want to talk to you about all of those —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– issues you just talked about, Mr. President. By the way, do you think your former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is still loyal to you? He just pleaded not guilty in the Georgia case.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I hope he’s loyal to me.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you worry about him flipping?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I mean, I didn’t do anything wrong —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you worry about him —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I didn’t do anything wrong —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay, let’s talk about Georgia. I want to talk about that phone call that you made to Georgia’s secretary of state —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– a Republican, Brad Raffensperger —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

By the way, that was even more perfect than my call to —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s talk about.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– the president of Ukraine.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It was a perfect call. Just before you start, many top legal scholars, almost everyone, but many top legal have analyzed that phone call. That was a phone call made in front of, I guess seven or eight lawyers. Brad Raffensperger, the head, who by the way last week said, I didn’t do anything wrong. He said “that was a negotiation.” Brad Raffensperger, who I was dealing with, I appreciate that he said that. But he said last week, I didn’t do anything wrong —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s talk about it so we can move on. You said in the call —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no, let me just tell you one other thing. When I spoke, I knew I was probably being taped. I didn’t ask, but I knew I was probably being taped. You know, they illegally tape me, because they tape me in Florida. It’s a two-party state. You know that, right? So they illegally taped the call, but forget about that for a second. I knew that there were many lawyers on the phone from the other side, from — there were many people, there were many people on the phone. What I told them, I said “The election was rigged.” I said all sorts of things about the election, which I believe —

KRISTEN WELKER:

And they told you it wasn’t.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– it 100%.

KRISTEN WELKER:

They told you it wasn’t —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I believe, no, I have all the facts. Look, I have all the facts. In one way, I look for a trial because it was so dishonest, okay, so rigged, and such a dangerous thing for our country. We have to have borders, and we have to have fair elections. We have neither. But let me just say —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to talk about the border, I want to talk about the border but we have to get through this —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– when I spoke in front of Brad Raffensperger, who again last week said I didn’t do anything wrong.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, it sounded like you were asking —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Brad Raffensperger said “it was a negotiation.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

– for him to come up with 11,000 votes —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, and you know that. You’re terrible when you say this. You’re off to a bad start, because what I said is very simple. “I got cheated in this election.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

He told you you didn’t.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

“And all I need is, like, 11,000,” whatever the number was.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Brad Raffensperger, who’s a Republican —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I got cheated in the election —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– said “You didn’t get cheated.”

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, he said that, but we have to go and see. You know, there’s some court cases out there. We want to go into Fulton County, and we want to see the real votes. And it’s so hard —

KRISTEN WELKER:

He said “they looked into it.” The election had been certified three times —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They can look into it. I don’t want them. I want to look into it. I would say that if we got access —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, the election had been cer--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– to the votes, which we’re close to getting in court, as you know. If we got access to those votes, if we look in, you will find numbers that you wouldn’t believe. More importantly, though, let me just say this.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to get through this, Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, you have to just hear me out for one second.

Recommended

MEET THE PRESS BLOG
New Brandon Presley ad hounds Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, echoing classic McConnell spot

MEET THE PRESS BLOG
Eyes on 2024: Biden to tackle 'extreme MAGA ideology' after GOP debate
KRISTEN WELKER:

– so we can get to the foreign policy section.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We had, because you say something and then you want to go on to the next subject. We had many people on the line when I said, I spoke for an hour. I knew that many people were on the line. I knew that it was– who is, who is — I happen to be a really smart person. Who is going to be talking badly when I have lawyers and many other people on the line? Nobody’s going to say something bad. But if it was bad, why didn’t they say, “Sir, that was very inappropriate of you to say?” Nobody said that. Nobody said, “Sir.” It was only a long time after the call that somebody said, “Oh, maybe he said something wrong.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

They said —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

This is a hoax.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– “Sir, there’s no evidence that it’s been rigged.”

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

This is a hoax just like Russia, Russia, Russia. Just like Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. This is a hoax. Let me tell you, I spoke to them on the phone, and it was left, I think, something to the effect, “Okay, we’ll get together tomorrow.” Nobody said, “Sir, you shouldn’t speak.” If I said something incorrect, one of the lawyers for the State of Georgia, which I love, one of those lawyers would have said, “Sir, you’ll have to take that back. That’s an inappropriate statement.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, the Republican secretary of state —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Nobody said that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– said there was no evidence to fraud. He said he looked into it. The election had been certified three times when you made the call —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay, you’re, you’re talking about a different subject. If I said something wrong on the call, he or one of his many lawyers that were on the call would have said, “It’s inappropriate what you just said.” Nobody said that. We had a normal phone call. This became —

KRISTEN WELKER:

They said, “There’s no evidence of fraud.”

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

He also said, “I did nothing wrong,” last week.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you have any regrets about that call --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No. None --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– whatsoever?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

None whatsoever.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I called to complain about an election.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And I have every right to do that. Would you say --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Do you think I have a right to complain about an election?

KRISTEN WELKER:

You have a right to take your case to court, which you did 60 times.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I didn’t do it 60 times --

KRISTEN WELKER:

And you didn’t win.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They wouldn’t hear it, based on all sorts of crazy -- they wouldn’t hear it. We never got — we never got a trial. Judges would look at stuff, say, “I’m not getting involved.” They didn’t want to get involved.

\KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s keep moving, so we get through all of this.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

If you take a look at the evidence, we have so much evidence. If you take a look at the evidence, even you I could convince.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You were going to hold that press conference, but you never did, with the evidence.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, because I’m using it in my court case instead.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. I want to ask you about the case related to Mar-a-Lago. A new charge suggests you asked a staffer to delete security camera footage so it wouldn’t get into the hands of investigators. Did you do that?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That’s false.

KRISTEN WELKER:

It’s false?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That’s false, but let me tell you --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you testify to that under oath?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure. I’m going to. I’ll testify --

KRISTEN WELKER:

You’ll testify to that under oath?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s a fake --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– charge by this deranged lunatic prosecutor, who lost in the Supreme Court nine to nothing. And he tried to destroy lots of lives. He’s a lunatic. So it’s a fake charge. But, more importantly, the tapes weren’t deleted. In other words, there was nothing done to them. And they were my tapes. I could’ve fought them. I didn’t even have to give them the tapes, I don’t think. I think I would have won in court. When they asked for the tapes, I said, “Sure.” They’re my tapes. I could have fought them. I didn’t even have to give them. Just so you understand, though, we didn’t delete anything. Nothing was deleted.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So that’s false. The people who testified --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Number one, the statement is false. Much more importantly, when the tapes came, and everybody says this, they weren’t deleted. We gave them 100%.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. Let’s --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And, and, and, just so you know, I offered them. I said, “If you want to look at tapes, you can look at them.”

[admin]

Part 3 of 3

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s move on to January 6th and the allegations that you tried to subvert the election. And, again, I just want to give you a chance to talk about this because voters want to hear about this. The most senior lawyers in your own administration and on your campaign told you that after you lost more than 60 legal challenges that it was over. Why did you ignore them and decide to listen to a new outside group of attorneys —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Because I didn’t respect them --

KRISTEN WELKER:

You’d hired them.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– as lawyers. Sure. But that doesn’t mean -- you hire them, you never met these people. You get a recommendation. They turn out to be RINOs, or they turn out to be not so good. In many cases, I didn’t respect them. But I did respect others. I respected many others that said the election was rigged. Look. We have many people, and it’s my choice — I happen to, I happen to know that the election was rigged. Okay? I know it because I have so much, there’s so much proof of ballot stuffing. You know, It’s amazing. Right just a little while ago, in terms of the modern history, where the 51 intelligence agents said very specifically they lied. They all lied. And they said about the laptop that it was Russia disinformation. That was a lie. That had a huge impact on the election. In fact, the pollsters say over 10 points. I didn’t need 10 points. I needed one-tenth of a point. If you take a look at the Twitter Files, with the F.B.I. and Twitter dealing, that had a huge impact on the election. Just those things. But in addition to that --

KRISTEN WELKER:

When you say you needed --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– you have ballot stuffing. You have a lot of other things.

KRISTEN WELKER:

When you say you needed one-tenth of a point, you needed one-tenth of a point --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I needed a very small --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– to win?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think somebody said 22,000 votes.

KRISTEN WELKER:

To win?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah. If you divide it among the states, it was 22,000 votes, something to that effect --

KRISTEN WELKER:

To — to win the election?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah. If I would’ve had another 22,000 votes over the whole -- but, look. They rigged the election --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Is --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

If you look at Pennsylvania --

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, you’re saying you needed --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

If you looked at all the stuff --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– more votes to win the election, are you acknowledging you didn’t win?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Excuse me. If you look at all of the statistics, all of the votes, they say 22,000 votes. Over millions and millions of votes, 22,000 votes. So when they do Twitter Files, or when they have 51 intelligence agents come out and lie that the laptop from hell was Russia disinformation, and now they find out it’s not, but they knew that at the time. They cheated on the election in that way too.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I — I just want to be clear, though. Are you saying you needed those votes in order to win? Are you acknowledging you didn’t win?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’m not acknowledging. No. I say I won the election.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. Even though, again, your lawyers told you, you did not.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. No.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Did you, just let me understand --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Some people told me that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But many people told me the opposite.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You called some of your outside lawyers — you said they had crazy theories. Why were you listening to them? Were you listening to them because they were telling you what you wanted to hear?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know who I listen to? Myself. I saw what happened. I watched that election, and I thought the election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You were listening to your instincts?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

My instincts are a big part of it. That’s been the thing that’s gotten me to where I am, my instincts. But I also listen to people. There are many lawyers. I could give you many books. There are books that are written on how the election was rigged. There are numerous books that were written on how the election was rigged.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Just to be clear, were you listening to your lawyers’ advice, or were you listening to your own instincts?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I was listening to different people. And when I added it all up, the election was rigged. There are books that are written --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Were you calling the shots though?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

In fact, Mollie Hemingway wrote a great book --

KRISTEN WELKER:

But were you calling —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– called “Rigged” --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– the shots ultimately?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Excuse me. Mollie Hemingway, who’s highly respected and great, she wrote a book, a bestselling book called “Rigged.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Were you calling the shots, though, Mr. President, ultimately?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

As to whether or not I believed it was rigged? Oh, sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It was my decision. But I listened to some people. Some people said that. Like, guys like Bill Barr, who was a stiff, but he wasn’t there at the time. But he didn’t do his job because he was afraid. You know what he was afraid of? He was afraid of being impeached. He was petrified to be impeached. And he — how do you not get impeached? Don’t do anything.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’ve heard so much, Mr. President, about that day, the actual day of January 6th, from other people. But, quite frankly, we haven’t heard from you about your own perceptions of how that day unfolded --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We talked about — we’ve heard you talk about the rally. And I’m curious about what happened when you got back to the White House. I know you spent most of the day in the dining room. What were you doing in there? How were you watching it unfold?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

So, let me just tell you about January 6th. First of all, I had very little to do with January 6th. I was asked to speak. And I was the president of the United States. I’m allowed to do that. But I was asked to speak. Other groups, I think it was women’s groups, a lot of people were involved in that. And it was incredible. It was incredible. It was, I think, the largest group I’ve ever spoken. You never see that. You never see pictures of the group that I was speaking to. I think it was the most people I’ve -- and I’ve spoken to some very large groups. Hundreds of thousands of people were there, and it was a beautiful, beautiful sight. But just so you understand, I went, and I spoke. And, by the way, peacefully and patriotically. And all of that, which wasn’t reported, which wasn’t reported, but when I spoke, I have had senators go up, I said — they said, “I’ve never heard you speak so moderately. You were very moderate.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

What happened when you got back to the White House, though, Mr. President?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, wait. Wait. Let me just say. So I spoke. And then I went back. I wanted to go down peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. Secret Service, who I have great respect for, said, “Sir, it’s better if you don’t do that. It could be unsafe.” Because — they didn’t mean because of riots because, you know, it takes one guy with bad intentions, okay. So I didn’t have a dispute with them. You know you had that one person said I grabbed the man around the neck. Actually, I wish I was so strong to be able to do that. These are all tough guys, smart guys --

KRISTEN WELKER:

So you dispute that account?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Dispute it? Who wouldn’t dispute it? She’s — the craziest account I’ve ever heard. You mean that I was in “The Beast,” and she said I was in “The Beast,” and the Secret Service didn’t want -- so I took a guy who was like a black belt in karate and grabbed his neck and tried to choke him —

KRISTEN WELKER:

What happened --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

How ridiculous. Just so you understand, and I have great respect for Secret Service, by the way. They’re fantastic. The Secret Service said, “Sir, it would be better if you didn’t.” I said, “I’d love to do it.” They said, “It would be better.” And so we went back to the White House. Just so you understand: I spoke. I made a very nice speech. I wasn’t Maxine Waters that calls for people’s death, and some of these — take a look at what these other people say. It’s so --

KRISTEN WELKER:

What happened when you got --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– ridiculous.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– to the White House, though? Where did you watch all of the events --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, let me tell you --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– unfold?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– much more importantly, I offered two days before — two or three days before — 10,000 soldiers, right? And they were going to go — because everybody was telling me, I knew it was going to be big in terms of the crowd, because everybody I spoke to said, “Hey. I’m going down on January 6th. I’m going down. I’m going to listen to your speech,” et cetera. And there were other speak -- I wasn’t the only speaker. There were many speakers. But wait a minute. I offered 10,000 people to the mayor of Washington D.C. and Nancy Pelosi, both of them, Nancy Pelosi and to the mayor of Washington. And they turned it down flat. And the police commissioner was very nasty about it to her. And he testified. And here’s what happened. The January 6th un-Select Committee of thugs and horrible people, the un-Select Committee destroyed all the evidence. Did you know that --

KRISTEN WELKER:

They say they didn’t do that. We did ask them. We did ask the January 6th Committee.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, they announced that they destroyed --

KRISTEN WELKER:

They said they didn’t do that.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– and deleted most of the evidence.

KRISTEN WELKER:

They say some of the evidence is still under review. I want to know what --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Wait. Wait. Wait.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to know about your perspective. Mr. President--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, Kristen.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to ask about you, though --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They put out an announcement that they destroyed the evidence. And they destroyed all the stuff having to do with Nancy Pelosi. And they wouldn’t let her testify. We said, “Why isn’t she testify” — you know it was a whole rigged deal — “Why isn’t she testifying?” I offered them 10,000 soldiers --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– she turned them down.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– I want to know what you --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know that she’s in charge of security --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– did on that day. I want to know. You’re the President of the United States, though --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, she’s in charge of security --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Tell me how you watched this all unfold. Were you in the dining room watching TV?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’m not going to tell you. I’ll tell people later at an appropriate time. Just so you understand, however --

KRISTEN WELKER:

What did you do when the Capitol was --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And I made beautiful statements.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– under attack, though —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Let me just tell you --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– in the moment that the Capitol was under attack?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Did you see the statements I made in the Oval Office and just outside of the Oval Office?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Absolutely. I was there that day.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

“Go home. Our police are great. We love our police. We love everybody. Go home.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

That was --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

This was --

KRISTEN WELKER:

That was before --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– a beautiful statement --

KRISTEN WELKER:

That was at 4 o’clock in the afternoon --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

When that statement was made --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– more than --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– I don’t know --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– three hours after the attack --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But there --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– started --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– but there were tweets that were put out --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– Mr. President --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– before that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to know who you called on that day.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

By the way, Nancy Pelosi --

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to talk about that day.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t have -- why would I tell you that? Listen. Nancy Pelosi --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Don’t want to talk about that?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– was in charge of security. She turned down 10,000 soldiers. If she didn’t turn down the soldiers, you wouldn’t have had January 6th.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Did you call military or law enforcement?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Did you call military or law enforcement at the moment the Capitol was under attack?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’m not going to tell you anything. I told --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Let me put it this way. I behaved so well. I did such a good job. Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 soldiers. If she didn’t do that --

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have the authority that you had as commander and chief, though.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– and now I understand — I understand that the police testified against -- listen to me, Kristen. Listen to me. I understand that the police testified against her — the chief, very strongly against her. Capitol Police, they’re great people. They testified against her. And they burned all the evidence. Okay? They burned all the evidence.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They destroyed all the evidence about Nancy Pelosi.

KRISTEN WELKER:

What do you say to people who wonder why you -- you, as commander in chief, you have authorities that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have, as commander in chief.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. She has authority over the Capitol.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Why didn’t you send help in that moment, though?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Uh, frankly, just so you understand, I assumed that she took care of it. She turned down --

KRISTEN WELKER:

But when you realized that the National Guard wasn’t coming? When help wasn’t coming?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, you don’t realize anything until quite a while. National Guard are not coming. I asked her to be there three days in advance. And she turned it down.

KRISTEN WELKER:

She says that that request was never officially made, just so you know.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, stop it. Let me just tell you --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me ask you about pardons --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

The mayor of D.C. —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

The mayor of D.C. gave us a letter, saying that she turns it down, okay? We have it. Nancy Pelosi also was asked, and she turned it down. The police commissioner of Capitol Police —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I’m talking about the day of, though.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Wait a minute.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Yeah.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Capitol Police said that he wanted it. And Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t accept it. She’s responsible for January 6th.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s — Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Nancy Pelosi is responsible. And the J6 Committee refused to interview her.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, you’re the president though. You have — You have authorities that no one else has, as the commander in chief. Do you think you showed leadership on that day?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yes. Absolutely. I did.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And I showed calm. Nancy Pelosi is responsible for the security. And she did a terrible job. And, by the way --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Looking forward--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– from what I understand, they burned all the evidence.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay. She says she never got an official request. They say they didn’t.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, she’s full of it.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But that’s what you’re saying.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Really?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let talk about --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And her daughter taping her. Her daughter happened to be documenting what --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s talk about potential pardons --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

A documentary worker just happened to be there taping her at the time?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s talk about potential pardons because a lot of your supporters are wondering about that. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in jail. Now that you know what the sentence is, 22 years in jail, will you give him a pardon?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Are you ready?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Will you give other Proud Boys a pardon?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t know him. I never met him. I never heard of him until I started reading this stuff.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Will you pardon him?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But I want to tell you: He and other people have been treated horribly. Antifa killed people, and those guys didn’t even get tried in many cases.

KRISTEN WELKER:

There’s no evidence Antifa was there.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They put these guys in jail for 17, 18, and 22 years. They didn’t kill anybody. Some of them never even went into the Capitol. Some of them weren’t even in D.C. And they got a 22- or a 17-year sentence. 16, 18, 15, 22.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, more than 1,000 people have been charged, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Yeah. 1,000 people. How many people — let me ask you this. How many people were charged for destroying Portland? How many people were charged for burning down the police precinct and the courthouse in Minneapolis?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Will you give him a pardon? Will you pardon him, though? Will you pardon him?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’d certainly look at it. I’d look at that. And I’d look at all the other people that have suffered, the J6 people.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, let me ask one final question --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

People — people that went there.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– and let’s move on to foreign policy.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That didn’t even go into the building have suffered gravely. And you have to say one system of justice, right? You take a look at what’s gone on in Portland. They burned down the city. The city is in shambles to this day. The store owners don’t even rebuild storefronts anymore. They put up two-by-fours.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to move on to foreign policy, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But why do you do that?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me just ask you one more question.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Why do you give me a horrible question and then you don’t let me answer it? You’re off to a bad start, I’m telling you.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, I just — I want to make sure we get to talk about foreign policy as well.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, but I don’t mind. I have all the time in the world.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You do? Okay.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I have all the time in the world. Why is it that the people, Antifa people, and very bad people, that burned down Portland, burned down Minneapolis, burned down so much — and New York City, what they did in New York City — and they were barely charged? And, yet, the people in Washington in some cases never even went into the building. They’ve been persecuted. They’ve been persecuted.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, the people who were charged on January 6th, some of them were charged with sedition. Some of them were charged for violating the Capitol —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And we’ll take a look at everything. But many of these people have been persecuted, what they’ve done to them.

KRISTEN WELKER:

They — your supporters? Your supporters, you’re talking about?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And they didn’t do this to the people that burned down — you take a look at Portland. It’s like a burned-down hulk of a city, including the federal courthouse.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, if you were re-elected, would you pardon yourself?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I could’ve pardoned myself. Do you know what? I was given an option to pardon myself. I could’ve pardoned myself when I left. People said, “Would you like to pardon yourself?” I had a couple of attorneys that said, “You can do it if you want.” I had some people that said, “It would look bad, if you do.” Because I think it would look terrible. I said, “Here’s the story. These people are thugs, horrible people, fascists, Marxists, sick people. They’ve been after me from the day I came down the escalator with Melania. And I did a great job as president.” People are — great economy, great jobs, great this, great that, rebuilt the military, Space Force, everything. We — I could go on forever. Let me just tell you. I said, “The last thing I’d ever do is give myself a pardon.” I could’ve given myself a pardon. Don’t ask me about what I would do. I could’ve. The last day, I could’ve had a pardon done that would’ve saved me all of these lawyers, and all of these fake charges, these Biden indictments. They’re all Biden indictments, political. They indicted — they want to arrest their political opponents. Only third-world countries do that, banana republics. So, ready? I never said this to anybody. I was given the option. I could’ve done a pardon of myself. You know what I said? “I have no interest in even thinking about it.” I never even wanted to think about it. And I could’ve done it. And all of these questions you’re asking me about, the fake charges, you wouldn’t be asking me because it’s a very powerful, it’s a very powerful thing for a president. I was told by some people that these are sick lunatics that I’m dealing with. “Give yourself a pardon. Your life will be a lot easier.” I said, “I would never give myself a pardon.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Even if you were re-elected in this moment?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, I think it’s very unlikely. What — what did I do wrong? I didn’t do anything wrong. You mean because I challenged an election, they want to put me in jail? I challenged an election. But, I challenged a crooked election.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So it’s not on your radar right now?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It was a rigged election. I challenged a rigged election. And now I’m going to win for a third time. And I just hope they have better vote counters.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s move on to foreign policy, Mr. President. I want to talk about the war in Ukraine. I want to, big picture, get a sense of how you see this conflict. Do you see the security of Ukraine as critical to the security of the United States?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay. Let me talk about it without interruption. All right? Ukraine would have never happened if I were president. If this election weren’t rigged, Ukraine would have never happened. You would have hundreds of thousands of people, including lots of soldiers, still living. The cities would be flourishing, or at least up. These are cities that can never be rebuilt again, certainly not the way they were, magnificent buildings all ripped down like a demolition site. It would have never happened for two reasons. Number one, and most importantly, Putin has a lot of respect for me. And he wouldn’t have played games. And I told him, “Don’t ever go in.” And he would never have gone in. This was only after I left that this happened. Likewise, President Xi would never ever be talking about Taiwan the way he’s talking about it right now. And they didn’t. They weren’t talking about it. It was only after I left. He would have never gone in. Equally as importantly, oil prices would have been at $40 a barrel instead of $110 a barrel. So he wouldn’t have been able to afford going in. He actually is the only nation that made money, because oil has been driven up so high by stupid people like Biden. Biden is an incompetent man. And what happened is oil. In fact, you’re going to hit a new high very soon again. That means Russia — Russia makes money from oil. Russia is going to make a lot of money. And because they’re making a lot of money, there’s no reason for them to settle other than humanitarian reasons. And let’s not assume people are going to be so humanitarian. So, Putin would have never gone in, because oil was at $40 a barrel. And he wouldn’t have been able to afford to have gone in. At $100 a barrel, he made a fortune. And that’s one reason. The other reason he wouldn’t have gone in is because I said, “Don’t go in. Don’t even think about it.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Just to that key question though, Mr. President, do you think that our security, the United States’ security, is linked to Ukraine’s security?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think that Europe has to do more. We’re in for $200 billion. They’re in for $25 billion. And it affects them more than it affects us. It certainly affects them much more than it affects us.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So you do think that it’s linked in some way?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think Europe is taking advantage of a stupid president.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You’ve probably —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Look. Look. Biden should say to them, “You have to equalize. You have to catch up.” You know, Europe is about the same size as our economy if you add them all up, add the countries up. It’s about the same size. And Biden should say to them, like I did with NATO — you know, NATO, they all owed money. I said, “Get your money in.” And we had over $430 billion put in almost immediately. And the head of NATO, Stoltenberg, secretary general, nice guy, he said to me, the most amazing thing I’ve ever done — and he said it publicly too. He said, “Bush would come in, make a speech, and leave. Obama would come in, make a speech, and leave. Trump came in and said, ‘You guys aren’t paying your bills.’” And I got them to pay. You know, they asked me something, which hasn’t been reported, but the media knows it. We had a meeting of the 28 countries, at that time 28 countries, and they said to me, “Are you saying, sir,” because I said, “You’ve got to pay your bills,” — “Are you saying, sir, that you won’t protect us against Russia if we don’t pay?” I said, “Sorry to tell you, that’s what I’m saying.” You know what happened?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Yeah.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They started sending us money like — and I was never given credit for it. But you wouldn’t even have a NATO if it wasn’t for me.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me ask you, Mr. President, about the strategy

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But here’s the thing. The European countries have to start paying their share, because we are having to do with Ukraine. Because we are $200 billion. And they’re at $20 or $25 billion. It’s so unfair.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me ask you about your strategy though. Because you have said you want to end this war in 24 hours.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You saw the meeting between Kim Jong Un and President Putin. Do you think that complicates your strategy, if you were re-elected, to try to end this war in 24 hours?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, look, it would have been easier if the war didn’t start. And you’d have hundreds of thousands of people living, most importantly. But it would have been a lot easier if it didn’t. But I can get it done and I can get it done quickly.

KRISTEN WELKER:

How do you do it? Can you paint a picture for me?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

There’s another example. You talk about Kim Jong —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can you paint a picture? How does it happen?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– You talk about Kim Jong Un, right? I got along great with Kim Jong Un after the first month or two when we were sparring. But I got along great with him. We were in no danger. There was — President Biden said, and he felt even now, and President Obama told me when we sat down, Obama told me, and Biden still to this day, except I don’t think he knows, he’s only — he can’t put two sentences together. But President Obama told me, “Our biggest threat is from North Korea. We’re going to end up in a war.” We didn’t end up with a war with North Korea. We were going to make a deal. I would say I would have had a deal made with North Korea shortly after the election, had the election not been rigged.

KRISTEN WELKER:

How do you end this war though, talking of deals, how do you end this war in 24 hours?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I can’t tell you exactly. Because if I did — People understand, if I tell you exactly, I lose all my bargaining chips. I mean, you can’t really say exactly what you’re going to do. But I would say certain things to Putin. I would say certain things to Zelenskyy, both of whom I get along — Don’t forget, Zelenskyy did something that was very honorable. They asked him — It didn’t stop these animals from impeaching me. But, you know, one of those things. They asked him, “Did Trump do anything wrong?” He said, “Absolutely not. It was a very normal phone call.” You can’t say that about Biden’s call, because Biden, what he did was horrible with a prosecutor. But, he said something that was very honorable. He could have grandstanded and said, “Oh, I felt threatened.” He said that “President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong on the phone call.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Some people hear you say you’re going to end the war in 24 hours and they worry that means President Putin is going to get to keep the territory he’s unlawfully claimed.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no, no, no. I’d make a fair deal for everybody. Nope, I’d make it fair.

KRISTEN WELKER:

It doesn’t mean that? It wouldn’t be a win for Putin?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know, that’s something that could have been negotiated. Because there were certain parts, Crimea and other parts of the country, that a lot of people expected could happen. You could have made a deal. So they could have made a deal where there’s lesser territory right now than Russia’s already taken, to be honest. And you could have made a deal where nobody was killed. They had a deal. They would have had a Ukraine country. Now nobody even knows if Ukraine is going to be totally taken over. I will say this: something’s going on, and it’s not good for Ukraine. Because the news is no longer reporting about the war. The fake news. They don’t report about the war anymore. You don’t find much reporting. That means that Ukraine’s losing. Okay? I see very little reporting from NBC, your network. I see very little reporting from NBC, ABC, from CBS, from anyone about the war. It used to be you’d go and you’d watch, even a couple of months ago, you’d watch all of this great strategy. The Spring Offensive never happened. Ukraine’s Spring Offensive never happened, because they were met with a wall of armaments and bombs.

KRISTEN WELKER:

President Putin’s worried people are losing interest — President Zelenskyy’s worried that people are losing interest in this war, as you’re saying.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no, I’m just saying —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, how would — would it be a top priority for you?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I’m not seeing anything about the war anymore. To me, that means that — probably because the press is fake and very discredited — that would mean that -- You know, look, here’s my attitude on the war. I just want people to stop being killed. You know, I was asked by that ridiculous CNN group during my town hall, “Whose side are you on?” I said, “I’m on the side of people stop being killed.” I don’t want to see people killed. They’re being killed by the thousands and thousands and thousands. And that’s the side I’m on, I don’t want — And you know what? People like that answer, to be honest. And I stay with that same answer. I want people to stop being killed.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to ask you about something President Putin said about you this week. I don’t know if you’ve seen it. This was very recent. President Putin said, quote, “We surely hear that Mr. Trump says he will resolve all burning issues within several days, including the Ukrainian crisis. We cannot help but feel happy about it.” What do you make of that? Do you welcome this support?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I like that he said that. Because that means what I’m saying is right. I would get him into a room. I’d get Zelenskyy into a room. Then I’d bring them together. And I’d have a deal worked out. I would get a deal worked out. It would’ve been a lot easier before it started. Essentially, for four years, I kept them from doing anything. Because you know what? I will tell you this. I never said this. Ukraine was the apple of his eye. I said, “Don’t ever do it. Don’t ever do it.” He would have never done it. But again, oil prices. He wouldn’t have done it because of me. But oil prices. The prices were so high that he had so much money. So he had all this money to prosecute the war. The one who drove up the prices was Biden.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Given that President Putin has bombed maternity wards, 20,000 kids kidnapped from Ukraine by Russia. Mass graves.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s all terrible. It’s all terrible.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Do you welcome his support, his all but endorsement?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Look, I had a very good relationship with him. And yet nobody was tougher on Russia than me. I stopped Nord Stream 2. You never heard of Nord Stream 2. That was the pipeline until I got involved. I said, “Nord Stream 2.” People that were sophisticated, military people, and political people never heard of Nord Stream 2. I had it ended. The pipeline was dead. Biden came in and he approved it. There was nobody tougher than me with Russia. And yet I got along with Putin. Let me tell you, I got along with him really well. And that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. He’s got 1,700 nuclear missiles. And so do we. But, look, that’s a good thing. Getting along is okay. But I got along through strength. And the war would have never happened. The war would have never happened. Now what’s happened, it’s so bad, the oil price is so high, it’s hard to get it stopped. The oil price is so high. When he goes above $50 and $60 a barrel, he makes a lot of money on the war. Now, it’s a humanitarian thing. It’s a lot of different reasons. But I will get that war stopped very, very quickly.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to talk about another region that you’ve talked about.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s too bad we have to wait so long.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let’s talk about another region you talked about: China. If you were to cut a deal between President Putin and President Zelenskyy, do you run the risk of emboldening China to invade Taiwan?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No. Not at all. Because China, he’s another one I got along to, until we had the China virus come in. Once Covid came in, okay? It was like — And I made a great trade deal with China, one of the greatest deals ever made for the farmers and for the manufacturers, $50 billion a year. It was a great deal. I don’t even talk about it. Because once Covid came in, it was, like, I didn’t want to talk about anything. I was a much different person. What happened to this world, not our country, the whole world. What happened with Covid. And it just shouldn’t have happened. It shouldn’t have happened. What happened, what China did to the world was so bad. But I had a great relationship with --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you send troops to Taiwan?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I had a great relationship with President Xi, a really great relationship. And he was going to stop fentanyl from coming in. He was going to do a lot — He was going to criminalize it if you made it. You know, in China, they have a death penalty for drug dealers. He was going to make that with fentanyl dealers too. But then the election didn’t work out and he never had to do that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I know you’ve been asked this, but very quickly, if China were to invade Taiwan, have you made a determination, again, since voters are about to go to the polls, would you send the U.S. military into Taiwan if President Xi were to invade? President Biden says he would.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I won’t say. I won’t say. Because if I said, I’m giving away — You know, only stupid people are going to give that — I heard the other day, DeSanctimonious said something about he was willing to do this or he was going to do that. I say, “Well, why is he saying the strategy?” You can’t say that. So when you ask me that question, I would never say that. Because you give away all your options.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But you don’t take it off the table?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t take anything off the table, no.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to do a border question, if okay, and then move to just a quick final round.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, hold on, hold on. I’ve got a lot of meetings coming up. I mean, we’ve been doing this for —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Just one or two more questions and we’ll wrap it up.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I can go another couple of minutes.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’ll do a border–

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But I really, I find it very nice and very challenging. But I can’t — You know, I have all those people waiting.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’ll do two more.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’ll do it quick. Because I know that you’re going to want to talk about this. If elected, you say you would order the Defense Department to use special forces to inflict maximum damage on drug cartels.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I didn’t say that. No. People said I said that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay, what would you do?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I didn’t say that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

What would you do?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I wouldn’t tell you what I’d do. Why would I say that? Because, again, you don’t want people to know your strategy. Now people said, they leaked and said things that I said this, or I said that, or I was going to hit them with Patriot missiles, the drug dealers in Mexico. But I will — I will say — and horribly — that they kill 250,000 people in the United States every year. You know, you never hear that number. You hear 100,000. I think it’s much more. They destroy families. Because when you lose a son or a daughter to fentanyl, or a wife, or anybody else, but when you lose a son or daughter, your life is destroyed. Their lives are destroyed. They’ve destroyed so many families. It comes through Mexico. Something’s got to be done. If we were in war, we wouldn’t lose 250,000 people. We’re losing more people than you lose in just about any war that we’ve ever had. And we lose them on a yearly basis. Something has to be done. And it has to be done fairly quickly.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Ron DeSantis says he’s in this race to finish the border wall. What do you say to that and to Republican voters?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I built — I built five hundred miles of border wall. It was great. It was just what — As you know, the border control board, and everybody else. Border patrol, I had them in my office. I wanted to do — We were going to do concrete planks, 40 feet high. They didn’t want that. They wanted to see through it. They want it to be steel, concrete, and rebar. I did everything. I gave them the wall that they wanted. You know, we tested it. We had mountain climbers test the ones that — That’s the wall we built. I built almost 500 miles of wall. We were then going to build another 200 miles of certain areas that all of a sudden people were coming into areas that they couldn’t come into anymore. And we were all set to do that. It was all bought. And all Obama had to do, all Biden had to do — it could be Obama too, because a lot of people think he’s calling the shots, so who knows. But all Biden had to do is go out and put it up. And he not only didn’t put it up, he took it off the site, and they put it in yards hundreds of miles away, so that Texas and Arizona couldn’t get it. I had the safest border in history. I had the best border in history. We had the lowest drug numbers for years, and years, and years, decades. We had the lowest drug numbers. We had the lowest human trafficking numbers. We had the least number of people coming across. All he had to do was go to the beach, like he does all the time. If he went to the beach and didn’t do anything, we’d have a great border right now.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Final question, Mr. President. You have met with prime ministers, kings, queens, dictators. You’ve seen it all. As you think about the possibility of a second term, do you still think that democracy is the most effective form of government?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I do. I do. But it has to be a democracy that’s fair. This democracy is — I don’t consider us to have much of a democracy right now. They indict their political opponents. Free speech is shot, because the press is very dishonest, very dishonest. Even the way you fight me on simple questions like, you know, the border, and this. You fight me so much. And I say, “Why are you fighting me?” Do you know, when I first ran, the approval rating of the media was very high. And now it’s very low. It may be below Congress, which is pretty hard to believe. People understand what’s going on. We need a media that’s free and fair. And frankly, if they don’t have that, it’s very, very hard to straighten out our country.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Did you feel as president you had enough power though? If you were re-elected, would you try to find ways — for example, there’s a report you’re looking into firing potentially people within the federal government who aren’t necessarily perceived to be loyal. Would you need more power if you win?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, just so you understand, that’s what the Democrats do. Okay? They do it in spades.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you do that?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

They do it at a level that you wouldn’t believe. I mean nobody has ever done that. No, I wouldn’t do that. I want great people, whether they’re Republican or Democrat. I want great people. But I want people that love our country, not people that hate our country.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Anything else you’d like to say?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I think that’s good. I think we did — I think we did a lot.

KRISTEN WELKER:

One last, is there any scenario by which — because Ron DeSantis says if he were elected, he’d have two terms and you’d only have one more term. Is there any scenario by which you would seek a third term in office?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No. Just so you understand, when DeSantis says that, that means he’s not your man. He’s not your man anyway, because he’s a very untalented guy. And he’s proven that. He started out, everybody was talking to him. After I worked them over a little bit, he’s gone down the tubes. I think he’s going to end up being number three or four. He just had a poll today. He was number four. And by the way, the one that was number two was 59 points behind. So, you know, it’s very interesting. But when somebody says, “Eight years. We need eight years.” No. In six months to a year, many of the problems, almost all of the problems that you and I have just spoken about, will be solved. Anybody that says they need eight years, you don’t want that person.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate it.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Thank you very much. And good luck.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We went all around the horn today. And I appreciate it very much.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yes, we did.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Good luck for many years.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you. Thank you for giving me a little extra time. I really appreciate it.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Good. Thank you very much.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you. If you have time, I think we want to get one little shot of us walking together.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Sure.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can we just get us walking out together?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah, we can do that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can we just walk out together?

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, have you thought about a potential running mate if you were to win the nomination?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I like not to think too much about that. You always do a little bit, but I really don’t think it’s time. I want to win. And, you know, it’s very interesting about running mates. When you get down to a vice president, they said, “Nobody’s ever made that kind of a difference. It’s still about the person that’s going to be president.” But it’s an --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Are you leaning --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– important decision.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Are you leaning toward a woman?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I like the concept, but we’re going to pick the best person. But I do like the concept, yes.

KRISTEN WELKER:

A lot of people noticed when Governor Noem endorsed you there were Trump/Noem signs. Do you have your eye on her?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I do. I think she’s fantastic. She’s been a great governor. She gave me a very full-throated endorsement, a beautiful endorsement actually. And, you know, it’s been a very good state for me. And certainly she’d be one of the people I’d consider, or for something else maybe. But we have a lot of people. We have a lot of great people in the Republican Party.

KRISTEN WELKER:

A lot of your supporters are asking when I’m out on the trail, “When are we going to see the first lady out on the trail?”

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Oh, I see. She’s right now with Barron in school. She loves that boy. And she’s very popular. She actually is. Oh, and she’ll be with us. She’s very, very supportive.

KRISTEN WELKER:

We’ll see her on the trail, soon?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yes. Soon? Yeah, pretty soon. When it’s appropriate, but pretty soon. She’s a private person, a great person, very confident person. And she loves our country very much. She’ll be, she’ll be — at the appropriate time she’ll be out there. And honestly, I like to keep her away from it. It’s so nasty and so mean. And a lot of it’s me. I say, “Just, I don’t want you coming. It’s such a nasty situation.” But when we have rallies, the rallies are bigger than ever, better than ever. You saw in South Carolina we had 82,000 people, the biggest rallies we’ve ever had. There’s a spirit in the country now the likes — look, 2016 was incredible. 2020 was actually much better. We got many more votes, millions and millions more votes. But I’ve never seen spirit like I see right now. And I really believe part of that is maybe because they love what we’re saying, but a big part of it is that our country is doing so badly. Our country is doing so badly with the borders, with the military, with the lack of respect all over the world. And I think that probably adds to what we’re doing.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can I ask you a question? I don’t think you’ve ever gotten this question. But it’s been reported that you left a note for President Biden when you left office.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s true.

KRISTEN WELKER:

It’s true?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can you give us a little sense of what you said?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You know, it’s interesting. He actually said it’s up to me to do, and I actually think it’s up to him to do. I left him a note. I think it was very — it was a nice note. I took a lot of time in thinking about it. I’d love him to do a great job, even if it was very bad politically. I would rather have him have wonderful borders, have no wars, have no Ukraine problems, which, you know, to a large extent was caused by him. Because if you looked at the rhetoric before that war started and the things that were said, I would much rather be in a position where the country’s doing great now, we had him as a president. But the country’s doing horribly. I don’t think the country’s ever been so disrespected. So many bad things are happening.

KRISTEN WELKER:

When you look at the polls and you see that the majority of voters don’t want to see President Biden run again, and frankly they don’t want to see you run again —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s wrong. See, that’s --

KRISTEN WELKER:

– Mr. President --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– where you’re wrong.

KRISTEN WELKER:

What do you make of those polls?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I just looked at a poll, and the Republican Party, 89% want me to run. And that’s the highest number that they’ve ever had. That’s higher than Ronald Reagan. The general poll, I mean, I think they love my policy. A lot of people say they love my policy but they don’t necessarily like me. I think they do like me. So in the Republican Party, I’m 89, 90, 92%. There’s a big lovefest going on. And when you look at these people running, they’re at 2%, 1%, 5%. One’s at 9%, DeSanctimonious. But, I’m at, you know, beating them by 60, 70 points. It’s unprecedented. Nobody’s ever seen a thing like that. And the voters themselves, I think they’re going to be very happy. Look, we have to turn our country around and very — I said it before: We have to make America great again.

KRISTEN WELKER:

What do you make of the age issue? Should there be an age limit to running for president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, but there should be a competency. I’m all for the test. You know, I took a test two years ago, three years ago. And as the doctors said -- and it was in front of doctors and a whole big deal at Walter Reed, which is an incredible place. And I aced it. I get everything right. I’m all for testing. I frankly think testing would be a good thing. A lot of people say it’s not constitutional to do it. But I would be for testing, to test to make sure everyone’s just fine. But a lot of people say that can’t happen because of Constitution.

KRISTEN WELKER:

What do you say to people who say, “It is time for a new generation of leaders in this country?”

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, it’s always time for a new generation. But, you know, some of the greatest world leaders have been in their 80s. I’m not anywhere very near 80, by the way. And Biden’s not too old. I don’t think Biden’s too old. But I think he’s incompetent, and that’s a bigger problem. I don’t think 80 is old. I know people that are 89. I know a person 94, 95 who’s 100%. Bernie Marcus, take a look at Bernie Marcus, Home Depot. I mean, he has been amazing for so many years. He’s 95 years old. It’s really a level of competency, not the age.

KRISTEN WELKER:

You will be in your 80s if you’re reelected. Does that concern you at all?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I will be toward the end. No, because my father lived much longer than that. My mother lived much longer than that. So genetically, that’s a good thing.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Anything else you want to say, Mr. President?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I just wish you a lot of luck. You’re going to have --

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– great success —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– I predict.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I really appreciate it. Thank you for all of this time. I know it’s a busy day and a busy time. And we really --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s okay.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– appreciate it.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Thank you very much.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Good luck with everything.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Thank you. Hopefully one of many interviews --

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It’s true.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Appreciate it.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Thank you very much.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Appreciate it. Thank you.

[admin]

Trump Broke the Law by Holding a Glock, Former FBI Counsel Says: ‘Like a Child, Except Much More Serious’
by Natalie Korach
The Wrap
Tue, September 26, 2023 at 9:06 AM MDT

[Librarian's Comment: TRUMP'S "RECEIPT" OF THE 45 SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL WHILE UNDER INDICTMENT IS A FELONY: "Under § 922(n), the fact of an indictment in any jurisdiction for any felony converts what can be assumed to be an otherwise lawful activity—the shipping, transportation, or "RECEIPT" of a firearm—into a crime." United States v. Laurent, 861 F. Supp. 2d 71, 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

"RECEIPT" IS DEFINED: ("To take in one's hand, or into one's possession (something held out or offered by another); to take delivery of (a thing) from another, either for oneself or for a third party."). United States v. Laurent, 861 F. Supp. 2d 71, 85 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 922(n) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT TRUMP VIOLATED THE LAW: 18 USC Sec. 922(n) provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or "RECEIVE" any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

Clearly, the pistol was shipped in interstate commerce, and Trump "RECEIVED" it.

SCOTUS has explained the purpose of the rule is "keeping firearms out of the hands of categories of potentially irresponsible persons, including convicted felons. Its broadly stated principal purpose was "to make it possible to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency." Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. [814] at 824-825, 94 S. Ct. 1262, 39 L. Ed. 2d 782 quoting S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 22 (1968). See also 114 Cong. Rec. 13219 (1968) (remarks by Sen. Tydings)

***

Andrew Weissman said the same thing a few minutes ago to Jen Psaki: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_q3YCFxJiE

[ANDREW WEISSMAN] HE HAS BEEN ON AIR TODAY, ABOUT POSSESSING A FIREARM. WELL, YOU AND I WERE ON AIR TOGETHER WHEN IN THE D.C. CASE, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAID, "YOU KNOW WHAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS, MR. TRUMP, WHEN YOU ARE OUT ON BAIL? DO NOT COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME." WELL, IT IS A CRIME FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS CHARGED WITH A FELONY, JUST CHARGED WITH A FELONY, TO RECEIVE A GUN. AND THERE ARE PICTURES ON TWITTER OF HIM HOLDING THE GUN.

[JEN PSAKI] DOES HE NEED A RECEIPT? WE DON'T EVEN KNOW -- HIS CAMPAIGN HAS COME OUT AND SAID HE DIDN'T PURCHASE, IT, BUT ...

[ANDREW WEISSMAN] BUT THAT'S NOT -- THE LAW IS NOT THAT YOU CAN'T BUY A GUN. THE LAW IS -- 922, TO BE A NERD -- 922(n), IS THAT YOU CANNOT "RECEIVE" A GUN THAT HAS TRAVELED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. THAT JUST MEANS THAT IT'S TRAVELED ACROSS STATE LINES, AND A GLOCK HAS TRAVELLED ACROSS STATE LINES BECAUSE THEY ARE EITHER MADE OVERSEAS, OR THEY ARE MADE IN GEORGIA. BUT THEY ARE NOT MADE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

[JEN PSAKI], SO, EVEN NOT PURCHASING IT, HE COULD'VE VIOLATED ...

[ANDREW WEISSMAN] EXACTLY. AND THAT HAPPENS A LOT. THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE STATUTE THAT APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONVICTED. AND THEY CAN'T POSSESS A GUN. SO THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT THAT HE WOULD BE CHARGED FOR THAT SEPARATE OFFENSE. IT'S THAT WHILE THIS MOTION IS PENDING, WHAT JUDGE CHUTKAN WILL HAVE IN FRONT OF HER, IS NOT JUST THE [GENERAL] MILLEY STATEMENTS, BUT SOMEBODY WHO HAS, SORT OF FLAGRANTLY BOASTED ABOUT DOING SOMETHING. SO, TO ME, HE IS REALLY DARING THE COURT TO DO SOMETHING. IT'S LIKE A CHILD, EXCEPT IT'S MUCH MORE SERIOUS, BECAUSE IT'S SOMEBODY WHO'S OUT ON BAIL ON 91 FELONY COUNTS.

MSNBC legal analyst and former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann joined Jen Psaki Monday to discuss the legal ramifications of footage where former President Donald Trump held a gun on a campaign stop in South Carolina.

The Trump campaign walked back statements on Monday that Trump bought a Glock handgun while in South Carolina for a campaign stop. In a video posted on social media, Trump was seen holding the firearm and saying that he “wants to buy one,” which would be illegal since he is currently charged with 91 felony counts.

“It’s unfathomable that you’re sitting here having that conversation,” said Weissmann. “He has been on air today about possessing a firearm.”

Weissmann continued that the magistrate judge told Trump that the most important thing to do when on bail is to not commit another crime. “Well, it is a crime for somebody who is charged with a felony to receive a gun. There are pictures on Twitter of him holding the gun,” said the MSNBC legal analyst.

“Does he need a receipt?” questioned Psaki. “His campaign came out and said he didn’t purchase it.”

“The law is not that you can’t buy a gun,” said Weissmann. “922(n) is that you cannot receive a gun that has traveled in interstate commerce. That just means that it’s traveled across state lines.”

Weissmann noted that the Glock Trump was holding in footage must have traveled across state lines “because they’re either made overseas or they’re made in Georgia, but they’re not made in South Carolina.”

“So even not purchasing it, he could have violated,” Psaki replied.

“Exactly, and that happens a lot,” Weissmann said.

“The issue here is not that he would be charged with that separate offense,” the MSNBC legal analyst continued. But rather that Trump “has flagrantly boasted about doing something,” illegal.

Weissmann noted, “It’s like a child, except it’s much more serious because it’s somebody who’s out on bail on 91 felony counts.”

“Yes, you don’t get to live by a different set of rules,” Psaki concluded.

Elsewhere, Weissman broke down his arguments on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Read those excerpts below.

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
It is a felony for Trump to "receive" a firearm that has travelled in interstate commerce (the latter requirement is almost always satisfied as it just means the gun at some point after manufacture went from one state to another prior to the receipt). 18 USC 922(n).
Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
Trump spokesperson: Trump aids and abets a violation of criminal law while out on bail when he bought a gun -- and then retracts and says Trump did not buy a gun.
Time for a grand jury investigation.....how is this not AT LEAST as bad as what Hunter Biden is charged with?
3:56 PM · Sep 25, 2023