Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York in a $250 million civil lawsuit that could alter the personal fortune and real estate empire that helped propel Trump to the White House.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and his attorneys have argued that Trump’s alleged inflated valuations were a product of his business skill.
McConney says he corrected inflated value of Ivanka’s apartment
The Trump Organization’s longtime controller testified that he overvalued Ivanka Trump’s apartment in her father’s statement of financial condition before correcting the mistake after it was flagged.
New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that a penthouse apartment rented by Ivanka Trump was valued in Donald Trump’s financial statement at $45 million in 2014 and 2015, despite the apartment’s rental agreement including an option to purchase the apartment for $14 million.
From 2016 onward, the value of the penthouse in Trump’s statements dropped back down the actual buyout price of $14 million, “per rental agreement.”
Asked about the change during his testimony today, McConney acknowledged the correction, claiming he did not know about the provision in the rental agreement.
McConney said that once outside accountant Donald Bender of Mazars USA flagged the issue, he promptly made the change in Trump’s financial statement.
McConney concluded his testimony for the day and is set to return to the witness stand Tuesday morning.
Controller testifies he relied on outside accountants
With an overwhelming number of entities to track in addition to numerous other responsibilities, the Trump Organization’s longtime controller Jeffrey McConney said he relied on outside accountants to put together Trump’s statements of financial condition.
While the statement took up a portion of his time between July and October each year, McConney testified that he otherwise spent “very little time” on the financial statements that underpin the attorney general’s case.
The descriptions of each entity in the statements, and the disclaimers, largely remained the same year after year, according to McConney.
“A lot of this was Gerald Rosenblum’s writing,” he said about the section describing Trump Tower, referring to a former outside accountant.
“Whose words are those?” defense attorney Jesus Suarez said about a disclaimer that said that the value of “Donald J. Trump’s worldwide reputation” was not considered in the statement.
“Mazars,” McConney responded.
He added that Trump would make any change that Mazars recommended and largely followed the lead of then-Mazars accountant Donald Bender when modifying the statement.
“If [Bender] had items that he needed on the statement to change, we made the change,” McConney said.
Controller denies keeping documents from outside accountants
Longtime Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, a defendant in the attorney general’s case, denied withholding any documents from the company’s outside accountants — appearing to contradict testimony from Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender.
“We provided him everything he needed,” McConney said, adding that Bender could request any document he wanted from the Trump Organization.
McConney, testifying for the defense, added that Bender also could directly communicate with individuals in the Trump Organization to directly ask questions during the process of organizing Trump’s financial statements that are at the center of the case.
“Bender would come in and talk to anyone he wanted,” McConney said.
When Bender testified last month during the state’s case, he said that he directly asked McConney if the company had more appraisals, to which McConney responded, “That’s all we have.”
“They were not giving us all the documents that we needed, potentially, to compile the compilation,” Bender testified.
Asked about the allegation on the witness stand, McConney denied he withheld anything from Bender.
“Did you ever hide anything from Donald Bender?” defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked.
“No,” McConney responded.
Co-defendant Jeffrey McConney returns to stand
Forty-five days after he began his testimony as the third witness in the state’s case, former Trump Organization controller and co-defendant Jeffrey McConney has returned to the witness stand for the defense.
When he testified last month, McConney — who was the primary person responsible for the valuations in Trump’s statement of financial statements between 2011 and 2017 — struggled to recall specific details about the preparation of the financial documents, though he acknowledged he took direction from Eric Trump about the value of a Westchester golf course.
This afternoon, after asking some preliminary questions about McConney’s biography, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began asking McConney pointed questions about Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender, another witness in the state’s case.
“Whatever he asked for, we would do,” McConney said about Bender’s role in the process of compiling Trump’s financial statement.
Defense expert gave inconsistent testimony, state attorney claims
State attorney Andrew Amer began his cross-examination of defense expert David Miller by highlighting that his testimony appeared to contradict Miller’s own expert report.
During his direct examination, Miller was asked if he has ever seen any insurance underwriters rely on media outlets when reviewing their surety programs.
“Prior to this, no,” Miller responded, referencing how underwriters at Zurich cited articles from Forbes and USA Today in their 2021 annual review of Trump’s policies.
However, Miller’s own report acknowledged that “some underwriters do not require financials and instead use their experience and other means (such as Forbes and USA Today) to satisfy their underwriting needs.”
When Amer suggested that the finding in Miller’s report appeared to directly contradict his testimony, the defense objected.
“It seems completely inconsistent. What am I missing?” Judge Arthur Engoron responded.
Miller clarified that he has seen underwriters cite external sources like media reports; however, the Zurich document was the first time he specifically saw Forbes and USA Today cited as sources.
Insurer backed Trump to guard relationship with broker, expert says
Defense witness David Miller, an expert in insurance underwriting, testified that the Zurich insurance company worked with the Trump Organization largely to protect its relationship with their broker, AON Risk Solutions.
“The relationship with AON was very important, and keeping business intact was very important,” Miller said about Zurich, which he said made a “business decision” to insure the Trump Organization’s properties.
The testimony appears to be a move to weaken the New York attorney general’s allegation that the Trump Organization used their inflated financial statements to get progressively favorable surety terms.
Judge Arthur Engoron was skeptical to qualify Miller as an expert before he relented to the defense’s request.
“I don’t see why you’re an expert in what was just said,” Engoron said after Miller spent 20 minutes listing his professional experience.
Both Engoron and state attorney Andrew Amer, who called the testimony a “waste of time,” criticized Miller’s ability to testify about the decisions made by Zurich and AON.
Defense’s case running ahead of schedule
The defense’s case will likely conclude one week ahead of schedule, according to defense attorney Clifford Robert.
Based on the remaining witnesses, the defense team is now planning to rest its case by Dec. 8.
Once the defense rests its case, the New York attorney general has an opportunity to present a rebuttal case, followed by closing arguments from both sides.
James says Trump’s expert witnesses are ‘friends and golf buddies’
Week 8 of Donald Trump’s fraud trial resumes this morning with the defense’s sixth expert witnesses.
Apart from the testimony of Donald Trump Jr., the defense’s case last week largely relied on multiple experts who supported the claim that asset valuation is more of an art than a science.
Similar to the state’s lone expert witness, who was paid $350,000 for his testimony, Trump’s expert witnesses during the first week of the defense’s case were paid a hefty fee for testifying — while others testified as a professional courtesy to Trump. Expert witness Gary Giulietti acknowledged his personal friendship with the former president, while Steven Witkoff said he had donated over $2 million to Trump’s presidential campaign.
New York Attorney General Letitia James noted those connections in a social media post.
“Several of these experts are longtime friends and golf buddies of Donald Trump. One had donated millions of dollars to Donald Trump’s campaign and his son even got married at Mar-a-Lago,” she said.
With no gag order, Trump continues to assail judge, clerk
With his limited gag order temporarily lifted on Thursday, Trump is continuing to rail against his civil fraud trial on social media, calling for the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, Judge Arthur Engoron, and Engoron’s law clerk.
Describing the case as a “horribly handled persecution of a political opponent,” Trump alleged that Engoron himself committed fraud by undervaluing his assets in his pretrial ruling, and that his clerk and James were complicit in the case.
“The World is watching this illegal Witch Hunt,” Trump wrote.
Describing Engoron’s clerk as a “co-judge” and “highly partisan,” Trump’s posts over the weekend were the second and third time the former president took aim at the clerk since an appeals court temporarily lifted the gag order preventing him from attacking Engoron’s staff. In both posts, Trump explicitly mentioned the clerk by name.
Engoron on Friday denied Trump’s request for a mistrial, which alleged bias on the part of the the judge, writing in his ruling, “As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine, and mine alone. There is absolutely no ‘co-judging’ at play.”
Judge denies Trump’s request for mistrial
Judge Arthur Engoron denied Donald Trump’s request for a mistrial, describing the defendants’ arguments as “nonsensical,” “disingenuous,” and “utterly without merit.”
Engoron rejected the motion without hearing any arguments from the New York Attorney General, who earlier this week requested that an extended briefing be scheduled.
“I cannot sign a proposed order to show cause that is utterly without merit, and upon which subsequent briefing would therefore be futile,” Engoron wrote in his ruling.
Across a four-page order, Engoron sharply disagreed with the allegations from the defendants that he was engaging in “co-judging” with his law clerk.
“As I have made clear over the course of this trial, my rulings are mine, and mine alone. There is absolutely no ‘co-judging’ at play,” Engoron said.
Addressing his principal law clerk’s political donations, which the judge said she has largely made in order to purchase tickets to functions while pursuing elected judicial office, Engoron called out the defendants for failing to acknowledge the “applicable unambiguous ethical guidelines” that permit such donations. He similarly dismissed the idea that his clerk attending events sponsored by political organizations implies that she supports any position taken by those groups.
“Such arguments are nonsensical; and in any event, they are a red herring, as my Principal Law Clerk does not make rulings or issue orders — I do,” Engoron said in his ruling.
Court was subsequently adjourned for the day.
Source: ABC News
