Social media speculation about Ivanka Trump's testimony tended to focus on whether she would protect her father and the family business or throw him under the bus. But in the end, the former first daughter did what she does best: protect herself and her own brand.
.jpg)
Ivanka's testimony today marked a striking contrast to the bombastic posturing of her father and that of her two brothers, Don, Jr. and Eric. There was no dramatic posturing or temper tantrums, and Judge Arthur Engoran even appeared to good-naturedly tease about her celebrity status as she took the stand, asking “Who is she?”
Ms. Trump, who was originally a defendant in the case, testified solely as a witness because an appeals court had removed her owing to the statute of limitations period having run on her involvement with the Trump Organization—which she left in 2017 to join former President Trump's Administration.
Her testimony confirmed some of the focal points for New York Attorney General Leticia James' case, such as the Deutsche Bank loan negotiations, and confirmed her earlier testimony that she was aware of the fact that banks would want statements of the company's financial condition, but that she lacked "specific" recollection about whether her father had personal statements.
The fraudulent nature of representations made in those statements are at the heart of the case and comprise much of what Judge Engoran has already determined to be false. Like her brothers, she distanced herself from knowledge of the contents of those statements.
Less credible was her disclaiming any knowledge about why the value of her leased apartment at Trump's Park Avenue building was listed as $20.8 million dollars when her purchase option for the apartment was only $8.5 million. Common sense dictates that, typically, the recipients of a sweetheart insider deal for purchase are made aware of why the deal is a good one but, in this case, legal sense would dictate her disassociation from such knowledge.