Donald and Ivana Trump fight unsealing of divorce records

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Donald Trump and his ex-wife Ivana are fighting an effort to unseal records of their 1990 divorce, arguing that the real estate mogul's presidential bid is no basis for prying into court filings related to the couple's split.

The Trumps filed separate legal briefs Tuesday in state court in Manhattan, urging a judge to reject the unsealing motion brought last month by The New York Times and newspaper chain Gannett.

"In seeking to invade the Trumps' 26-year-old confidential matrimonial files, the Times and Gannett, as shown in Mr. Trump's filing in opposition to their motion, rely on entirely unprecedented and erroneous arguments that are contrary to the protections afforded by the Legislature over 150 years ago," attorney Marc Kasowitz wrote in Donald Trump's response to the media motion.

In addition to her legal arguments against the unsealing, Ivana Trump submitted a personal affidavit with the court, pleading to keep the records private.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ivana-divorce-records-228119

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Must be hidding something.

Wow,wonder how the shoe fits?

[niyad]

2. we know about the rape charges, ivana. wonder what other dirty little tidbits are in there.

[Warpy]

22. Probably how much hush money was paid to Ivana

to get the records sealed, hush money that would stop if the whole ugly thing became public. That's about the only interesting thing in there, otherwise it's just a bunch of insults flung back and forth between two people who know each other far too well.

[jaysunb]

3. No tax returns. No health records. No business deals.

No divorce records. No very credible child rape allegations No clamor by the media.

A court unsealed confidential settlements by Bill Cosby and he isn't running for ANYTHING !

[PatSeg]

12. And almost anyone who

has ever had any dealings with Trump had to sign a confidentiality agreement. Even his unpaid campaign staffers. This man has so much to hide, that he can't afford to let anyone speak openly about him or his business.

[2naSalit]

16. All the more reason

that inquiring minds want to know.

[PatSeg]

38. Can you imagine a Trump administration?

Transparency? We don't need no stinkin' transparency.

[2naSalit]

39. All the

worst that could be imagined is possible with that clown. He needs to be shut down such that he slithers away in disgrace and is rarely, if ever, heard from again. I cannot imagine him in office of any kind. I would be looking for a way off the planet if he did win this election. It would be all the badness of W times a kazillion.

[PatSeg]

41. Yeah, who would have thought

we'd ever see anything worse than GWB and a "kazillion" times worse?

I think we could let Russia have him, but I don't imagine they'd be too happy with that idea.

[2naSalit]

65. Ha!

Russia already has Putin... who out-trumps the trumpster! And has actual power in office. They have no use for a wannabe mini-me of Putin.

[PatSeg]

66. Maybe North Korea then?

[2naSalit]

67. Heyy...

It's last, worst place on earth for all we know!

[PatSeg]

69. Well

There is Antarctica, but I like penguins.

[NanceGreggs]

4. As unpopular as this opinion will be ...

... I have to say I agree with the Trumps on this one.

Whatever happened during their marriage is between them. Given all of the hundreds of reasons why Donald would be a disaster as POTUS, any charge of "and he was a lousy husband, too" is unnecessary and irrelevant.

This disclosure would trigger a tabloid "he said/she said" frenzy, which would only serve to distract from the real issues that deserve scrutiny, e.g. Trump's shady business dealings, possible tax fraud, pending lawsuits, etc.

Digging for dirt in a candidate's marriage - especially one that ended decades ago - is what you do when you literally have nothing else. When it comes to Donald, there are plenty of real issues to be scrutinized and exposed.

[moonscape]

6. I agree with you. We have substantial substantive things to be dealing

with, without getting derailed by decades old tabloid stuff.

The only quibble I have with what you said is 'Given all the hundreds of reasons while Donald would be a disaster as POTUS, ...'

Untrue. There are thousands. Make that infinite.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Yes. 2 points: 26 years is very long time, and the other person has rights too. . . . nt

[jaysunb]

11. I would agree with you in most instances, but, a couple things give

me pause.
Trump represents one of the greatest threats this country has ever faced. The furies that would be unleased in the event of a Trump Presidency would destroy this nation, so I feel there can be no holds barred to warn and advise our fellow Americans of this grave danger.
Forsaking this wealthy woman's privacy to save the Republic is a small price to pay.

Just my .02 worth.

[NanceGreggs]

17. And exactly what ...

... do you think would be contained in 26-year-old divorce records that would "save the republic" if exposed?

And why the "wealthy" qualifier? Is a "wealthy woman's privacy" any different than anyone else's privacy?

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. There's the rape allegation (trigger warning: description of sexual violence)

Ivana Trump’s assertion of “rape” came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.

The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.
...
What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-feel-violated-during-sex.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

Trump's camp has disputed this; if it's confirmed if really is in the divorce records, it will hurt him.

[NanceGreggs]

52. You realize ...

... that this is he said/she said. In granting the divorce, the state did not "confirm" any allegations either party made against the other - nor is there any way to "confirm" it now, 26 years after the fact.

Trump supporters would believe Ivana was lying; Trump detractors would believe it happened.

In other words, it doesn't change anything one way or the other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. That assumes the whole electorate is already divided into Trump supporters and detractors

with no one left to be persuaded to join the former group - and that no one in the latter could be persuaded to leave it. Yes, it's he said/she said, but the airing of the allegations will still influence people's opinion of Trump. That he was so bad to her that she'd accuse him of rape shows something about his character (not to mention the Trump team trying to defend it with "a husband cant' rape his wife&quot .

If you really thought everyone had their opinion decided, then you'd stop bothering with talking about the presidential election, surely? Other elections would be more productive to discuss.

[NanceGreggs]

56. What I'm saying is ...

... that anyone who is not persuaded by all that we know about Trump already is not going to be persuaded by what he allegedly said or did over 26 years ago - things that can't be proven or disproven in any event.

The "airing of allegations" is pointless - because that's what they are, "allegations". Why pursue this decades-old issue, when there are live allegations - ranging from tax fraud to bribery - that CAN be proven?

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. How often is the allegation of rape against Trump talked about on main TV news?

People hate rapists in a way they don't hate tax fraudsters or bribe givers. It's not pointless to give the allegations more publicity.

[NanceGreggs]

60. ...

They are allegations, not facts. They were never proven nor disproven - and they certainly can't be now, 26 years later.

Why "give allegations more publicity", when there is a shitload of wrong-doing by Trump out there right now that CAN be proven, and actually HAVE political impact?

Why distract from what is going on right now by digging for dirt in a divorce that occurred 26 years ago?

Everyone knows that people make all kinds of allegations in a messy divorce, and they may or may not be true.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. The more things wrong about Trump that are publicised, the better

Rape being the worst, individually, because I don't think anyone's accused him of murder. That's why. It doesn't 'distract'. It paints him in an even worse light. They were never proven; but we're not looking for what to put him on trial for that we can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, we're looking for ways to get fewer people to vote for him, or more to vote for Hillary to make sure he doesn't win.

It's a strange concept of a political campaign you have. Especially after all that's happened in this one. Trump doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt about keeping quiet such serious allegations.

[NanceGreggs]

62. No one is keeping anything quiet.

And no one is giving him "the benefit of the doubt".

It's been known for many, many years that Ivana accused Trump of raping her. She also back-peddled on that accusation after the fact. The tabloids had a field day with the issue at the time - this is not news.

Right now, Trump is operating under a huge pile of shit - throwing a tiny turd on that pile is not going to accomplish a thing.

In addition, those records are sealed. They contain information about Ivana and their children. They have a right to privacy, whether we like them as people or not.

How desperate would the Dems look if they tried to make an issue of what two people said or did in the context of a divorce that occurred 26 years ago, especially in light of the FACTS of what Trump has said and done publicly - no digging up dirt from a private matter two decades ago necessary?

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. The records are sealed; arguing they should be kept sealed is keeping them quiet

And your talk of 'proof' v. 'allegations' is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Right now, Trump is drawing dangerously close in the polls, and the full monstrosity of his personality should be exposed. Do you think everyone knows about the rape allegations? I don't. Do you really think trump has no chance of winning the presidency, one way or another? Is the race really that easy, in your eyes?

How 'desperate'? Not the slightest bit desperate. I don't regard rape as a 'private matter', now, or 26 years ago.

[NanceGreggs]

64. Whether I think ...

... the records should remain sealed is moot. It is NY State's own laws that will keep them sealed.

If you don't believe that the details of a person's divorce are a "private matter", I have nothing further to say on the topic. Not everything is your business, nor should it be.

[ColemanMaskell]

46. Um, Nance --

If a "wealthy woman's privacy" should NOT be any different than anyone else's privacy -- that's what you meant, right? -- then surely the records should be unsealed, as they are for ordinary people. Or are you saying the records being sealed has nothing to do with the wealth of the parties to the proceedings? Because I'm thinking it cost them money to get those records sealed -- call it legal fees if you like. Or am I missing something here?

[NanceGreggs]

47. Yes, you are.

Under New York State's Domestic Relations Law, pleadings to a matrimonial action are sealed for 100 years - in other words, for the lifetime of the parties.

[jberryhill]

54. Umm... they are not "unsealed for ordinary people" either

[ColemanMaskell]

68. Sorry, I see it's a state by state thing. Thanks for the correction.

Someone else had posted a reply saying that her divorce records were not sealed, and I didn't stop to think about the fact that divorce law varies by state. Sorry. Thanks for pointing that out.

[romana]

14. Me, too

The details of the end of their marriage is their business.

[dhill926]

18. Agree…

[gopiscrap]

19. Bullshit, every thing is open when you run for office

I ran for office (US Congress) and I sent in my lifetime tax returns, medical records everything. I even sent in my school transcripts. So fuck that. Tough shit, if you don't want prying eyes, stay out of the race for public office.

[NanceGreggs]

23. No, not everything is open to public scrutiny.

Nor should it be.

Just what do you think anyone will learn about Trump via his divorce records?

He's despicable? We already know that.

He's a misogynist? We already know that.

He's a dick? We already know that.

He's a conniving bully? We already know that.

In addition, his wife is a party to those records - and she's not a candidate.

[gopiscrap]

25. like I said, she married the guy when he was already a well known public figure

loss of privacy goes with the stardom. Even more so when you are the candidate. She's just collateral damage in the interest of transperncy! You never know what might be in those records that the Democrats can use. I say be as dirty as the repukes are. We got fucked in 88 and 00 and 04 by Atwater and Rove...let's not let that happen again. I say win any way we can.

[NanceGreggs]

27. No, "loss of privacy" ...

... is something that happens to celebrities. It is not something they've agreed to, nor have they waived their legal rights to privacy in any way simply by virtue of being famous, or being married to someone famous.

Characterizing anyone whose right to privacy might be ignored as "collateral damage" is truly abhorrent.

"I say win any way we can."

This wouldn't be a "win" for anyone. It's an obvious fishing expedition that would yield nothing more than he said/sje said gossip that the MSM would cover 24/7, while ignoring what Trump is actually doing right now - not 26 years ago in divorce court.

[brett_jv]

29. While I'm sympathetic to the points you make, I propose that one could look thru another lens ...

To whit: let's say that Hillary and Bill had gotten divorced, circa 1999 ... do any of us believe that the GOP wouldn't RELENTLESSLY roll in proverbial mud i.e. publicize the most intimate of details, in a quest for ostensible 'transparency' ... in the present election?

Because all the apocalyptic nonsense aside ... I absolutely KNOW ...that they would, utterly shamelessly ... do so.

Furthermore, in terms of what it might 'yield' ... you actually have no idea whether it would only be 'he said/she said gossip' ...

In reality, it might provide seriously pertinent information in terms of guiding the voters to an informed decision ... NOW.

While I don't like the idea of 'stooping to their level' ... at the same time I realize ... the fact that we won't ... is 95% of the reason why we lose so friggin' often, when we really should NOT ...

Maybe the ends justify the means sometimes ... after all, these aren't medical records we're talking about here ... and since we all know how f***ing SACROSANCT the GOP considers THOSE ... we wouldn't want to violate someones PRIVACY.

You see how I keep TRYING to agree with you ... but I really can't ... because ... GOP?

I hope you do

[NanceGreggs]

49. ...

"it might provide seriously pertinent information in terms of guiding the voters to an informed decision ... NOW."

With everything already known about Trump - his alleged "foundation", claiming tax deductions for charities he never donated to, thew Trump university scam, a pending trial for rape, probable bribery of the FL AG, etc. - what "pertinent" information from a 26-year-old divorce do you think would be worse than what is already out there?

Anyone who still supports this idiot, after all of that shit and more, is not going to suddenly change their mind over anything that happened between he and his wife two and a half decades ago.

[maddiemom]

51. Yep. They've even gone after Hillary for NOT divorcing Bill.

[DesertFlower]

28. i agree. nt

[Scarsdale]

32. I disagree

If the Clintons had divorced, tRump would have had their records unsealed long ago.

[PersonNumber503602]

43. And Trump would be an asshole for it.

[NanceGreggs]

50. Trump has no authority ...

... to have anyone's divorce records unsealed.

[mopinko]

40. i mostly agree w you. there is so much more treasure in the

bazillion other court cases against the donald. i doubt anything in there will stick.

on the other hand, us peons dont get to do this. my divorce is public record.

[NanceGreggs]

48. The Trumps' divorce records are sealed ...

... just like ALL divorce records are sealed in NY State. It's the law in NY, and applies to all - Trumps and peons alike.

[PersonNumber503602]

42. I agree. His business dealings and tax records are fair game, but I don't see how this is.

[The Stranger]

44. I predict that this attitude is why we're going to lose.

We are in a fight with a 21st century Mussolini, who has debased national politics into paparazzi, and who has mastered the politics of personal destruction.

Our candidate has been the biggest, longest running target of the politics of personal destruction.

Yet when we have a chance, we don't want to take it because we're in denial of where we are now.

[NanceGreggs]

53. Yes, of course.

We are"going to lose" this election because we're too stupid to realize that what happened between Trump and Ivana 26 years ago, if exposed, would turn the tide against him.

IOW, all the people who support Trump, and haven't batted an eye at all of the current allegations against him, would be completely turned around by knowing how messy his divorce was.

Right.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. High opinions of themselves, low opinions of others

THAT is beneath us! Our public records are PRIVATE.

Shall we let them eat cake, darling?

[keithbvadu2]

7. Trump has no qualms about delving into the Clintons' past marriage history.

His own should not be sacred.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Doing a wrong against Ivana would not make the wrongs against Clinton right or undo them. . . . nt

[gopiscrap]

20. who gives a shit about Ivana

in politics she's just collateral damage. Like I said, what ever it takes to win. The stakes are too high not go for the throat. There just might be something in those records that could help the Democrats. If some one has to suffer so be it..she chose to get married to asshat clown...it wasn't like a gun was held to head.

[MFM008]

26. Exactly

If this were the Clinton's everyone would be after it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Ivana is NOT married to Trump. She has no part in his Presidential politics. Divorced him decades

[Scarsdale]

33. True

Ivana knows what an SOB he is, why should voters be kept in the dark?

[melman]

57. 'If someone has to suffer so be it'

What a lovely sentiment.

[phleshdef]

10. Being objective and leaning toward privacy rights, if both don't want it to happen, it shouldn't.

Being subjective and leaning toward wanting to see Trump further exposed for the monster he is, I wouldn't shed a tear for him if those records got out.

I'm still leaning toward "objective" me on this one. Its hard to do, but principles aren't easy things.

[truthisfreedom]

13. I think I know why she's fighting to keep them private. I think she agreed that if they ever get

unsealed for any reason, she has to give up her settlement and return it to the dumpster. I think Trump's lawyer concocted that to make her fight just as hard as him for privacy in the future, so she'd never stop protecting him, no matter how much she hated him.

[phleshdef]

15. I suspect there was money involved to get them sealed initially...

...but there is no way she could be legally obligated to fight against getting them unsealed and have to relinquish any money. You can't extend a gag order to people she doesn't even know. If someone else is able to reveal things about their divorce, its not on her. She didn't violate any agreements on her part. I kinda think they might have just had an ugly relationship in general toward the end and she doesn't want that coming out. And yea, its a shame because I suspect Donald was the one that made it ugly and the American people should know how ugly he is, considering his current position as GOP nominee. But I feel like those divorce records should stay private if both people in the divorce want them to.

[gopiscrap]

21. Nope once you run for president

tough shit...I would say the same about a Democratic candidate. You voluntarily place yourself in the public arena fully well knowing what's in your closet.

[Scarsdale]

34. Ugly

We all know what a buffoon he is, we want proof positive from legal documents. Ivana got her fifty pieces of gold, now it is time for her to save the country from a despicable orange yam.

[Wibly]

24. If Bill and Hillary had Divorced you can bet Trump would be opening that file

If Trump was messing around on, or hurting his wife, the public has every right to know.
The people should already know they are thinking about putting a serial abuser, philanderer and bully in the White House, but in case they don't know, these files should be opened.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Clintons both political. Ivana had & has nothing to do with Trump's politics or campaign.

Leave the woman alone.

[titaniumsalute]

35. He's the one who brought up Bill's infidelity wasn't he??

[bucolic_frolic]

36. It's just one more aspect of the character issue

and an old one at that

Not a lot to be gained from churning the kettle

We need to focus on current issues, and less on tabloid-style gossip

[Kathy M]

58. Long article .... interesting one will go back and read later , found this part interesting to post

"Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist. "

"Is Ivana trying to convince her friends and lawyer that Trump is a crypto-Nazi? Trump is no reader or history buff. Perhaps his possession of Hitler’s speeches merely indicates an interest in Hitler’s genius at propaganda. The Führer often described his defeats at Stalingrad and in North Africa as great victories. Trump continues to endow his diminishing world with significance as well. “There’s nobody that has the cash flow that I have,” he told The Wall Street Journal long after he knew better. “I want to be king of cash.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner

Down a little in the article about the casino end times

"Within days, the bankers agreed to give Trump $65 million to pay his bills. Much of his empire would probably have to be dismantled, but he would retain control. His personal allowance would now be $450,000 a month. “I can live with that,” Trump said. “However absurd this sounds, it was smarter to do it this way than to let a judge preside over a fire sale in a bankruptcy court,” one banker told me. Trump crowed about the bailout. “This is a great victory. It’s a great agreement for everybody,” he said.

Not exactly. Trump’s bankers were said to be so upset at Trump’s balance sheet— he was reportedly over half a billion dollars in the hole—that they demanded he sign over his future trust inheritance to secure the new loans. Trump’s father, who had created him by helping him achieve his first deals, now seemed to be rescuing him again. “Total bullshit,” Trump told me. “I have been given five years by the banks. The banks would never have asked me for my future inheritance, and I would never have given it.”

Hope they are able to unseal , there may be some info that would be good to know since he is running for President

[ColemanMaskell]

70. Thanks for sharing that article

Thanks for the heads up on the Vanity Fair article. It was only recently that I realized Vanity Fair is a serious magazine, with some amazing articles. The issue you point to is from 2015, and I have seen someplace since then that Trump denied possessing that book. Realistically it seems unlikely to me that Trump reads books very much. It might be that he kept the book around as an object, like a toned down version of having a swastika flag. If he did have a fascination with Hitler, and it was a topic in the divorce proceedings, that might be a reason for people to try to get the records unsealed. Add the description of the rape and you've got the equivalent of a WikiLeaks event if that becomes unsealed.