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.
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
Like her Jan. 6 Committee testimony, Ivanka sought to portray herself as a more reasonable actor in her father’s activities.
In her testimony about the election, she was quick to side with former Attorney General Bill Barr’s opinion that her father had lost the election, testifying that “I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying.” By relying on her respect for Barr, she was able to side-step having to directly contradict her father’s false statements and insistence on lies about the election.
Similarly, her testimony in the New York case sought to carefully avoid contradicting her previous deposition testimony, while distancing herself from any knowledge of potential falsification of financial facts that would help the prosecution.
She was careful to also remind the public of her status as a mother as well, appearing to have some nostalgia about business negotiations that occurred when she was pregnant.
As New York Attorney General James put it, Ivanka was “cordial,” “disciplined” and “controlled”—but added that “her testimony raises some questions with regards to its credibility.”
But raising just “some questions” equals a victory for Ms. Trump, as it will allow her to escape allegations of perjury while still frustrating the prosecution.
It is estimated that Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, earned some $36.2 million dollars, even as they served in the White House, from companies and properties that they owned.
That kind of remarkable profiting while engaged in public service may ultimately be the way she and Kushner are remembered, but their time in the White House served them handsomely and continue to do so. And the profit off of that brand (being the First Daughter, businesswoman, and mother) is the real brand Ivanka Trump sought to protect today and everyday.
