The Daily Fuckup

Donald Trump’s April 13, 2023 deposition in New York’s civil fraud case was part of the record in Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of misstating asset values and financial condition in ways the state says benefited the company with lenders and insurers. The session, held behind closed doors in Manhattan, was later reflected in a transcript filed in the case and in video excerpts made public afterward. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/88379aaf16849c255365ff871384ff7e?utm_source=openai))

Trump used much of the questioning to deny wrongdoing and push back on the lawsuit itself. According to the transcript, he told lawyers, “you don’t have a case and you should drop this case,” and he defended the company’s dealings as profitable and ordinary. He also repeated claims about his own business success and, at one point, said he had helped prevent nuclear war and “saved millions of lives” as president. Those remarks became part of the litigation record, not because they resolve the fraud claims, but because they show how Trump chose to answer under oath. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/88379aaf16849c255365ff871384ff7e?utm_source=openai))

The deposition did not settle the case, but it did preserve Trump’s own account for judges and lawyers to compare against financial statements, loan documents and other evidence in the file. That matters in a civil fraud case because the state’s allegations turn on whether Trump’s company gave lenders and insurers a picture that was materially different from reality. The transcript gives both sides something to argue over: Trump’s camp can point to his denials and defenses, while the attorney general can point to his words, tone and repeated assertions about value, success and reputation. ([ag.ny.gov](https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/tto_complaint.pdf?utm_source=openai))

For Trump, the session also fit a familiar pattern. He did not speak like a witness trying to minimize risk. He spoke like someone determined to contest the premise of the lawsuit, reject the premise of the questioning and turn the encounter into another argument about his own record. That may be a natural political instinct. It is a riskier one when the subject is whether his company’s numbers were truthful. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/88379aaf16849c255365ff871384ff7e?utm_source=openai))