In 2012, Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump were being investigated for a condo fraud scheme, but Manhattan’s district attorney dropped the case at the urging of the Trump family lawyer, a campaign donor.
It’s ‘amazing I got them off,’ bragged Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz, according to a new report out by the New Yorker, ProPublica, and WNYC, which looked into the circumstances surrounding the ending of a criminal probe involving the first kids lying to buyers about condo sales at the Trump SoHo in New York.
Kasowitz, who denied making the boast, had given a campaign donation to Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr., and then paid him a visit, making an argument to drop the case against the now-president’s eldest two kids.
In 2012, Ivanka Trump (left) and her brother Donald Trump Jr (right) were being investigated for a condo fraud scheme by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau
The siblings were under fire for telling buyers a bigger portion of the Trump SoHo (pictured) condos had been bought, when only a small percent were sold
Eventually President Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz (pictured) stepped in and met with Manhattan’s district attorney, who he had donated money to
After a meeting with Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr dropped the case against the Trump children, which he said was fair and had nothing to do with any campaign donations
The criminal probe started after prospective buyers sued the Trumps in civil court over misrepresenting the percentage of units sold at the Trump SoHo.
Publicly the young Trumps gushed about how well the building was selling, saying in April 2008 that 31 percent of the condos were gone. Then Donald Trump Jr told The Real Deal magazine that 55 percent of the condo units had been scooped up.
In June, the two eldest siblings and their brother Eric said at Trump Tower that 60 percent had now been sold.
‘We’re in a very fortunate position where we have enough sales, and now we are strategically targeting certain buyers,’ the first daughter boasted.
However, only 15.8 percent ever sold, meaning all of their claims were untrue.
What’s more, the entire deal hinged on sales hitting a 15 percent threshold, so no sales could close and the Trumps had to give back the buyers’ money. They then sued.
The buyers claimed the Trump kids showed ‘a consistent and concerted pattern of outright lies.’
In emails, which reporters didn’t see firsthand but were told about, the Trumps discussed how to coordinate divulging the false figures and how to hide their tracks.
One person familiar with the emails told the New Yorker’s team that there was ‘no doubt’ the Trump children ‘approved, knew of, agreed to and intentionally inflated the numbers to make more sales.’
‘They knew it was wrong,’ the source added.
Prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau opened their probe, with Trump lawyers – but not yet Kasowitz – arguing that Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr were merely using ‘puffery’ to aid their sales, ‘harmless exaggeration,’ as the New Yorker put it.
Those overstatements, the Trump lawyers argued, didn’t equal criminality.
In January 2012, Kasowitz contributed $25,000 to Vance re-election bid – money that was soon given back – and in May of that year, the Trump family lawyer went to visit the district attorney, repeating the legal arguments that were previously made by Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump’s legal team.
Three months after the meeting, Vance told his prosecutors to let the case go.
‘I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed,’ Vance told the New Yorker. ‘I had to make a call and I made the call, and I think I made the right call.’
Kasowitz’s donation, which was given back to the lawyer before the May meeting, ‘had no influence, and his contributions had no influence whatsoever on my decision-making in the case,’ Vance told the publication.
According to two sources, Kasowitz called the case ‘really dangerous,’ and bragged about getting the Trump kids off.
The Trump attorney, who has been representing the president on Russia-related issues, later gave money to Vance again, hosting a January 2013 fundraiser for the DA and personally giving him $32,000. Kasowitz also hosted a breakfast for Vance in October 2013, weeks before election day, dubbed ‘Republicans for Cy Vance.’
It raised another $9,000.
‘We did the right thing,’ Vance argued again of the decision to drop the case. ‘Another five and a half months go by. Marc Kasowitz has no matter pending before the office for the Trumps or anybody else. It’s 2013 and it’s an election – and I welcome his support.’
Additionally, Kasowitz’s campaign donations were legal.
The New Yorker’s sources, even one who represented the Trumps, suggested several things remain curious about the case.
Lawyer Paul Grand, part of the Trump SoHo legal team, said that ‘dropping the case was reasonable.’
‘The manner in which it was accomplished is curious,’ he admitted, adding that the meeting between Vance and Kasowitz, ‘didn’t have an air you’d like.’
‘If you and I were District Attorney and you knew that a subject of an investigation was represented by two or three well-thought-of lawyers in town, and all of a sudden someone who was a contributor to your campaign showed up on your doorstep, and the regular lawyers are nowhere to be seen, you’d think about how you’d want to proceed,’ Grand advised.
The Trumps’ civil suit with the buyers was also curious.
The plaintiffs were to receive 90 percent of their deposit, plus their attorneys’ fees, but for the price of silence.
They were not allowed to cooperate in the criminal case unless subpoenaed, the New Yorker found.
Vance, again defending his decision to let the probe go, pointed to a letter from one of the attorneys for the buyers that said, ‘We acknowledge that the Defendants have not violated the criminal laws of the State of New York or the United States.’
For Vance, that type of letter was a first, where plaintiffs in a civil case would suggest there’s no criminal element, and he deemed it ‘significant and important.’
‘I don’t think I’d ever received a letter like it,’ the district attorney said.