Here begins Tape Number 1 in the videotaped deposition of Donald J. Trump in the matter of Trump Old Post Office, LLC, versus CZ-National, LLC, and BVS Acquisition Co., LLC, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Case Number 2015 CA 005890 B. Today's date is June 16, 2016. The time on the video monitor is 9:59. The videographer today is Zack Arnson-Serotta, representing Planet Depos. This video deposition is taking place at 1200 17th Street, Northwest, Washington, DC. Would counsel please voice-identify themselves and state whom they represent. Rebecca Woods, counsel for Trump Old Post Office. I also have with me Alan Garten, General Counsel for The Trump Organization. Deborah Baum, counsel for the defendants CZ-National, LLC, and BVS Acquisition Company, LLC. The court reporter today is Debbie Whitehead, representing Planet Depos. Would the reporter please swear in the witness. Good morning, Mr. Trump. Thank you. And again, thank you very much for being here. Thank you. Would you state your full name for the record, please. Donald John Trump. And I imagine you've had your deposition taken a number of times? I have, yes. So you know the drill - I do. -- and I won't waste anyone's time going through it. Good. Thank you. Do you know that if you need to take a break, I'm happy to let you whenever you'd like to. Very good. Thank you. What did you do to prepare for the case today, for the deposition? I would say virtually nothing. I -- I spoke with my counsel for a short period of time. I just arrived here, and we proceeded to the deposition. Thank you. So you didn't look at any documents or - No, I didn't. -- anything. And, of course, I don't want to know what you talked about with your counsel. Can I have this marked as the next deposition exhibit, which I believe is Exhibit 182. (Deposition Exhibit 182 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) I believe that's the notice of your deposition. Yes. Technically the seconded amended notice. Yes. At the very last page, Page 8, there is a list of documents requested. Did anyone ask you to look for documents related to this case? I believe my lawyer did, and he looked for them with my secretaries. Do you keep handwritten notes? No. I think your daughter told me in her deposition that you don't e-mail, and I observed that that's because you're a very smart person. Yes. We've figured that out. Took a lot of people a long time to figure that out. That's right. But do you make notes, do you have anything on paper related to this case? No, I don't. What -- what do you know about this case? What's your understanding of this case, other than anything your lawyers told you? Well, it's a restaurant with a good name and a good reputation. And by "it," do you mean Mr. Zakarian's restaurant - Yes. -- or - Yes. And we worked long and hard and spent a lot of money even in legal fees to get a lease signed. It was a very prime spot in the building. I actually think he made a mistake by not doing it because I think he would have done well there. But very prime spot in the building. And ultimately it got signed. I believe my son Don worked on it for the most part. But I haven't been involved in it almost at all. But we were happy to have him in the building. What do you know about the lawsuit? Well, I just know that they cancelled the lease, I guess based on the fact I'm running for office. And they thought I made statements that were inflammatory in some form. And they -- I don't know if they sent out a notice. I think what was maybe worse than sending out a notice, they went to the press. And essentially it became a press deal. But they -- they tried to get out of their lease. I assume at some point they sent us a notice or whatever. I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen the notice, but I know it's been terminated, anyway. They terminated the lease, in their mind. What do you mean, "in their mind"? Well, I mean, they -- they wanted to get out of the lease, so they sent us a notice. But we -- we feel, you know, we have a lease. Why do you think they wanted to get out of the lease? I don't - Objection. Sorry. Objection. Foundation. I don't understand why, why they did this. I'm running for office. I obviously have credibility because I now, as it turns out, became the Republican nominee running against, we have a total of 17 people that were mostly senators and governors, highly respected people. So it's not like, you know, like I've said anything that could be so bad. Because if I said something that was so bad, they wouldn't have had me go through all of these people and win all of these primary races. And I'm pretty even in the polls or close to even in the polls right now. So I was very surprised that he wanted to get out of the lease. Did you have any understanding at the time of the termination as to why he wanted to get out of the lease? I wasn't too much involved in it. It was mostly my son and daughter, who you know. Have you had any conversations with either -- well, with not just your children, but any of your internal Trump team regarding this lawsuit? No. No, not at all. Other than Mr. Garten for a couple of minutes. And I'm not asking what you talked with him about - Yeah. That's okay. -- because he's your counsel. But, no, I haven't really discussed it. Okay. Have you had any discussions with Ivanka or Donald, Jr., at all about this dispute? Other than they said that I guess he wanted to get out, and that was a while ago. Since then I haven't discussed it. I didn't even discuss their deposition that I assume they took with you, based on your statement. Are you the -- you're the majority owner of the Old Post Office - Yes. -- entity. Correct? Do you know what percentage you own beneficially or directly? Well, my children have a piece. We own a hundred percent as a company. My -- my children have a piece of it. And who is -- are you -- but you, personally, are the majority owner - Oh, yes. -- or beneficial owner - Yes. -- of the entity? Yes. Do you know what percentage you own? I guess it's close to 80 percent. Who is the decision-maker for the Trump Old Post Office entity? I would say in this case Ivanka and Don. I am ultimately, but I -- I rely on them to make the decisions. Has that changed over time? I think as they've become older and wiser, I give them more and more decision-making ability. But -- but they have the right to make a decision, yes. At the outset of The Trump Organization's desire to pursue a lease from the GSA for this property, were you principally in charge at that point in time? My daughter mostly was involved, Ivanka, I would say more than anybody else. What's your vision for the Old Post Office Hotel project? Well, I think it's going to be a beautiful project. We're -- we're opening fairly soon. Too bad we don't have the restaurant in it. We would have liked to have had the restaurant. We think it would have been good for the hotel. But we'll be opening soon. And it will be luxury hotel, hopefully one of the great hotels of the world. The building is spectacular. But the building is really spectacular. And the construction has come out very well. Has your vision for the hotel project changed over time? Not too much. Other than the restaurant, actually, and the restaurants, not too much. And when you say "the restaurant," you mean the Zakarian - Yes. -- restaurant? Yes. And there -- there were originally going to be two restaurants. Right. One in the Cortile - Correct. -- central space? Correct. The José Andrés restaurant? Yes. And you now have BLT? BLT, yes. And no restaurant in the northwest corner - No. -- which was going to be the Zakarian space? We didn't have time. I would have rather had a restaurant. We just didn't have time to do it. How would you describe the Trump brand? A luxury brand. I think it's a brand where people know we get things done. It's a very successful brand, and does well. Around the world? Around the world, yes. And is it fair to say that you are the person largely responsible for building that brand? Yeah. And is it fair to say that you are the individual mostly associated with that brand? Objection. Yeah. I mean, yes. And I think my children are coming more and more into it. Ivanka probably in particular. But they're coming more and more into it. Okay. Next exhibit. This is Exhibit 183. (Deposition Exhibit 183 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) Mr. Trump, I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 183. These are materials we got from your website. And you're free to, but I don't mean to ask you to take your time to read the whole thing. But toward the end it says, "Mr. Trump is personally involved in everything that his name represents. This commitment has made him the preeminent developer of quality real estate known around the world, and in all his endeavors the Trump gold standard is apparent." Do you see that? Yes. Is that a true statement? Yes. And when it says that you're personally involved in everything that your name represents, what does that mean, that your name represents? Well, I think that, you know, I do things that don't necessarily have my name on it. But I'm involved with, when we put our name on a hotel such as this one which is very important, I'm very much involved in the details. I was involved in the design of the building and the room sizes and the entrances and the lobby and the marble and the bathrooms and the fixtures and the bars. A lot of things, I mean. You know, I'm involved very much with the hotel. The -- the important projects I get very much involved. And I imagine that's an important matter of pride to you - Yes. -- because you know your name and you are associated with that brand. That's right. Have you put a value on the Trump brand? It's hard to value. There -- there - people put values on it. And you hear all different values. So it would be -- you know, I just -- I just wouldn't want to know. I guess Forbes, for instance, in their magazines, they say they don't value brands. Others do value brands. Coca Cola as an example or Pepsi Cola, I think they have most of their company is the value of their brand, not the value of the trucks or plants. So I don't know. It's something that comes up on occasion, but I never know quite how to answer that question, because I think it's a very valuable brand. But I wouldn't really know how to answer the question. Have you had valuations done of the brand? I don't know. I don't think I've seen one, but -- I think there was one done for the company a while ago. Do you know what it was? It was over $2 billion, I believe. What do you think drives the success of your hotels? Good management and great locations and great buildings. We have great buildings, and we have -- they're in great locations, and we have very good management. What impact do you think your political campaign has had on the success of your hotels? I don't think it's had much. People have been coming to the hotels for a long time. And, I mean, I could tell you one -- one example where it's actually been very positive is in Florida, Mar-a-Lago. It's had a very positive impact. The manager told me recently, he said, Boy, this is the best -- it is actually the best year we've ever had at Mar-a-Lago. And I was looking at the numbers and I said, What do you attribute this to? He said the campaign. I mean, he said that. And we've had that elsewhere, so. But overall I would say it's fairly steady, with -- you know, it's -- I don't think it's had a huge impact one way or the other. Where it has had the positive impact that you've described - Right. Right. -- what do you attribute that to? I don't know. I mean, it's just -- well, this is in Palm Beach. You know, the example I gave is in Palm Beach, and it's a pretty political place. I mean, you know, people want to be involved maybe in the process. I don't know what it is. But I think, you know, overall it's -- it could even be a positive impact on -- on the facilities, as opposed to neutral. I -- I don't -- you know, I don't know exactly, if you were to ask me, I would say more positive than anything else. And do you attribute that, to the extent it has an effect, it's because people associate you with the hotels and they want to be a part of your political campaign, to the extent - Yeah, maybe. -- they're favorably disposed? Well, maybe the success of the campaign. You know, people have said there's never been anything like this. O'Reilly said the other night something to the effect that this is one of the great phenomenons that he's ever seen in his lifetime, you know? So, I mean, it's been pretty amazing. You have 17 people, and I end up at the top of, you know, one of the two parties. So I don't know how it's going to happen from here. We'll see. I mean, we're going to know in five months. Right? But it's been, you know -- it's been a lot of wins. We've -- we've beaten a lot of people. And I think people like that. So I think it's had -- I think it will be great for the building in question. And I think we would have really been helped if we had that extra -- you know, that restaurant that we wanted to have very much. I think it would have made the building more successful. And I think he would have done well. There have been a couple of reports that have suggested that the campaign has had a pretty strong negative impact on your hotels. I'm going to ask you to just take a look at them, see if you've seen these before. Would you mark this one. (Deposition Exhibit 184 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) Exhibit 184. And here is another. (Deposition Exhibit 185 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) This is Exhibit 185. Are you familiar with the survey that's described in the Forbes article, which is marked as Exhibit 184? No, I'm not. I've never seen -- I haven't seen the article. I haven't seen the survey. Okay. Has anyone talked to you about the survey - No. -- which apparently showed that 45 percent of people said they would make a specific point of not visiting a Trump branded hotel or golf properties over the course of the next four years? No, I haven't seen it. And, similarly, is the answer the same with respect to Exhibit 185, which describes a study by Hipmunk? Which I will confess I've never heard of. I've never heard of it either. It says it caters to younger people, and that may be why. Clearly why they published the study. Pardon? Clearly why they published the study. I've never -- I've never seen it. Okay. This one, the Hipmunk study, says that the hotel bookings dropped more than 59 percent in 2016, compared to the same period in 2015. Is that accurate? No. No, it's not accurate. It's not accurate. We're doing -- I think we're doing very well. Okay. Have you had conversations with your team internally about the impact, if any, of the campaign - No. -- on the hotels? No, I have not. When did you first hear of Geoffrey Zakarian, Mr. Trump? Actually through my son Don, and maybe Ivanka. But through my son Don, who said, you know, good reputation, good restauranteur, and that they were close to signing a lease with him after pretty long negotiation. So you didn't -- you hadn't heard of him until they told you, We're close to having the deal done? You weren't involved earlier? That's right. And apart from anything you've learned in this case, what do you know about Mr. Zakarian? Not much. Anything? No. I mean, I really don't. I just know he operates a good restaurant. Have you ever been to any of his restaurants? No, I have not. And do you know anything about Lou Ceruzzi? No. Beginning -- your -- do you know, in placing it in time, when you first heard about the negotiations with Mr. Zakarian or his entity? A while ago. Again, Don handled the negotiations. The only thing I knew is that he - he told me he's negotiating with Zakarian. And did you approve of those negotiations? Yeah. Sure. And was that in the 2014 time frame? Yes. Yes. Prior to the signing of the lease. And do you know when the lease was signed? No. Okay. I show you what's been marked -- or it has not yet been marked. Would you please mark this as Exhibit 186. (Deposition Exhibit 186 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) Mr. Trump, Exhibit 186 is, it looks like a press release that was issued by your organization, the Trump Hotel Collection - Okay. -- in September 2013. And does your organization put out press releases like this from time to time? Yes. This one, Exhibit 186, describes at the top that you, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, unveiled the details of the plans for the development of the Old Post Office. Okay. Do you recall putting this press release out? Well, I wouldn't have done it. This was done by probably the PR people with my -- my children. On the second page, the second paragraph, beginning "Construction is scheduled to begin." Right. It says, "Construction is scheduled to begin in spring 2014, with an expected completion in late 2015." Okay. Was that accurate at the time? Perhaps, yeah. We -- we were very much ahead of schedule. We're ahead of -- we're actually ahead of schedule. And we also went higher end than we even thought in terms of finishes and materials. So we -- we were thinking about completion sometime at the end of 2015. We wanted to take a little bit more time and make it, you know, just perfect. Because it was so far ahead of schedule. Which was, I think schedule was '18, actually. What do you mean by "schedule was '18"? What schedule? Meaning, we wanted to -- we wanted to have it built prior to '18. We originally had -- you know, you had to be open, I think it was '18. There's a specific date. And we're going to be opening in '16. Is that why I've seen things that say, for example, we're two years, we're opening - Yeah. -- ahead of schedule? Yeah. We're -- we're substantially ahead of schedule. At what point did you change or make the decision to change the expected completion date from the end of 2015 to late in 2016? Oh, I don't think it was a big -- a big change. We just -- we went -- we actually went more upscale. We went a -- a little more complicated design, the finishes were better, take longer to install. We went with the highest grade of marble, it takes a little bit more time. Even to get the material takes a little bit more time. Apart from the cost of the higher quality materials, how much -- was -- was that a very costly decision for you to make, just the delay in opening? No, not really. Because it was a very - you know, it was just a vast -- you know, pretty big period of time. We weren't sure exactly when. You never know until you really get - especially with renovation, you never know until you get into the job. Yeah, the material cost more money than we -- than we were originally going to spend. Well, I mean, really, apart from -- not talking about the cost of the enhanced materials or the new designs. Isn't it the truth that just the delay in opening would have cost you a lot - Well, I never - -- or is it the case that you - I never viewed -- I never viewed '15. I always viewed we would open sometime toward the end of '16, I think much more so than '15. But - So that delay didn't cost you particularly? No. We never thought about it. I -- I always viewed it as being '16. To do it properly, '16 would be -- you know, sometime during the year '16. So your son Donald, I think you told me a few minutes ago, told you about conversations with Mr. Zakarian or his -- if I say "Mr. Zakarian," you understand that the lease is with an entity? Right. That's right. His entity, in the same way that your lease - Okay. -- is a Trump entity. Okay. Did you have any understanding about the key business points in the lease negotiations? No, I didn't. Did they tell you how they were going? Was there any issue? No. Never did. Just, We have a deal. Just, We have a deal? We have a deal. Okay. They said, We just signed the lease. We have a deal with Zakarian. So they said, We just signed a lease and we have a deal? Don did. He told me when they signed the lease. I don't know when that was. But, you know, it was a while ago. But he told me, you know, We have a signed lease for the restaurant. Do you remember anything else he told you about the lease? No, not at all. Do you remember whether it had a guarantee, whether there was a letter of credit? I think he told me there was a letter of credit. I think he told me there was a guarantee. I think he discussed -- he just -- this was a while ago. He discussed a couple of the points of the deal. And, most importantly, he said, you know, good quality person, and restaurant. When you say he discussed a couple of the points of the deal, do you remember what any of those were? The basic rent and the -- the guarantee, the restaurant. They showed me a rough sketch of what was, you know, conceivably going to be built. But that's it. Very, very short conversation. I said, Fine. I have confidence in him. And he liked it, so I liked it. Okay. Was the guarantee important to you? Yeah, it was. Because I think we would have been able to -- you know, then we had plenty of time. It wasn't like we were rushed, like we are now. I think that, you know, we wanted to have a guarantee because we would have been able, I'm sure, to get another restaurant. And, you know, we want to make sure if we -- once we have the restaurant, we'll work hard to make that restaurant successful. We'll help that restaurant. I think the hotel would be very good for the restaurant. But the guarantee, yeah, it's important. And it's pretty -- pretty standard. I think it's pretty -- I mean, it's a negotiated point, but it's pretty standard. And why is it important to you? I want to make sure -- you mean the guarantee of the rent? Yeah. I want to make sure I get my rent. Because we're giving up the space, and you want to make sure you get the rent. Did you focus on the fact that this was a lease deal instead of a management deal? Yes. He told me it was a lease deal, I understood. Was that significant to you? Yes. Why? I'd rather have a lease deal. Why? It's a better deal. Why? Because they pay rent and it's assured. As opposed to a management deal, which you never know how it's going to work out. What do you mean, "you never know how it's going to work out"? You don't. I mean, a management deal, you never know how it's going to work out. Whereas a rent, you know what your rent is. That's why the combination of a rent and a guarantee is a good deal, if you can -- if you can make it. I'm just -- I'm not trying to be difficult. I just am having trouble understanding your answer. When you say, "A management deal, you never know how it's going to work out," what do you mean? Well, if you have -- if you do good business, that's fine. But in -- with a management deal, if you do bad business, you don't do well, you could lose money. With the rent, you just get your rent automatically every month. It's much simpler. And with restaurants you never know how you're going to do. Honestly, you never know. That's true. All right. I show you, Mr. Trump, a copy of what's been marked as Deposition Exhibit 25. Counsel, this is the copy of the lease that was -- I think that you used in Geoffrey Zakarian's - Okay. -- deposition. That's Exhibit 25. And it's the Trump documents that were produced. We noticed that there are some duplicate pages in it for some reason. I think the court reporter may have - We wanted to make it look bigger. It's very impressive. It does look bigger. THE WITNESS: I mean, it's a big lease. Is that the lease? BY MS. BAUM: So I'm going to apologize in advance, Mr. Trump, for showing you. That's okay. But I think some of the -- they said they took some of the extra pages out, but there may be some duplicate pages in there. That's okay. Here you go. And extra copies here. So this is Exhibit 25. (Deposition Exhibit 25, previously marked, retained by counsel.) If you look at -- my -- my understanding, the reason I was puzzled by your answer earlier about your son telling you the lease had been signed, my understanding is that you signed this lease. And if you look at - Well, that's true. Okay. He asked me, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I didn't -- I believe I signed the lease. But he came in and said, We're signing the lease. So I'll change that. He said, We're signing it? Yes. Because I think I signed it. Okay. I'll tell you in a second. TOPO 001968, take a look there. That's my signature, yes. And did you review the lease at all before you signed it? No. So did you have any understanding when you signed the lease as to what your rights were relative to getting damages against the tenant in the event of a default by the tenant? No. When I signed the lease, you know, my son said we have the lease, so I signed the lease. But, really, they knew it much better than I did. I wasn't involved in the lease. I signed it, but I wasn't involved in it. And how many leases like this have you reviewed in your career? Signed or reviewed? Reviewed. Not too many. I signed hundreds, much more than that. But I don't generally review them. I have somebody that -- whether it's an executive or in this case one of my children, you know, I rely on people to do these things. Including lawyers that I've had for many years, like Mr. Garten or somebody. So I rely -- so I very rarely get too involved in it. I will -- I will sometimes get involved in the rent, what the rent should be and maybe if there's a guarantee or not a guarantee, which is a major event. But -- but for the most part I'm not involved in the details of the lease. Okay. So I take it that, for example, if you would turn to Page 1933? Section 23 D. Okay. Okay. Got it. Yeah. You did not review this section of the lease? What does that say? Monetary Damages. This is in the remedies section. I did not, no. I did not. Would you be able to read this section and tell us what your understanding of it is? Objection. Mr. Trump isn't a lawyer. I mean, do you want me to read it? It's long. It is long. It's very long. It is long. I would -- I would like you to read just the monetary damages section, starting at the Number 1 in the middle of the page. Just there. The rest of that. And to the end of that. It continues on the next page. And tell me what you think, reading that, you as the landlord are entitled to get from the tenant in the event of a tenant breach in the way of damages. I don't have my glasses on me. I am at a disadvantage because I didn't bring my glasses. This is such small writing. All right. Well - Okay. If the witness can't actually physically read the language, that's a problem. THE WITNESS: I mean, it's very small writing. Now, you - THE WITNESS: I can -- I can make it out. Do you want me to try? Well, I'm -- we can have -- do you know what we can do? We can have a bigger copy made of these pages, and we'll come back to it. Let me -- let me just do it. I have to place on the record a hearty objection. Yeah, it's all damages that the landlord may sustain, including all legal fees and everything else involved. It looks like everything and the kitchen sink, to me. Then you have Number 2. It's the value of the positive difference with the aggregate amount of the base rent and the additional rent. Yeah. I mean, basically it's saying you have to pay all damages, and going forward you have to pay a rent and other things. I mean, it's a complex clause, but it's pretty standard damages clause, I think you will find. Okay. Would you agree with me that it says here in Part 2, in the -- you know, you have an alternative, that you can either elect to recover in the way of rent. Well, the landlord can elect. The landlord, yes; you, the landlord, can either elect a sum that at the time of the cancellation represents the positive difference, if any, between the aggregate amount of the base rent and additional rent that would have been payable. So what the tenant would have paid under the lease. Right? So the difference between that. Right. Right? And then if you go over to the next page. Or. Now, this is minus. All right. So the difference between everything you would have paid, minus the aggregate rental value of the demised premises for the same period, discounted to present value. Okay. Okay. So what do you understand the aggregate rental value to be? Objection. Well, we're getting no rental value now. I'm not sure that we could have rented it. I don't know that we could have rented it. But we're getting no rental. It was -- it was not an easy space to rent, to be honest with you. And he -- you know, he paid -- he agreed to pay rent. And he agreed to take the responsibility of the restaurant. Which is important, because we didn't want to have losses. And so this would be the rent that he's paying, less some kind of a rent that we get. I don't know that we could have gotten a rent. Okay. It says, "the rental value." Do you know what the rental value - Well, sure, the rental value. Objection. So you'll have to find out what is the rental value, what the rental value of - Okay. Do you know what the rental value is? No. Okay. No. All right. Then let's turn, if you would, please, Mr. Trump, to Page 1939, regarding the letter of credit. Just a quick question on that one. Okay. I won't make you read it. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Did you ever read this section of the lease - No. -- on the security deposit guarantee letter of credit? No, I didn't. In Section 4 of the sublease, you can look at it if you'd like, but did you understand that the tenant agreed to use and occupy the demised premises for a first-class in all respects restaurant? Yes. And you understood that that was an obligation that the Zakarian entity had? That's right. And did you also understand in Section 36 D of the lease that the tenant agreed to hire and maintain reasonably adequate personnel for the efficient service of its customers? Yes. Do you understand as a -- as a businessman, understanding you're not a lawyer, and I don't want to know what your lawyers told you, do you generally understand that in every contract, and particularly in every lease, there is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing on the part of both parties implied into every lease? I don't know how you define that. I mean, I just don't know. I mean, I just know we have a lease that said you're going to occupy a premises. We took it off the market. We thought we had a deal. We had a deal for quite some time. And, I mean, he just didn't live up to his deal. But my question is, do you understand that there is a duty of good faith and fair dealing that's implied on to the part of both parties in every lease deal? I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I want a fair deal. I just don't know what the lease says. Do you agree generally that regardless of what's specifically written in the lease, you as the owner can't then interfere with the tenant's right and duty to do what he is required and entitled to do under the lease, which is operate and profit from a successful restaurant? I just don't know what the lease says. I just don't -- it's a very big lease. I -- I don't know what the lease says on it. Right. My question, sir, respectfully, was that apart from what the lease says, whatever the lease says, do you understand that you can't then go and just interfere in some way with the tenant's right and obligation to open and profit from a successful restaurant? Objection. Calls for a legal opinion. I just don't know. I -- I mean, I would not interfere. And we didn't interfere. We gave him the premises. He chose not to take the premises. And, you know, so, I mean, I haven't interfered with him. As a businessperson, do you understand that you could -- well, strike that. Is it your understanding as a businessperson that you could go and announce outside Mr. Zakarian's restaurant that he's a terrible chef? Objection. I think I could do that, actually. I mean, you know, if he -- if he -- let's say he was doing a bad job. Let's say he opened a restaurant, he wasn't doing a good job, and somebody asked me, I think I could probably say I didn't like his restaurant. That doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, but I could probably say that. And he could counter me. But he would still -- he would still be paying his rent and still be serving and still would have control over the premises. Do you think that you could go stand outside his restaurant and say, You'll get food poisoning if you eat here, don't eat here? Objection. Probably could say that, but I wouldn't say that. But I probably could say that. And when you say you could say that, you could say it without violating any duties under the lease? I don't know what the lease says. Objection. Calls for a legal opinion. Also calls for speculation. I just don't know what the lease says. Okay. Once you have a lease -- you know, when you have a lease, you have a lease. And I -- I just don't know what the lease says as to that. I will tell you the lease doesn't specifically say you can't go stand outside and say, You can't eat here. And the lease doesn't say you can't do any of these things. So just assuming the lease doesn't specifically address it, is it your testimony that you could, say, stand outside his restaurant saying Don't eat here, you as the owner? Same objections. Well, over the years I've seen many, many landlord/tenant disputes, and I've seen horrible things said both ways. But I -- but the -- but the tenant is never released from paying his rent. I've seen unbelievable disputes where people are fighting like cats and dogs, and the tenant keeps paying the rent. Well, the question is, though, could you stand outside his restaurant with a sign saying, Do not eat here? Speculation. Legal conclusion. I just don't know. I really don't know. I -- I guess I could. You know, he's got to pay his rent. And he would have to challenge me or go to court to have the sign removed. Normally what would happen in a case like that is you would go -- you would be hired, you would go to court to get the sign removed. But you think you would be within your rights to do it, as far as the lease is concerned and your obligations as a landlord. Objection. Well, I think he would have to pay his rent, yeah. And he could go to court and have me take down the sign. Do you think that you, under the -- in terms of your obligations as the owner of the property, do you think that you could put out statements saying that Mr. Zakarian is a racist? Objection. Yeah, I guess if -- if he was a racist, I could. If he was a racist, I could do that. Do you think that would impact his ability to run and profit from successful restaurants? Speculation. That I don't know. He's got a lease. He's -- I don't know. He's got a lease. He's got to pay his -- he's got to pay his rent. You know, you can't -- if somebody says, that would mean that every document ever signed, if somebody gets into a verbal dispute, that would mean all of the many leases all over this country would be terminated because somebody has, you know, got into a verbal dispute. I mean, that would mean arbitrators would have to be set up for what is a verbal dispute, you know? You couldn't -- you wouldn't have a country of laws. I mean, it would be a -- it would be a mess if you went by a standard like that. He's got lease, he pays his rent. He can go to court and challenge me, he can go to court and sue me. He can sue me for libel if I said something like that. But I think he would have to continue to operate his restaurant and pay his rent. Similarly, would your answer be the same with respect to, assuming that you went out -- stood outside his restaurant and said that Mr. Zakarian was anti-Hispanic? Objection. Do you think that would interfere with his ability to operate a successful restaurant? No. He would go to court and would have the -- he would have me taking, you know, the sign down or whatever, however method you want to talk about. But you would go to court, and you would ask for a judgment that I would -- I would take down the sign. Do you think if the word got out that Mr. Zakarian were anti-Hispanic, that it would affect the -- potentially affect the success of his restaurant? I don't know. Objection. I don't know. I really don't know. You understand, I'm sure, that what brings us together today is the decision that Mr. Zakarian and his entity made in the wake of the comments that you made when you announced your candidacy for president in June 2016. Okay. And we have the transcript of what was said, but I don't -- I don't think we need to go through all of it. But specifically focusing on the comments about Mexicans and immigrants, and making comments about Mexicans. Illegal immigrants, yes. Illegal immigrants. And I - Which is a very big topic in this country. And which is a topic that, you know, has led to my nomination in a major party in the country. So it's not a very out-there topic. With respect to the speech that you made, and specifically the focus on Mexicans and immigrants, did you write the statement in advance? Was it written? No. And did you plan in advance what you were going to say? Yes. Okay. Did you talk to other people about it? No. Did you give any thoughts to the effect that your statement relative to Mexicans and immigrants would have on tenants in your current or future projects? No. No, I didn't. I didn't at all. You believe your comments have been misinterpreted by the media. Correct? Perhaps so, yeah. I think the media is very dishonest. But all I'm doing is bringing up a situation which is very real, about illegal immigration. And I think, you know, most people think I'm right. And would you agree that you've taken the position that the media has misinterpreted your comments and liberal groups have misinterpreted your comments? Well, I don't know. Some have misinterpreted them, some haven't. I mean, so the voters I don't think have. I got more votes than anybody in the history of the Republican Party primaries, by a lot. And, you know, that's pretty mainstream, when you think about it. You have definitely tapped into something. Something. Right? It's possible - possible that I'll help him as opposed to hurt him. Help who? If he had the restaurant, it would be helped, as opposed to hurt. Why do you think that? Because you just said it. I mean, I've tapped into something. And I've tapped into illegal immigration. I've tapped into other things, also. But, you know, when you get more votes than anybody in the history of the party, history of the party by far, more than Ronald Reagan, more than Richard Nixon, more than Dwight D. Eisenhower who won the Second World War, you know, that's pretty mainstream, when you think about it. There have been a number of businesses that have terminated their relationships with you in the wake of particularly the comments regarding Mexicans and immigrants. Yeah. Correct? Well, there was not -- like, no extension. Macy's was an example. No extension. I'm not even sure we had a deal with Macy's. But -- but we ceased that relationship, yes. And they publicly attributed it to the comments regarding Mexicans. I don't know. I think so, yes. And would the same be the case for Univision? But I didn't have a lease with Macy's. I didn't have a lease -- you know, I didn't have a - that kind of a deal. It was just a month-to-month deal. With Univision, I had a signed contract. We went to court, and they paid a substantial amount of money to me. To settle? Yes. And what was your understanding of the reason for Univision terminating the relationship with you? I guess they didn't like my comments. I think they made a mistake. I think they feel they might have made a mistake, but you'll have to ask them. But I guess they didn't like my comments. And is the same the case with NBC? Well, NBC wanted to renew me on The Apprentice, but I told them I can't do it. But they did -- you know, the Miss Universe was not nearly as important to them. But NBC, that -- that all worked out very well. I -- I don't know exactly what their reasoning was. But I can tell you they wanted to renew me very badly on The Apprentice. But it was you who said, Not doing that? I couldn't do that because I was doing this. There are only so many hours in the day? Well, you also have the equal time provisions. In other words - Right. Yeah. -- I'm not allowed -- essentially - Got it. -- I'm not allowed to do a show - Right. Right. -- and run for office. Free advertising. Which is I think unfair. But it's one of those things. And, also, it is a time thing. But I -- but you do actually have a legal reason as to why you can't do it. You would have to give every other candidate equal time, meaning two hours of prime time television. And I have a feeling they wouldn't like that. Probably not. You also had a relationship with Serta? Yes. Mattress. What was the -- was the nature of the relationship? Mattresses. I just want to jump in and just caution the witness, to the extent that what you're being asked might intrude upon confidentiality agreements or - THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes. You had a relationship with Serta? Yes. Contractual? Yes. And Serta pulled out of that relationship in the wake of your campaign comments, as well? Well, there was no extension or something, yes. And did you have any understanding of what their reason for wanting to? Not particularly. I wasn't involved in it too much. Did it cause you any concern that all of these entities wanted to apparently distance themselves from you in the wake of your comments? No. I'm a big boy. I understand. I've been making these statements, by the way, for many years. This is not just new. You know, this isn't -- when your client signed his lease, my views were out there very, very strongly. Well, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, Mr. Trump, that they've gotten a lot more press in the last year? No. I mean, maybe more. But, you know, I can tell you that, again, some people will do better because of it. Were - And maybe some people won't. I can't answer that. But -- but some people will do better. But I've been making -- I've been very strong on these -- I've been very consistent. I've been very strong on the things that I said for - for years. Debby, when we have a moment, take a quick break? I would be grateful. Okay. Thank you. VIDEO SPECIALIST: Going off the record. The time is 10:51. (A recess was taken.) VIDEO SPECIALIST: Back on the record. The time is 11:03. And lest there be any confusion, we're calling this deposition for the moment confidential, as we did with the others. Understood. I think we have an agreement that for the initial -- initially they're all confidential until we in the course of time - Agreed. Thank you. -- make our designations. Which I assume will be more limited, but ... BY MS. BAUM: Mr. Trump, you understand you're still under oath? Yes. I want to go back to your testimony earlier when I asked you a series of questions about could you stand outside the restaurant and -- with a sign saying, Don't eat here, could you say Mr. Zakarian is a racist or anti-Hispanic. Is it fair to say that, as far as your understanding of your obligations as a landlord, apart from any other legal defamation or libel-type obligations you might have toward anyone you might say something about, in terms of your obligations as a landlord, you can stand out there and say whatever you want about Mr. Zakarian or his restaurant, and he still has to keep paying rent? Objection. Well, I would say that if I gave him the premises and the premises was in good shape and on the assumption I had to provide the electricity and the air-conditioning to his premises, et cetera, et cetera, and all of those things were done, yeah. No, he would have to handle me differently. He would have to go to court and get some kind of an injunction or court order to get me to, you know, leave the area or -- or take down the sign. But, as far as you're concerned, he has to keep still paying rent, because you haven't violated the lease - Objection. Yes. -- by doing that? That's true. This is the next one, Exhibit 187. (Deposition Exhibit 187 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) Mr. Trump, this is a later press release, or hotel news resource, actually, "Trump International Hotel to open this September." This is dated February 9, 2016. Okay. This article says -- and it looks like this was put out by Trump. Is that correct? Could be, yes. It says, "Trump International Hotel, Washington, DC, will open in September 2016, two years ahead of schedule." Right. Is that correct? Yes, it is. And we talked a little bit about this earlier. But when you say "schedule" here, what are -- what is that a reference to? I believe it's the reference to the agreement we have with General Services that we had to have it open by a certain time. And - We're a couple of years ahead of schedule. And that certain time you believe is sometime in 2018? I think so. Well, I'd like to check it, but I think so. This is Exhibit 188. (Deposition Exhibit 188 marked for identification and is attached to the transcript.) Mr. Trump, Exhibit 188 is an article from -- I know it's not your favorite media outlet - No. -- The Washington Post? I agree. Highly inaccurate. Page 2 has a comment from you. You're welcome to read the whole thing. But I'm really only going to ask you about a quote that they attribute to you on the second page, about three-quarters of the way down, where it says that you shrugged off news that a second chef, Geoffrey Zakarian, planned to pull out of a deal to open a restaurant. Jos Andr s was the first to announce he was backing out. And then it provides a quote from you, saying, "They each left massive deposits, okay, which I like very much. They each are personally guaranteeing the rent, and they did that just to be cool and politically correct, Trump told reporters, adding, We're already dealing with other people, some of the great chefs of the world." Is that a quote from you? Yes. First of all, what did you mean by they were guaranteeing the rent to be cool and politically correct? I didn't think I said that. I think I said they were guaranteeing the rent, period. Yeah. Is what I meant. That they did this to be cool and good, not to guarantee the rent. Okay. They weren't being cool to guarantee the rent. I was -- I confess I was very confused about that. Yeah, I know. I mean, it's one way of looking at it, I guess. No. They -- they guaranteed the rent, period. And then they were doing their grandstanding. I mean, if they would have gotten out very quietly I think it would have been a lot better for everybody. They caused me damages. Because, you know, they -- they made such big deal out of it. And they didn't have to make big deal out of it. So that was disappointing. No, but that's what I meant. They wanted to be they thought politically correct by doing what they did. I think they made a mistake. And why do you think they made a mistake? Because I think they would have done well with a restaurant. And you said that they have -- they would have been -- it would have been better for everybody if they had done it quietly. How so? Well, we wouldn't have gotten bad publicity. I got a lot of bad publicity because of the way they handled it. They grandstanded. And how has that harmed you? Just a bad day of press, a bad few days of press. I think it -- you know, I don't know how I can quantify it. But I think we were hurt by the way they did it. Do you - They did it very publicly. My son had a lot of respect for your client, and I think they even talked that day, and then all of the sudden, you know, he did a grandstand move. Did - Which got him a lot of publicity, and I'm sure he felt glad about it. But it wasn't good for me. At the time -- in the time period between when you first announced your candidacy in June, middle of June, 2016, which I think it was June - Sixteen. June 16. June 16. June 16. So a year ago today. 6/16. Exactly today. Exactly today. This is why they did a big story today in The New York Times. Your anniversary? It's the one-year anniversary. There's a big story in the Times today. Oh, good. Not a horrible story, actually. It's - actually, it's a pretty good story. I'm not used to that. Okay. Okay. So in the time period between when you announced on June 16, 2015, and when Mr. Andr s and Mr. Zakarian's entities pulled out of their leases with the Trump Organization, did anyone have any conversations with you about -- along the lines of, Look, if you retract these statements, like, if you, you know, can clarify, modify, make it clear that you didn't mean what people are saying you meant, maybe we can salvage these deals? I don't think so. No, I don't think so. I mean, you would have to ask my children, but I don't think so. Did you have conversations with Ivanka in which she urged you to issue a clarifying statement? No. Not that I remember. You have recently publicly stated that Judge Curiel in your Trump University case was biased against you in that case. Counsel - Correct? Yeah. Objection. Correct? Yes. And you mentioned specifically his Mexican heritage. Correct? Yes. And is it your contention that he went so far as to violate his obligations of impartiality because he was biased against you? I don't know. Objection. And the comments in the media, it seemed to suggest that you felt that the fact that he had -- was of Mexican heritage, you said, I'm building a wall, he's of Mexican heritage, seems to be a conflict of interest. Is that correct? Well, I guess he doesn't feel it is. We'll see. I'll let you know about it. I think I've been treated very unfairly. But we'll see what happens. What did you mean by that, that it's a conflict of interest? Objection. Hold on. Hold on a second. Counsel, can you draw the line for me on what this line of questioning has to do with this case? Well, I think it's quite relevant. To? To what? To the whole concept here in this case, is -- relates to how Hispanics and others are perceiving those comments. And I want to understand what Mr. Trump views - But that's not your line of questioning. You're not -- you're not asking those questions about what he understands Hispanics - first of all, I don't think that's at all relevant. But you're asking him about his opinions, and you're trolling for something that, frankly, might eventually be leaked to the media. So I would ask, counsel, I know you have broad -- you have broad leeway here, but please be mindful. I am very mindful of - And bring these question into a relevancy zone. I think -- I think this is relevant to this case. We have no intention -- we haven't leaked anything to the media. We have no intention of leaking anything to the media. You know as well as I do this transcript eventually may well be public. Why don't you ask a couple more questions. And if I have concerns we're going to take a break, and I'm going to consult with counsel. Okay. Mr. Trump, I just want to understand why you think that your comments would cause a Latino or a person of Mexican heritage to potentially be biased against you. With respect to what? With respect to anything. I think in many cases they like me, because what I'm doing is for the people that are in the country legally. And I'm starting to see that in polls. If Hispanics are in the country legally, they will -- many of them are liking what I say, including people from Mexico and other places. That if they're in the country legally, they're liking it. And they're liking what I'm saying about bringing back jobs to the United States. Because we need jobs. We don't have jobs. A lot of your comments about this particular judge related to his association with a group. Uh-huh. And what does that have to do with how people in that group or with that affinity might behave toward you or your entities? Well, what I said is named La Raza. And there's another La Raza. And I've been told they do have a connection. And they have said some very inflammatory things, and extremely inflammatory things. About what? About Mexico, the United States, and various other things. And I think it was inappropriate. If it's true, I think it was inappropriate. And I've said it loud and clear. And so do you -- do you believe that many Latinos have misinterpreted your comments? I don't know. I can't speak for other people. I can just say what my comments were. I'm fighting to keep jobs out of Mexico. I'm fighting to have Mexico not take our businesses away from us. Mexico is taking our businesses like we're children. Our leadership is not smart. We're losing millions of jobs to Mexico. We're losing billions of dollars to Mexico. And I'm fighting very hard for the United States. And that's what I'm referring to. Do you think that Judge Curiel would patronize a Trump property? I don't know. I -- you would have to ask him. Have you done any analysis -- you or anyone on your staff done any analysis to see if Latinos are less frequent patrons of Trump properties since your campaign announcement? No. Do you think that some Hispanic patrons would be less likely to patronize a restaurant in your hotel due to what you've described as misperception or mischaracterization of your comments? Well, your client is on the outside, first of all. I mean, you know, really the front is on the outside of the building. I -- I don't know. I think you will get additional business, actually. I think you'll actually get additional business. Why? Because it's a hot hotel, and we're doing very well. Our bookings are very good. I mean, you know, our bookings are good. But I think it would have been much better had -- I think we would have been better had we had your client. But you think what would have been better? I think the hotel would have been -- I think it would have been great for the hotel, and I think it would have been great for your client. When you say you think he would have gotten additional business, additional compared to what? Maybe compared to where he would have been Without what? Without, as you say, my running for ofifce. I think my running for office potentially would have helped him as opposed to hurt him. And that's because people don't necessarily separate Mr. Trump the politician from Mr. Trump the owner of the property, and they want to have a -- they want to have a part of the excitement. Well, let -- let me just be clear. My properties are totally separate and distinct from me. I understood. I'm an individual. That's a company, it's corporation, you know. So my properties - Understood from a corporate standpoint. -- are totally, totally separate. I think in many respects beyond even corporate, corporate legal. It's totally separate from me as an individual, you know. It also represents Ivanka and Don and Eric. You know, I mean, but it's a totally separate situation. Do you think that there are some Hispanic patrons who would be less likely to patronize any restaurant in any of your hotels or any of your properties? It's -- it is always possible. I just don't know. I mean, I don't know how to answer that question. It's possible. But, likewise, there could be some people that will come because of whatever it is. You know, because of a candidate. And why do you think, for example, the Palm Beach property is doing particularly well? I think you said earlier it's - Because I think people like politics. Politics? Yeah. And they like to be around the name and maybe me. I go there, you know. But I think - I think people really dig it. Would you agree that the demographics in Washington, DC, are decidedly different from the demographics in Palm Beach? Huh. Well, at the -- at the high end, they may be very, very similar, you know. We're talking about political, you're talking about a lot of wealth. So at the high end I think they're probably similar. Across the board, though, you would agree, wouldn't you - Yes. -- they are quite different? Certainly across the board. Do you believe that there are some number of liberal patrons, politically liberal people, media people, liberal people, who would make it a point not to patronize Trump properties in the wake of your campaign? Well, like in your case in your restaurant, if he did a great restaurant, I think for the most part they would -- they want to go to the restaurant. They're not thinking about that. They want to go to a great restaurant. But you don't have a crystal ball, really can't tell? There aren't that many in Washington, believe me. There aren't that many in Washington, as you know. That may be something we can agree on. There aren't that many. So this was a great opportunity, actually. We're getting -- we're getting more of that. We're getting better. Good. Yeah, I would imagine. Okay. When did you first hear that Mr. Zakarian's entity had terminated his lease with the Trump OPO? I -- I can't tell you when. But my son told me, Don. Okay. And what did he tell you? Essentially -- I don't know if he used the word "terminated." I don't know what the definition or the word would be. But he said that they're trying to get out of their lease. Did you have a meeting with Ivanka about it? It's possible, you know. You know, maybe meeting where something about this was discussed. All right. Did you see all those I put down and didn't use? I'm impressed. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you. It's the psychology of rewarding the witness. THE WITNESS: I was hoping. I was hoping. When you did that, I was hoping. Would you mark this as the next one, please. (A discussion was held off the record.) It already has a sticker on it. This is previously marked as Exhibit 162. Okay. We're saving time all over the place. That's okay. (Exhibit 162, previously marked, retained by counsel.) Okay. Exhibit 162 was previously marked. It's a Business Insider report titled "Donald Trump just released an epic statement raging against Mexican immigrants and disease." Would you agree that this is a -- an example of - Oh, this one? This one, Exhibit 162. Okay. Did I give you the wrong one? No. He's got it. I have this one. Okay. Is that it? Yes. Where is it? It's the lack of the glasses, I think. Where is it? Just let her ask a question. Oh, I'm sorry. No. I read the - It's Exhibit 162. "Geoffrey Zakarian pulls out of Trump hotel project." Okay. Yes. Okay. On the second page this document says, "We know Geoffrey Zakarian very well." This is the Trump team sent out a statement in response. It's at the bottom of the page. The bottom of the second page. Okay. Did you read and approve that statement before it was issued? I probably did, but I don't -- I don't remember. But I probably did. All right. I probably saw it. It says here, "Zakarian is using the distortions by the media of Mr. Trump's comments." Do you see that? Yeah. And do you agree that your comments were distorted by the media? Yes. In a big way? I -- I think the media is very dishonest. I say it all the time. I think they're among the most dishonest human beings I've ever met. No. But I say that all the time. Right. But, I mean, in -- in this instance there was a -- you believe there was a big deal made of this by the media. Yeah, I think it was distorted, yes. And you describe it, or The Trump Organization describes it as "an opportunistic attempt to renege on clear and unequivocal obligations under his lease." Do you see that? Yeah. What about this was opportunistic? What -- what was your understanding that he was trying to do to benefit himself by pulling out? He may have found out that the restaurant was going to be much more expensive to open than he thought. Because he started to get into it. He may have found out that maybe just didn't think the business would be as good. I don't know. There are lot of reasons you want to get out of leases. I've seen people -- I've had people come to me two days after they sign a lease, wanting to get out of it. Do you think it's possible that he genuinely thought that your comments would make it more difficult for him to hire staff and attract patrons? Objection. Go ahead. Yes. I can see, yeah, perhaps it is. But he has a lease. He signed it. And I've been saying these things for years. I've been very consistent. I've been saying them from before he signed the lease. You also note that he has a nonrefundable deposit and has fully guaranteed the lease. Do you see that? Yes. Okay. Do you know whether that's true, that he put up a nonrefundable deposit? I believe it's true, yes. At the end of the statement it says, "This will have no effect on the completion and success of the project." Do you see that? Yes. Is that a true statement? I'll tell you in about five years. I just don't know. I mean, I think it would have been very helpful to have the restaurant there. And I know you say "I'll tell you in about five years." What do you mean by that? Well, I have to see how the hotel does. Because you don't have a crystal ball, and you don't know how it's going to do. I don't know. I don't know. I think -- I think it will be good. But you never know. You never know. When you met with Ivanka, your daughter, about Mr. Zakarian's entity decision to terminate the lease agreement, did you have any discussion with her regarding what to do with the space, now that both restaurants had decided to terminate their lease arrangements with the Trump - Yes. -- Organization? Yes. Okay. And could you tell us to the best of your recollection what you discussed with her at that time? Well, I would have rather gotten -- I think I told her this. I would have rather have gotten another signed lease from another restaurant. Because that's the ideal situation. But we didn't have any time. You know, we don't want to be in construction while the hotel is open. So we had to have everything done at the same time. So in the case of Zakarian space, we are building essentially a very large conference room or meeting room. We wouldn't have had time to have a restaurant. And you knew that at the time he terminated the lease? Oh, yeah. It was -- it was very tight. Even for him it was very tight. But - So you said, basically, We can't do this? No. And we had to have the space finished. I didn't want to be building, you know, two years into the project after everything opens and be building a space. I wanted to get it completed. So we decided on a -- a ballroom, conference room, which we could start on right away. And you made that decision virtually immediately? No. But, you know, sometime after that time. And why particularly did you want to turn the space into a meeting room or suites? I didn't. I would have much rather had Zakarian. I would have much rather had Zakarian. It would have been -- I think it would have been better for the hotel. But we didn't have an option. We lost our tenant. Our tenant, you know, defaulted on his real -- on his lease. And so now we have this space. And I wanted to get it completed. Now, in the document we looked at a minute ago where you had the statement by The Trump Organization, it says -- actually, it was an earlier one. You said, We're talking to -- we're already talking to some of the great chefs in the world. It wasn't in 162. That's right. I misspoke. So was that a correct statement? We were talking to other chefs. We couldn't get them to make a deal. We couldn't get them to sign a lease. And when you say you "couldn't get them to sign a lease," it was important to your organization to have a lease and not a management deal? I would rather have leases. That's why we have a management agreement with BLT. But I would rather have leases, yes. And are you aware that there were a number of chefs, I think the record shows, that were interested in doing management deals for the northwest corner, the Zakarian space? Yes. But a management deal is much different than a lease. A lease is much better to have. Why? Because it's certainty. You get your rent every month. The other one, you never know what's going to happen. That's because, what, you get rises and falls based on the success of the restaurant? That's correct. And you don't know how the restaurant is going to do with any degree of certainty. You never know. No, you never know. Is that right? With a lease, I know how the lease is going to do; it's going to pay me whatever the rent is. But you can't say to any degree of certainty how a restaurant is going to do, so you don't want to do a management deal. What I would rather do is I would rather have a lease. But is what I said correct? Yeah. Well, if we're saying the same thing, it's correct. I would rather have a lease. Yeah. Because you can't ever say to any degree of certainty how a restaurant is going to do; and, therefore, you don't know how you're going to do under a management deal. Well, you don't know how anybody is going to do with anything. With a lease, you get your rent. And has that been a philosophy that you followed? Generally, yes. Whenever possible. It is possible under a management deal for that space, that the restaurant could do -- as you've said, you think Zakarian might have done really well in that space. Correct? Yes. So it's possible that, under a management deal, a restaurant would do really well. Correct? But it would never give us the kind of income that we were going to get from Zakarian in the term of rent -- in rent. How much less would you make -- I mean, strike that. If the restaurant under a management deal in that same space were highly successful, the hotel could make more money than under a lease. Isn't that right? Objection. I would -- I would almost say if it broke even I would be happy, and serviced the hotel. In other words, if the restaurant under a management agreement broke even and serviced the hotel, I would say that would be considered somewhat successful. Why? Because the -- we want to service the hotel. And it's not easy to make money with a restaurant. Especially when you're not in the restaurant yourself. So he can manage his own restaurant. We're not. You know, we're a big company that has a lot of different things. So it's not easy. So having a restaurant where the restaurant pays rent is a very valuable thing. But you can't say how much you would or wouldn't have made under a management deal, either. Correct? No. But I told you if I could -- if I could have broken even with it, I would have been happy. But you're doing a management deal with BLT. Correct? Yes. Because we have to service the hotel. Not because we want. We have to service the hotel. But you don't know whether -- you may do very well on that management deal as well. You may make money. Correct? I may. But again, if I broke even, I would be happy. Okay. I want to turn to the letter of credit in this case. Okay. I show you what's already been marked as Exhibit 165. (Deposition Exhibit 165, previously marked, retained by counsel.) It's a compilation of documents related to the letter of credit that Mr. Zakarian's entity posted. And you'll see the applicant is CZ-National, beneficiary, Trump Old Post Office, LLC. Did you have an understanding of what the letter of credit was supposed to cover? No. I just know it was a letter of credit for maybe a deposit or something. I didn't -- I never saw the letter of credit. I just know we had it. I knew we had a guarantee and a letter of credit. And did you understand that someone from your organization had to certify to the M&T Bank that you -- that The Trump Organization had the legal right to draw down on the letter of credit? Objection. Foundation. I don't know that. I just don't know. You would have to ask the lawyers about that. I would like you to turn, please, Mr. Trump, to -- it looks like it's the fourth page in terms of pieces of paper in this document. Uh-huh. It says it's a statement. It's the fifth. Keep -- keep going. It's the one with the signature? Is that what you want? Yeah, there are two. There's a sight draft and a statement. Got it. Got it? I have sight draft. Which one do you want? Yours is double-sided; his is not. Oh, okay. Got it. Okay. I've got them both. Okay. Do you see that statement - Yes. -- to the M&T Bank? Yes. Stating, "Tenant" is default -- "is in default of the sublease beyond the applicable notice and cure period, and landlord is entitled to draw under the letter of credit pursuant to the terms, if any, of this sublease." Correct. Is that your signature? Yes. And is it your signature on the sight draft on the prior page? Yes. Okay. Prior to signing this statement - or strike that. What was your understanding at the time in 2015, July of 2015, as to how this process worked for drawing down on a letter of credit? I mean, I had no understanding. I know a letter of credit is -- is a very powerful instrument. And I've never had a problem with a letter of credit before. What do you mean, "never had a problem"? Meaning when you submit a letter of credit, when you tell a bank somebody has violated an agreement, they pay. You know, it's a very strong document. It's a very strong concept. And very -- very seldom is a letter of credit challenged, because they're almost unchallengeable. So I was surprised -- I don't even know that they are challenging the letter of credit. I don't know enough about the lawsuit to know that. But -- but a letter of credit is a very powerful document. That's because if you tell the bank, I'm entitled to get my money, the bank has to pay you your money? That's true. So is that effectively what you were doing here, saying, I'm entitled to get my money? Yes. Objection. What did you do prior to signing this statement to assure yourself that you were accurately making the representation to the bank that you were entitled to draw down those funds? I asked my lawyers, this one right here. And I do not want to ask you what - Okay. -- Mr. Garten told you. Did you do anything else to factually assure yourself that you were making a factually correct representation to the bank? No. Did you go to the lease to look at what you're entitled to do with the letter of credit? I assume my lawyer did. Did you have, other than speaking to Mr. Garten, did you have any other communications with anybody about drawing down on the letter of credit? Perhaps my children, but mostly my attorney. Do you remember any conversations - No, I don't. -- with your children? No. Did you or anyone on your behalf have any conversations with the bank about drawing down on the letter of credit? I don't know. I didn't, but I don't know. Do you know -- as of the time that you signed this statement, did you know what your damages were relative to the termination of the lease? No. It wasn't something that I was doing. And at the time you signed this certification, you understand, don't you, that the CZ-National obligation to pay rent hadn't even begun to accrue yet? I -- I don't understand anything. I, frankly, was just given this by my attorneys. They said this is proper - Wait. Right. Okay. I don't want to ask you what your attorneys told you. I relied on my attorneys, okay, to put it differently. Okay. Good. Now she's happy. Okay. Were you privy to any discussions regarding a decision to file suit in this case? Yes, I was. And were -- who were those discussions with? I think it was mostly my children, Don, Ivanka, and Alan Garten. And who made the decision to file suit? Maybe as a group. At the time you made the decision, is it fair to say you didn't know the extent of your damages? I would say yes. Yeah. I think I'm just about done. If we could take a five-minute break - THE WITNESS: Okay. -- I'll consult with my colleagues, who are a lot smarter than I am, and they'll be able to tell me what I've screwed up here. THE WITNESS: Fine. Okay. And what questions I forgot to ask. THE WITNESS: You didn't screw up anything. Thank you very much. VIDEO SPECIALIST: Going off the record. The time 11:40. (A recess was taken.) VIDEO SPECIALIST: Back on the record. The time is 11:53. BY MS. BAUM: Okay. Mr. Trump, just briefly, did you, personally, have any conversations with any other chefs or restauranteurs regarding any -- either of the restaurant spaces in the Old Post Office? Yes. Who? Jean Georges, a long time ago. When? A long time. Maybe before Zakarian. And what was the nature of that discussion? See whether or not I could lease him the space. And what did he say? Couldn't do it. Not as a lease. He was interested in a management deal but not a lease? I didn't go to the management agreement. It was early on, so I didn't feel -- you know, I had more time. But he basically wasn't interested in doing something in a lease? Also, I don't think he wanted to pay the build-out that -- I mean, one of the very good things you get from a lease is that, in this case your client would have to spend all of the money to build out the space. And - Less the tenant improvement allowance - Well, other than whatever might be in the -- sure, there might be some stuff that we get. But basically they would be building out their space. You know, that's millions of dollars that now I have to spend myself. And do you know how much he had committed to spend on the build-out? No, but it would be millions of dollars. You also testified earlier today that to the extent that, you know, you think the hotel is going to do very well, and perhaps even get a bump up because of your campaign, you don't know how much of a bump it's going to get because of the campaign. Correct? No, I don't. I think we can probably all agree you don't have a crystal ball - Right. -- and neither do I. Right. Do -- and you said you thought it would do better with a restaurant. Do you think - Yes, I do. Okay. And I want to understand what you meant by that. What did you - Well, I think the restaurant would bring people. A restaurant, a good restaurant like this one, would bring people. So that would be -- that would benefit the hotel. In addition to the rent and the additional rent. Bring people where? To the hotel. To stay in the hotel? Yeah. Sure. Do you think that that was the Zakarian name that would bring people to stay in the hotel? It's got a good name. But do you think that his name would have materially impacted the number of people who stayed at the hotel? It's possible. But you don't know? Well, people would come to the hotel, and they might stay there because there is a good restaurant. But do you have any way of knowing whether that would have really happened? I think it will happen. I don't -- I can't tell you how much. People, a lot of times when they come to a hotel, they'll check the restaurant. If it's a good restaurant they'll stay at a hotel as opposed to the one across the street or the one in a different part of town. Have you ever done any analysis of the extent to which that actually happens? No, I have not. But having a good restaurant in a hotel will increase your business, sometimes dramatically. And -- but you've never done any analysis or looked at any analysis of how much? No. But I'm sure there are companies that have done that in various other hotels, and they would be able to tell you. But having a good restaurant and having a name restaurant in a hotel can increase the -- the business in that hotel very substantially. Do you know whether there is any analysis of whether having a second restaurant in a hotel, when you've already got one, the incremental effect of the second? No, that I don't know. But it -- it wouldn't have hurt. I think it would have been good. So, and when you say "it wouldn't have hurt," having a second restaurant there with Zakarian in it wouldn't have hurt, and you think it would have been good? I think having a good restaurant in a hotel is a very good thing for the hotel. It's one of the reasons we made the deal. And, therefore, if you could have a very good restaurant in the hotel under a management deal, that would -- wouldn't change the effect that that had on the hotel. Correct? If you could get somebody good. But it's -- it's a different kind of a thing. We have a restaurant coming in now. It's hopefully a good restaurant, you know? I hope they do a good job. But we couldn't get them signed to a lease. Right. My -- my point is simply, I understand what you're saying about having a restaurant there potentially to some degree driving the revenue of the hotel and, again, driving the number of people who stays there. You know, you can't quantify how much, but you -- you have a sense that it is a favorable thing that attracts people to - Right. -- come and stay there. Correct? Right. Do you know whether it causes them to pay more to stay there, in your experience? I -- I really don't know. But, you know, look. Having -- it's commonsense. Having a good restaurant is a positive thing. Okay. So can we agree that having a restaurant being a positive thing to potential patrons of the hotel and the restaurant from the patron's standpoint and from the hotel business standpoint in terms of room occupancy, it doesn't matter whether it's a restaurant -- a management deal or a lease? It depends. Generally -- and you can -- I think there are studies of this. When somebody essentially owns it, you know, through a lease, if you call it a form of ownership, you'll find the restaurants are better managed. But in terms of - You understand what I mean? I understand what you're saying. When they're responsible to pay rent, when they're responsible for all of those things, including payroll, et cetera, et cetera, when you have a lease, they are responsible for that bottom line, and it's not this big, massive company that will have too many employees and maybe the service won't be as good. You know, a lot of different things. When you're responsible, when you have a lease to pay, in the case of Zakarian, you know what the number is, oftentimes you'll find that that's a better run restaurant. It's like ownership. It's a better run restaurant than if you have a management agreement. They have skin in the game? Yeah. Okay. So I don't think I asked my question very well. In terms of the population out there who are restaurant-goers - Right. -- as I understood your testimony earlier, the restaurant is a bigger draw, and potentially you get -- if you have a celebrity chef or if you have a really good restaurant, potentially more people are going to come and stay in the hotel. It could be, yes. It could be. You don't know, but it could be. Could be. So if you have a celebrity chef in the hotel and you think that's going to be a big draw, in terms of the draw factor for getting people into the hotel, does it matter whether it's a management deal or a lease? Objection. Asked and answered. Well, I mean, the problem is we -- we couldn't get anybody. I mean, and we didn't have enough time to get anybody. Because we were let down by Zakarian. We were really let down. He had his lease, he was all set. He was going to spend all this money on building this place. All of the sudden he says he's going to violate his lease. So, you know, we didn't have enough time. Because we're in the meantime getting ready to open hotel, we're going to be opening very shortly, as you know, in a few months. And -- almost less than that. And we didn't have time to do that. I - Had we had more time, had we had more time, we would have been maybe in a position where we would have gotten somebody. But in the meantime, we weren't. And a very big factor is the fact that Zakarian was going to spend millions of dollars building out his space. And now we're going to have to spend millions of dollars to build out whatever space it is. I'm just trying to focus on the element of your testimony where you said a celebrity chef or a really successful restaurant, a good restaurant, can be a draw for patrons to the hotel. Yeah, but restaurants are better when there's a lease than when there's a management agreement. But my point is simply, if you have a management deal with a celebrity chef versus a lease with a celebrity chef, if the celebrity chef is drawing patrons in because they're -- because of their celebrity, does it matter to the patrons whether it's a management deal or a lease? No. But - Objection. -- you'll find the quality is better when there is a lease. Okay. That's been historically proven. Okay. You testified earlier today, Mr. Trump, that with respect to, you know, why it's, you know, good to have a lease, that you know you're going to get your rent. Right. That's what you know you're going to get. And you understand that there were at least a couple of different components of rent? Sure. I put quotes around rent - Yes. -- under this lease. There is base rent and percentage rent. Correct. When you say you know you're going to get your rent, you're talking about the base rent. Right? Not the percentage rent? Yeah. Which - But I think he would have done very well. I think he would have made a lot of percentage rent. I think he was going to do very well with this restaurant. People were talking about it. I think he would have done -- I think he would have paid a lot of percentage rent. But when -- but when you were talking about earlier what you're going to get, you were talking about the base rent. I'm just trying to figure out what you were talking about you were going to get. Well, I get the minimum of the base rent. Right. Right. Okay. Then, in addition, I think he would have done very well. I think we would have gotten good percentage rent. Right. No. I understand that sitting here today - Right. -- you think that. But - I do think that. But when you're talking about the benefits of a lease and what, you know, you're -- no matter what you do, no matter what, you go out there and say you know you're going to get your rent, when you made that testimony, you're talking about base rent, because you don't know whether you're going to get percentage rent. Look. I'm -- I will say this: We know we're going to get the one. I think he's going to do very well. But you can certainly never tell what's going to happen. Right. Okay. I don't have any further questions. THE WITNESS: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming. You're done. Done? You're done. You're done. Okay. Thank you. Nice to meet you. If there are no further questions, this marks the end of the deposition. Going off the record at 12:03.