Donald Trump's reflections on his anti-immigrant rant came as he was pulled off the campaign trail in June to testify. | Getty Trump under oath: New testimony says he planned early anti-immigrant rant Testimony from his ongoing battle with two celebrity chefs offers some insight into his political moves.

When Donald Trump used his presidential campaign announcement speech to rail against Mexican immigrants as rapists and sources of other crimes, he’d planned the verbal fusillade in advance but hadn’t discussed it with anyone, the GOP nominee testified in a closed-door deposition last month.

Trump’s reflections on his anti-immigrant rant came as he was pulled off the campaign trail on June 16 to testify in one of a pair of lawsuits he filed against celebrity chefs who backed out of deals to establish restaurants at the hotel he plans to open later this year in Washington’s historic Old Post Office building.


Under questioning by an attorney for chef Geoffrey Zakarian, Trump said he’d thought out his polarizing comments on Mexicans and other immigrants in advance, but hadn’t scripted those remarks.

“Did you give any thoughts to the effect that your statement relative to Mexicans and immigrants would have on tenants in your current or future projects?” Zakarian lawyer Deborah Baum asked.

“No. No, I didn’t. I didn’t at all,” Trump said.

Asked whether his comments had been misinterpreted by the media, Trump again displayed his disapproval of the Fourth Estate.

“I think the media is very dishonest. But all I’m doing is bringing up a situation which is very real, about illegal immigration. And I think, you know, most people think I’m right,” the real estate mogul said as dozens of protesters chanted and marched outside the D.C. law firm where the deposition was held.

Trump’s answers were revealed in court filings submitted on the same day he was formally nominated at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last week. The excerpts of Trump’s testimony showed him to be unaware of many of the details of the Zakarian deal, though the real estate mogul did appear to speak candidly about his political calculations.

The submissions from both sides in the suit show Trump is demanding a hefty sum from Zakarian for his decision to bail on setting up the D.C. eatery: about $14 million. Zakarian’s move came about a day after popular Washington chef and restaurateur José Andres announced he was abandoning plans for another major dining establishment at the Pennsylvania Avenue complex that is still being transformed into a luxury hotel.

The depositions also offered some insight into the wider Trump family dynamic and suggested his daughter Ivanka shares some of his sharp-elbowed business instincts.

And they stood in contrast to her speech at the GOP convention, where Ivanka deftly showed off her father’s softer side, describing how she used to play with toys on the floor of his New York City office.

But at her own deposition on June 9, Ivanka Trump showed a very different side of her personality: a no-nonsense businesswoman for the Trump Organization.

Asked about the decision to sue Zakarian, she portrayed such a move as inevitable.

“I think it was just the natural — a natural conclusion when he failed to honor his contract. We had to enforce our rights,” Ivanka Trump said.

Ivanka Trump didn’t elaborate on why such a suit was necessary, but the harsh language in her father’s announcement speech immediately set off alarm bells with a variety of businesses — such as Macy’s and Univision — which cut their ties with him.

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," Trump said in his kickoff address

During the initial outcry, an aide to Andres reached out to Ivanka Trump and Zakarian contacted Donald Trump Jr., trying to get the elder Trump to retract his attack on immigrants.

“I was hoping and praying that someone, somehow would get to him and shake him up,” Zakarian said in his deposition.

Despite the pleas to change his tune, candidate Trump more or less repeated his remarks in a written statement three weeks later.

“The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.,” Trump said in the statement. “Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world.”

Zakarian said Trump’s comments were problematic on a variety of levels.

“There’s reputation. There’s financial,” he said. “There’s ... familial reasons, because moralistically speaking, all my employees are Mexicans or Hispanics, almost all of them. It’s disgraceful.”

Zakarian contends that Trump’s widely publicized comments last year about immigrants, especially those from Mexico, made the restaurant a certain failure — because it would struggle to attract both employees and customers.

Questioned by Trump’s lawyer about the basis for assuming the restaurant was doomed, the regular on such Food Network shows as “Chopped” and “The Kitchen” admitted he couldn't estimate how much his business would be affected by Trump’s comments. But the restaurateur said the effect was obvious.

“The fact of the matter is he poisoned the space,” Zakarian said. “You don’t have to do much analysis. It’s just like you’re out of business. ... This was just no longer viable anymore.”

Donald Trump Jr. painted Andres as the key actor in scuttling the leases, with Zakarian following along.

“I guess [Zakarian] was concerned because he’s on TV, as well,” Trump Jr. said at his deposition last month. “He never voiced anything to me before, you know, José dropped out. But I think once José dropped out there must have been some additional pressure on him to try to act.”

Trump Jr. said he and Zakarian spoke about the issue by phone, but that was essentially the end of the discussion.

“I had offered to sit down. And we had had prior — prior to that, you know, a pretty good personal relationship. Had dinner a bunch of times and became quite friendly,” Trump Jr. said. “So I was a little surprised that, you know, I got to read about him walking away in The New York Times rather than, you know, taking me up on my offer to sit down and see what, if anything, we could do.”

Ivanka Trump conceded that once the controversy flared over the issue, the Trump Organization struggled to find restaurant operators willing to step in on terms at all similar to those to which Zakarian and Andres had agreed.

“I think it was becoming increasingly clear we could not replace those deals,” she said.

One New York-based upscale Italian chain, Il Mulino, came close to signing up for space at the Washington hotel, but ultimately backed away, Trump Jr. said.

In September, Trump Jr. announced that a branch of the BLT steakhouse chain would be the signature restaurant for the new Washington hotel. However, the court papers make clear that the deal the Trumps cut to bring BLT Prime to the hotel was far different from the ones with Andres and Zakarian.

Instead of leasing the restaurant to BLT, the Trump Organization essentially hired BLT’s parent company to run the restaurant. The arrangement means the Trumps will bear the cost of building the interior of the eatery and will bear most of the risk if it isn’t a success.

No provision in the highly detailed, 101-page lease for what was to be Zakarian’s D.C. branch of The National addresses the possibility that either side would do something outrageous that would disrupt the project, but lawyers for both chefs have invoked longstanding legal principles requiring all parties to a contract to act with good faith and fair dealing and not interfere with the other side’s ability to fulfill its end of the deal.

However, judges are understandably reluctant to tear up contracts based on a vague notion of good faith. That presumption seems to give Trump the upper hand in the suits, while the chefs' best chances likely lie with getting the case before a D.C. jury that may have little sympathy for the real estate developer.

“What Tenant really seeks is to have this Court rewrite the Sublease to include a specific morality clause or gag order that the parties never negotiated but that somehow specifically prohibited Mr. Trump from making the Political Statements,” Trump lawyer Rebecca Woods wrote, using the Trump camp’s preferred phrase for the GOP nominee’s utterances on immigrants.

The new court filings make clear that another key part of the dispute is how much Trump is entitled to in damages if Zakarian’s breach of the contract was not legally justified. Trump’s side presents a whopping $14 million bill: $8 million in lost rent, $5 million in lost hotel revenue and $1 million to convert the restaurant space Zakarian was to have used into a banquet and conference space.

Zakarian’s lawyers say Trump’s side is entitled to nothing because it has failed to prove its damages beyond mere speculation. Zakarian attorney Baum argued that Trump raced to court within days of the dispute, limiting his rights to rent under the contract. The chef’s side also raised numerous questions about whether Trump’s team fulfilled its legal duty to mitigate any damages by making a good faith effort to replace Zakarian.

“Even if Trump [Old Post Office] proves that its cancellation of the sublease was proper, Trump OPO cannot prove that it has suffered legally recoverable damages,” Baum wrote.

A hotel industry expert retained by Zakarian, David Berins, argued that any damages Trump may incur in re-leasing the restaurant space are attributable to Trump’s presidential campaign and his rhetoric, not to Zakarian’s decision to back out of the deal.

Berins said Trump’s campaign was certain to hurt the hotel’s business, with one exception.

“Based on the facts I’ve reviewed and relied upon, I can’t imagine it will be positive, except possibly during the inauguration next January,” he said.

At a court hearing last month in the Andres case, Woods warned that allowing the chef to break his lease would jeopardize all kinds of business deals done by businessmen who make statements on political issues, including investor Warren Buffett, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and the Koch brothers, owners of Koch Industries.

The real estate mogul appeared to acknowledge at his deposition that trying to figure out how well the restaurant would have done or any other restaurant would do, is largely guesswork.

“Honestly, you never know,” Trump said.

While Trump’s family members handled many of the details related to the project, Trump himself was personally involved in seizing a $461,000 letter of credit a Zakarian-linked company posted in connection with the lease. Trump personally signed a directive to M&T Bank to hand over the money after Zakarian backed out, court records show.

During his deposition, Trump also displayed some tactics that could frustrate lawyers involved in the case. During the deposition last month, the real estate mogul balked — at least initially — at reading a long passage in a contract.

“I don't have my glasses on me. I am at a disadvantage because I didn’t bring my glasses,” Trump said.

Commercial leases are rarely sources of amusement, but the exclusivity or "non-compete" clause in the lease for The National might be an exception in the way it adopts language about pretentiousness and ambiance that often seem more suited to a restaurant review. The agreement also seems to reflect how detail-oriented Trump, his family members and lawyers are when hammering out the details of a deal.

The contract with Zakarian prohibited Trump from allowing the hotel to host any other restaurant “that (1) is semi-casual (but excluding fast casual or any ready-to-eat menu), with an intimate ambiance, and offering an accessible, unpretentious menu, if same includes any apparent French aspect, such as a French word in the name or French-named dishes, in its marketing, or (2) includes ‘bistro’ (or some variation of ‘bistro’) in its name or marketing descriptions.”

The lease qualifies those restrictions, though, giving Trump many options for other eateries at the hotel.

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the foregoing restrictive covenant shall not be applicable to (t) any ‘gastro pub’; (u) any restaurant that is a steakhouse; (v) any restaurant that is principally a coffee or bakery house; (w) any restaurant whose menu features or specializes in a single type of ethnic or regional food (for example purposes only, and not limitation, Japanese, Mexican, Italian, Spanish, Cajun, French (provided it is fine dining, wherever located, or a cafe, bakery or quick service restaurant, if not located on the Lobby Level with access to the Building's main public lobby), or Southern Food.): (x) any restaurant that emphasizes self-service, or (y) the sale of foods intended for off-premises consumption," the lease reads.

And, lest there be any confusion, the lease adds that eateries that just serve, say, a French onion soup would not be deemed unacceptable competition.

“Any restaurant may serve ‘French’ style items that are a small part of its menu,” the contract reads.

The filings may reveal more about the Trump Organization’s business practices than Trump’s team wanted. Both sides in the case asked for permission to file portions of their briefs under seal, but Judge Brian Holeman denied that request. He's expected to rule on the pending motions by around the end of August.