The NPR Politics Podcast - Trump's Trials: Why lawyers say 'never write anything down'

Episode Date: November 11, 2023

Today we're sharing an episode of a new NPR podcast called Trump's Trials, hosted by Scott Detrow with regular analysis from Domenico Montanaro. Each week they'll break down the latest courtroom drama, testimony, and legal maneuverings in the criminal and civil cases facing former President Trump — and talk about what it all means for American democracy. In their debut episode, Scott and Domenico spoke with NYU's Melissa Murray about Donald and Ivanka Trump's testimony this week in the civil fraud trial taking place in New York. Follow Trump's Trials on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for episodes available every Saturday.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for NPR and the following message come from the Kauffman Foundation, providing access to opportunities that help people achieve financial stability, upward mobility, and economic prosperity, regardless of race, gender, or geography. Kauffman.org. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith, and we're here with a special Saturday episode for you because we wanted to share something cool and new. It's an episode of this brand new NPR podcast hosted by our old friend Scott Detrow called Trump's Trials. That's right. Trump's Trials,

just what it sounds like. The show is a weekly catch up on the biggest courtroom drama, testimony and legal maneuvering in the legal cases facing former President Donald Trump. And yes, we will still be talking about all those cases here on the Politics Podcast. But on Trump's trials, it's all they will talk about with all the gritty details. By they, we mean Scott, joined each week by your friend and mine, NPR editor Domenico Montanaro. But do not worry, Domenico will still be with us on this show too. So here they are, Scott and Domenico, with their first episode of Trump's Trials from NPR.

From NPR, this is Trump's Trials. I'm Scott Detrow. This is a persecution. Felony violations for national security laws. We need one more indictment. Criminal conspiracy. To close out this election. He actually just stormed out of the corner. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Once a week, we talk through the latest developments in the multiple legal cases former President Donald Trump is facing.

There are four criminal cases, of course, two of them tied to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Another one focuses on those classified documents that ended up stacked in a bathroom in Mar-a-Lago, among other places. And the fourth, that's the case over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. But this week, we are focused on Trump's New York civil fraud case. The judge in the case has already ruled the Trump Organization committed fraud for years, inflating the value of its properties. And Donald Trump took the stand this week. What's at stake in the case? The Trump Organization's ability to carry on doing business in New York is on the line. There's also a chance

of Trump being slapped with a $250 million fine. And this week, the former president himself, as well as his daughter, Ivanka Trump, testified in the trial. So that's the news this week. But first, I'm just going to take a moment to tell you what we're trying to do in this podcast. Each week, we're going to be joined by a legal expert to help us break down what happened and what matters. And we'll do that in just a moment. But first, also with me every week will be NPR senior editor editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro. Hey, Domenico. Hey, Scott.

Imagine you and me doing a podcast together. I know. Feels like long primary night hours. So now we're going to be talking about courtroom stuff each week. And let's start how we're going to start each episode. What happened this week in about one minute or so? What do people need to know? Well, it's pretty obvious. Donald Trump had to take the stand where he was forced to defend himself and the company that he made and that made him. And the Trump that we got on the stand was the Trump we're used to seeing. Which was an open question because at times in the past when he's been deposed in other legal settings, he has acted different, but he didn't hear he was campaign Trump. Right. He was combative. He was defensive and not necessarily truthful. I mean, even on the stand, when asked about the square footage of his

Trump Tower apartment, he couldn't give a straight answer. I mean, bottom line is Trump used his time on the witness stand to lean into this narrative that this case and others are part of a larger witch hunt. That's something we've been hearing from him since these investigations started. And Ivanka Trump, his daughter, she sounded a whole lot like her brothers, claiming that she wasn't involved in the financial statements in question, despite the fact that she herself was a former high-ranking executive at the company before leaving to work at the White House in 2017. A lot to get into, and we will do just that in a moment. It's Trump's Trials from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow, and I am joined by my colleague, Domenico Montanaro, as well as Melissa Murray, a lawyer and professor at NYU's School of Law. She's the co-author of the upcoming book, The Trump Indictments.

Thanks for being here, Melissa. Thanks for having me. So, Domenico, a lot on the line for the Trumps in this trial, right? A quarter of a billion dollar fine, the ability to do business in New York State, the symbolic value of properties like Trump Tower. And again, this is worth repeating at the beginning of this conversation. The determination here is coming from the judge, not a jury. So this testimony matters for Donald Trump. He takes the stand. What do we learn? Well, what was surprising to me is just how much he contradicted his sons. His sons really sort of took this hands-off approach and said, I wasn't really involved in these valuations. I don't remember these emails. You know, yeah, I was on them, but I had other things to do. I don't really know what you're talking about with all of this stuff. Donald Trump Sr. was very much the opposite. He was like, I think this property was undervalued and that property was undervalued, showing he really had his hands very closely tied to these valuations, which is at the core

of the fraud case here. Right. And Melissa, this is the center of the case. And again, the judge has already ruled that these financial documents were fraudulent, that they inflated the value of the organization way more than its actual value. And he comes in and says, no, they were worth more than that. I mean, what did you make of that legally? Well, it does seem like Donald Trump is playing to two different audiences. As Domenico said, the main audience here or the proper audience here is the judge who will make the decision about what the penalties will be in this phase

and will determine what punishment Donald Trump will have for the fraud that's already been determined. But Donald Trump is also playing for an audience outside of this courtroom. And there were moments in his testimony where it seemed like maybe he wasn't that concerned about winning this New York fraud case because he had bigger fish to fry elsewhere. And that could be the criminal cases and the criminal liability he is facing in four other lawsuits, or it could just be his presidential campaign. What's a specific moment that made you think maybe he doesn't actually care about the outcome of this trial? Again, like the bombast, like, you know, the square footage of the apartment is a verifiable fact. I mean, maybe there's a little bit of tinkering that one could do on the edges.

Like, do you include this closet? Do you not include this closet? But escalating the square footage of your apartment from 10,000 to 30,000 seems like a bit out of range. And he did not bother to rein in any of that. He was like, yeah, it's a huge apartment. There you are. It's kind of what you do with money laundering. But it's not, there's obviously not a case about that,

but it's literally what you would do is just inflate how much, at least what I learned from Ozark. But to mitigate, he was doing it in real time with the apartment. He was saying it was 10,000. No, actually it's more 11,000. No, it's 12,000.

No, it's 13, like in real time, he's just like growing the number on the stand. Yeah. Well, that's what he did with his net worth when he ran for president the first time. I mean, $2 billion. Why not $5? Why not $10? Right?

I mean, how do you value a brand like Trump's? Right? And this was all about that branding. But Melissa's 100% right. You can't just make up square footage unless you change like the measuring stick. Right? And obviously he wishes he could do that, but he can't. And I think that his team- And it's still a big apartment.

It's a huge apartment. It's huge, as he would say. It's a New York apartment. It's worth a lot of money. The fact though is his team has always had these tactics in law cases to delay, number one. He tried to delay this case, tried to get it thrown out, didn't work. So this time, maybe Melissa's right. He doesn't care if he wins or loses this thing because he knows the real audience is politics and he's got to keep his base in line. And that's why he was so combative and why he was making the speeches he was making from the stand, which is atypical, really, of what we've seen from Trump in previous depositions where he's much more sober. Right. To be clear, Domenico, there was a moment where he did seem to dial it back in because his lawyers did ask the judge for a directed verdict, which is to say to basically override

his earlier verdict, finding fraud, and grant a win to Donald Trump. So, I mean, at least the lawyers seem interested in winning this case or a more favorable outcome than what is likely to happen. But you're right. They had a very recalcitrant client on the stand. There was one specific defense that Trump kept coming back to, you know, at one point, pulling out this piece of paper, waving it around. He said this gave the financial statements legal cover for possible inflated value. This was the idea of the disclaimer in the document. Can you explain to

us why this matters and what the judge's response was? Sure. So again, I think we are seeing glimpses of what the defense is going to do when it begins to present its case next week. But this disclaimer is the sort of, you know, at the end of these statements, like, yeah, you know, maybe this is not entirely accurate, like, here are the numbers, but there's room for disagreement. These are subjective. And that's going to be, I think, the crux of the defense. Valuation, especially in real estate, is necessarily subjective. It is particularly subjective, I think they will argue, in the context of this family, where so much of their alleged worth is tied up in the family brand and is not necessarily subject to the kinds of traditional valuations that you might see for real estate

enterprises that don't necessarily have an outlet on television or reality TV, for example. So I think that's a big part of what's going on here. And I think separately, another thing that we're going to see, and the disclaimer is related to that, is nobody was hurt here. The banks made money. Donald Trump made money. No one was deprived of anything in the manner of a traditional fraud situation. What's the state's argument? Who was hurt here? Well, the state seems to be making a very populist argument, which is we're all hurt when Donald Trump cheats like this. Like we're ordinary stiffs who go to get a mortgage and we don't inflate the value of our net worth. We don't inflate the valuations of our existing assets. We have to play by the rules. And here's this guy who never plays by the rules. Well, politically,

Trump would say that makes me smart, right? I mean, that's how he talked about his taxes in one of the debates in 2016. And I think that in this case, he would say the same thing. But when it's revealed in court, it stands a little bit differently, especially when the state is really threatening your entire business. Well, I think that's right. And I also think it stands in stark contrast to his very populist message to his base, like you're all being overrun, you're losing ground. And he sort of put himself in with those individuals who believe that they've lost ground. But Letitia James is putting out there that it's not merely aspirational. He's the guy that's

cutting into your bottom line. One other thing to ask about in that New York courtroom this week, Melissa, that's the fact that Ivanka Trump testified. She was the last witness called by the attorney general's office. She has, of course, been the Trump child most closely tied to him over the years. She's the one who had an office in the White House. She has been a high-profile figure in Trump's orbit. What do we need to know about her testimony? Well, I think if you were expecting the kind of bombast and outbursts that you saw with Donald Trump and the recalcitrants that you saw in the two Trump brothers, you didn't get that with Ivanka Trump. She was much more controlled. I believe the attorney general referred to her as cordial, and I think that's exactly right. She seemed to be a very willing witness, although

not one that could recall the particularities of some of the business deals with which she apparently was very closely associated with. I want to end the conversation like we do each week with one big takeaway, the most important thing that you think happened in the courtroom outside of the courtroom this week. Domenico, I'll start with you. Well, I mean, the fact that Ivanka Trump here is continuing to sort of distance herself, you know, she's not on trial in the same way that her father and her brothers are. You know, her apartment was shown to be valued at a higher rate by her father, by the company's financial statements than she says she even knew about. And I think we're continuing to see this sort of distancing that Ivanka Trump has done from her dad, where inner, who was also on a lot of these emails, by the way, having some intimate involvement with how the Trump company was being run, even though he wasn't employed by it. Melissa, what's your big takeaway from the week?

Well, this also relates to Ivanka. But at one point in time, the lawyers tried to limit some of the testimony on the ground that she was being asked questions about her conversations with her husband, Jared Kushner, and the lawyers tried to say that this was barred by spousal privilege. And the judge, after taking a moment to think about this, came back to the bench and said, no, they were both emailing each other from work email accounts, which make this work matters, not necessarily spousal pillow talk. And so just my legal tip to husbands, wives, partners, do not email each other from work accounts if you want to keep this away from the court and out of evidence. Don't lawyers always say never write anything down, right? Never write anything down, but definitely don't email your spouse from your work account.

Yeah. Now the Trump team kind of gets its turn now, right? They kind of get the chance to go back. And I guess we're going to see how quickly this judge winds up ruling on this case. I guess I've got more of a big picture takeaway from this week. And it just gets back to the fact that this is such a strange parallel universe right now, where the stakes for Donald Trump at the moment are enormous, right? We're talking about criminal charges that could land him in jail. We're talking about this civil case that could take away his business empire. And yet it seems like it almost doesn't matter in the way that he thinks about it and acts about it and the way that he continues to be in front in the polls. And we saw in hypothetical matchups of the presidential election a year from now ahead of the polls in some places.

It's just a very strange moment. I'm not sure how it settles. Yeah, well, it's been more than a decade since Teflon was found to be toxic, but it's still with Donald Trump. And things seem to be sliding off of him when it comes to his base. That is senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro. Thanks, Domenico. You're welcome. And Melissa Murray, a lawyer and professor at NYU School of Law.

Thanks, Melissa. Thank you. And we will be back next week with another episode of Trump's Trials. Be sure to follow more of NPR's political coverage from Domenico and the rest of the NPR politics team. Daily weekday episodes of the NPR Politics Podcast. And thanks to our supporters who hear the show sponsor free. If that's not you, it could be. Sign up at plus.npr.org or subscribe on our show page in Apple Podcasts. The show is produced by

Tyler Bartlam and edited by Adam Rainey, as well as Steve Drummond. Our technical director is Kwesi Lee. I'm Scott Detrow. Thanks for listening to Trump's Trials from NPR.