Ivanka Trump Has Fifth Amendment Problem

What Ivanka Trump could say or not say if called as a witness against her father and brothers may add some weight to the state's civil fraud case while potentially implicating herself.

Last week, her lawyers filed a motion requesting the New York Attorney General's office to quash a subpoena that forces her to testify, arguing that she was dismissed from the lawsuit initially filed by Attorney General Letitia James. The suit accuses Donald Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization, of inflating assets by up to $2.2 billion to boost net worth and get favorable bank and business deals in return.

The claims of the suit, of which Ivanka was dismissed in June due to a statute of limitations, have been refuted and denied by the former president and others. Trump, the current 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner who has routinely been present in the courtroom, has claimed the case is politically motivated and intended to damage his reputation.

Ivanka Trump's lawyer, Bennet Moskowitz, wrote in a motion filed October 19 that she should not have to take the stand for multiple reasons. One is that she was never deposed, and another is that she has not been part of the Trump Organization since 2016 and has not legally been a New York resident for nearly seven years.

Moskowitz, who was contacted by Newsweek via email, also argued that the summary judgment in the case "limited the trial to damages and causes of action for which Ms. Trump's testimony is unnecessary due to being redundant of matters already in the record or immaterial to the issues still in the case."

New York-based attorney Andrew Lieb told Newsweek via email that should she be forced to testify, Ivanka can plead the Fifth Amendment if the answer to a question could incriminate her regardless of whether she's a current defendant in the case and regardless of if criminal charges currently exist against her.

"However, given that she is being called as a witness in a civil trial, taking the Fifth will result in a negative inference where her testimony will be presumed to be averse to [Donald] Trump," Lieb said. "Therefore, she has minimal options if she is forced to testify and does not want to hurt her father and brothers.

"Plus, it's unlikely that she can avoid testifying as she knows where the bodies are buried at the Trump Organization."

One point of emphasis surrounding Ivanka is related to a penthouse on Trump Park Avenue that she and her husband, Jared Kushner, rented in 2011.

Trump company accountant Donna Kidder testified last week that she was told to make some favorable assumptions about the company on internal financial spreadsheets.

She said Ivanka Trump had been given an option to buy the unit for $8.5 million. When Ivanka surrendered an option to buy one of the penthouses, she was given an option to buy another for $14,264,000.

James' lawsuit alleges that the Trump Organization valued both penthouses much higher than the price offered to the former president's daughter on statements of financial condition.

The unit she rented was valued at $20.8 million in 2011 and 2012 statements of financial condition, and $25 million in 2013. And, the $14.26 million unit in question was valued at $45 million in a 2014 statement of financial condition.

Kidder's testimony was corroborated by Donald Bender, a partner at Mazars USA and longtime accountant for Donald Trump's businesses, who said on the stand that the valuation of the Manhattan penthouse was different than the price offered for the former president's daughter to purchase the unit outright.

Craig Trocino, a law professor at the University of Miami, told Newsweek via phone that the prosecution can subpoena any witness to testify as long as that individual has relevant information to offer—and the threshold for what is relevant is fairly low. It's intended to prove or disprove a material fact.

While Ivanka's lawyers are arguing that she's no longer a party to the suit due to the statute of limitations, Trocino said it doesn't mean that she may not have information that tends to prove or disprove a material fact or issue within the state's case.

"I suppose she could [plead the Fifth] if the information she's being asked would expose her to criminal liability that's not exhausted by the statute of limitations," he said. "In other words, she's not [a party] in this particular case because the time periods of which she was apparently working for the organization, and that time ended at a date that made the statute of limitations run for her.

"But if the questions are about things that happened or she may have done that fit within a statute of limitations, then she would be justified in potentially raising a Fifth Amendment challenge."