Past praise for Clintons arises to bite Trump
GOP candidate explains, then walks back his remarks in Trump U lawsuit.
SAN DIEGO — As Donald Trump prepares a major speech next week attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton, a videotaped deposition from a class-action lawsuit against him in San Diego could put him in an awkward spot.
The testimony shows Trump trying to explain away past statements such as “I know Hillary, and I think she would make a great president or vice president” and “Bill Clinton was a great president.”
The depositions were taken in December and January as part of the Trump University case in federal court here, in which former students allege they paid thousands of dollars for increasingly expensive seminars offering real estate investment advice that wasn’t worth it.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs dragged up statements Trump had made years earlier — such as the 2008 blog posts about the Clintons — in an attempt to undermine his credibility. Under oath,
Trump tried to explain how his views have changed.
The attorneys asked whether Trump believed what he wrote in the past, and he explained that businesspeople sometimes praise politicians because “you would rather have them on your side. When you’re in business, you would like to have the politicians on your side.”
He added, “Now that I see what she’s done and how she’s handled herself and how she’s handled her emails and all of the problems that she’s got, I would say she wouldn’t make a very good vice president or president.”
Transcripts of the depositions were released last week at the order of federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and a legal battle is brewing about whether videotapes of the sessions will be released.
The videos, likely to be more inflammatory than the transcripts, could enter the political arena even as presumptive nominees Trump and Hillary Clinton emerge from the primaries and head to a general election face-off for the presidency.
Clinton has frequently used the Trump University lawsuit to bolster her claim that Trump is a fraud, and Trump has defended the university, its curriculum and the 98% of participants who gave it good reviews.
One of the depositions took place in January in Las Vegas, on the same day Trump made a campaign appearance there in front of a raucous crowd of 3,000 people. Another took place in December.
Trump could not provide specific answers to many questions, testifying the events happened years ago and he could not remember.
He defended the seminars and said he had heard few complaints about them, while also acknowledging he couldn’t confirm if any of the instructors — who marketing materials indicated were hand-picked by him — were real estate experts.
The deposition transcripts and videotapes were filed with the court on Friday, but were not yet available from the court clerk’s office. Trump’s lawyers may fight to keep the videos — potential fodder for campaign ads showing Trump being quizzed under oath in an already-controversial lawsuit — under seal.
In his testimony, Trump was pressed on a key claim underpinning the fraud allegations in the lawsuits, that Trump University targeted people with a multimilliondollar ad campaign, playing to their hopes of making it big in real estate with his secrets.
At one point he said hyperbole and “innocent exaggeration” are elements he employs to promote real estate. “When promoting things, you think it’s important to play to people’s fantasies, correct?” plaintiffs’ lawyer Jason Forge asked.
After an objection from Trump’s lawyer Daniel Petrocelli, Trump responded.
“I— I guess it’s — but you know, I see nothing wrong,” Trump said. “Sure, you want to — life, you want to — you want to play to something that’s positive and beautiful. And you could use the word fantasy if you want, or I could use the word fantasy, but sure, you want to play to something that’s beautiful and good and successful.”
He also deflected questions about customers who attended a live Trump University seminar who later asked for refunds. Forge said the number was as high as 25%, but Trump said that was misleading.
“I heard people received refunds, but that’s instinctual,” he testified. “If people think they can get a refund, they are going to ask.”
He said that surveys completed by attendees were largely positive, a point his lawyers have made repeatedly in the lawsuits.
“So you know, when people were asking for their money back frankly — and I would have these good reports but people would ask for their money back.
“I shouldn’t have given their money back,” he continued. “I gave back millions of dollars because I’m an honest guy. I should have said I’m not giving it back, and you would have it in your litigation.”
The deposition excerpts came in advance of a hearing set for July at which Curiel will have to decide whether to dismiss the lawsuit before trial.
Trump has attacked Curiel, an Indiana native whose parents came from Mexico, as a “hater,” and biased against him because of his proposals to build a massive wall along the Southwest border with Mexico and also deport millions of immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally.
The attacks drew strong rebukes from many quarters, including party leaders who said they were racist. Trump on Tuesday said the comments had been “misconstrued” and said that while he still believed that Curiel had treated him unfairly in the case, he would no longer comment on it.
Trump had pointed to Curiel’s membership in the San Diego La Raza Lawyers’ Assn. as evidence of his bias. He apparently confused the professional association with the National Council of La Raza, an activist civil rights group.
The San Diego group issued a statement Wednesday that said it was not affiliated with the national group. It demanded Trump retract his statements about Curiel and called on other bar associations to do the same.