Tag: litigation

Melania Trump Sues Daily Mail and US Blogger for $150m Over Sex Worker Claims

Melania Trump filed a lawsuit against the Daily Mail and a Maryland political blogger on Thursday for publishing “false and tremendously damaging” statements claiming the would-be first lady previously worked as an “escort,” according to court documents and her lawyer.

Trump sued Mail Media, Inc. which publishes the Daily Mail, as well as Webster Griffin Tarpley, who runs the blog Tarpley.net, in a lawsuit filed in the state circuit court of Montgomery County, Maryland.

“These defendants made several statements about Mrs. Trump that are 100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation,” lawyer Charles Harder said in a statement. “Their many lies include, among others, that Mrs. Trump supposedly was an ‘escort’ in the 1990s before she met her husband.”

Harder famously represented Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media, which eventually led to the site shutting down.

The lawsuit cites an article on Tarpley.net that alleged that Melania Trump worked as a “high-end escort” and suffered from a “full-blown nervous breakdown” after the Republican convention, as well as an article published on the Daily Mail website referencing similar claims.

The suit says Trump is going after both publications for “in excess of $75,000” but Harder said in his statement that the “Defendants’ actions are so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs. Trump that her damages are estimated at $150 million dollars.”

Tarpley removed the blog in question and published an apology and retraction on or about August 22, according to the suit.

But Tarpley also issued a response to the legal filing saying, “Melania Trump’s lawsuit against me is without merit. Mrs. Trump is a public figure actively engaged in the Trump for president campaign. We are confident that Mrs. Trump will not be able to meet her high burden of proving the statements published about her on my website were defamatory in any way. Her lawsuit is a blatant attempt to intimidate not only me but journalists of all stripes into remaining silent with regard to public figures. This lawsuit is a direct affront to First Amendment principles and free speech in our democratic society.”

The Daily Mail also published an extensive retraction online on Thursday, saying the article “did not intend to state or suggest that these allegations are true, nor did it intend to state or suggest that Mrs. Trump ever worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business.'”

“To the contrary, The Daily Mail newspaper article stated that there was no support for the allegations, and it provided adamant denials from Mrs. Trump’s spokesperson and from Mr. Zampolli,” the retraction said.

The Daily Mail’s retraction pointed out that “Among other things, the article noted that allegations have been made in a book available on Amazon about a modeling agency where Mrs. Trump worked in Milan being ‘something like a gentleman’s club,’ and an article published by Suzy, a Slovenian magazine, alleged that Mrs. Trump’s modeling agency in New York … ‘operated as an escort agency for wealthy clients.'”

Trump had previously placed several news organizations on notice of her legal claims, including the Daily Mail, according to statement from Harder on August 23.

(h/t NBC News)

Reality

We do not support false allegations, we do not believe Mrs. Trump was an escort, however we are tracking this as part of our database for yet another instance of the Trump family harassing the press with lawsuits. Please don’t sue us.

Judge Orders Trump to Pay Nearly $300,000 in Attorney’s Fees in Doral Painter’s Lawsuit

While developer Donald Trump was busy getting the Republican Party’s presidential nomination this week, he was losing big in a Miami-Dade County courtroom.

Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto, presiding over a lawsuit related to unpaid bills brought by a local paint store against the Trump National Doral Miami golf resort, ordered the billionaire politician’s company to pay the Doral-based mom-and-pop shop nearly $300,000 in attorney’s fees.

All because, according to the lawsuit, Trump allegedly tried to stiff The Paint Spot on its last payment of $34,863 on a $200,000 contract for paint used in the renovation of the home of golf’s famed Blue Monster two years ago.

Trump National’s insistence that it had “paid enough” for the paint despite a contract, according to the lawsuit, caused The Paint Spot to slap a lien on the property and Cueto to order the foreclosure sale of the resort.

In time, Donald Trump’s company got the judge to cancel the June 28 courthouse auction after it placed the $34,000 in escrow, and the case was put on hold while Trump National’s owner, Trump Endeavor, considered an appeal.

But the lien remained.

And Cueto was asked to rule on the fees for The Paint Spot’s three $500-an-hour attorneys and two $150-an-hour paralegals that lawsuit loser Trump Endeavor will have to pay.

The golf company, according to the court file, objected to the hourly rates because it paid its lawyers $400 an hour, according to court records.

This week, Cueto ruled that the fees were reasonable, and then some.

First, he ruled Trump should pay for nearly 500 hours of legal work, since the store’s legal team had to prepare for a trial that never took place.

Then, Cueto tacked on a 75 percent “risk” fee, partly because the store’s lawyers took the risk that they would never be paid if they lost.

Total: $282,949 and 91 cents, including copying and expert testimony.

“I’m happy I have a judgment,” said Juan Carlos Enriquez, owner of The Paint Spot. “But he [Trump] hasn’t paid yet.

“You know how he says he’ll surround himself with the greatest people if he is president? In this case, he might not be surrounded by the right people.”

Trump bought the property in 2012 for $150 million then launched into a major renovation.

Alan Garten, Trump’s in-house lawyer, didn’t return a call for comment.

(h/t The Miami Herald)

Update

Trump appealed but a state appeals court in Florida on Thursday affirmed a circuit court’s decision to order Trump National Doral Miami golf resort to pay a small paint company and its attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars after failing to pay a tenth of that for paint and other materials during a renovation project.

Former Ghostwriter Sued by Trump Shortly After Making Critical Comments

The ghostwriter of Donald Trump’s 1987 memoir “The Art of the Deal” reveals he has received a cease and desist letter from the Republican presidential nominee following an interview with The New Yorker where he made unflattering comments about the billionaire, such as calling him a “sociopath” and describing as having “no attention span.”

“Yes, it is true. I got almost immediately this cease and desist letter delivered to me by FedEx and it’s nuts, and completely indicative of who he is,” Tony Schwartz told MSNBC.

Schwartz said the letter wanted him to return all the royalty payments he made from the book.

In an interview with The New Yorker, the writer said he put “lipstick on a pig” over a mythical figure in Trump he helped to create in the memoir.

“I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is,” Schwartz told The New Yorker. “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

Schwartz told MSNBC that there was “no basis in anything legal” in the letter.

“I suspect Donald Trump called up his chief legal person and said, ‘Go after that guy and do whatever you have to do.’ So this poor head of legal affairs for the Trump organization had to concoct some … stuff about most of which is untrue,” he said.

He continued, “So, for example, this notion I didn’t write the book is so preposterous. I am not certain Donald Trump read every word, but I’m sure certain I wrote every word. He made a few red marks on the manuscript and sent it back to me and the rest was history. The idea that he would dispute that is part of why I felt I had to come forward, the notion that if he could lie about that, he could lie about anything.”

Howard Kaminsky, the former head of Random House, which published “The Art of the Deal,” agreed with Schwartz’s statements.

“Trump didn’t write a postcard for us!” he told The New Yorker.

(h/t CBS)

Media

Trump Seeks $10M From Former Staffer Over Nondisclosure Agreement

Donald Trump is insisting that aides stick to confidentiality agreements — so much so that he is suing a former campaign consultant for $10 million, his lawyer said.

“He’s violated his agreement and you know we have taken swift and appropriate action,” Alan Garten, executive vice president and general counsel at The Trump Organization, told USA TODAY. “We intend to pursue this to the very end.”

Court documents obtained by the Associated Press indicate Sam Nunberg has been accused by Trump of leaking confidential information to reporters in violation of his non-disclosure agreement. Nunberg, in response, accuses the Republican candidate of “a misguided attempt to cover up media coverage of an apparent affair” between senior campaign staffers.

Reports the AP:

“The document cited a New York Post story about a public quarrel between the staffers published last month.

“The legal dispute reflects Trump’s efforts to aggressively protect the secrecy of his campaign’s inner workings. The case is spelled out in court documents that sought to block private arbitration proceedings that Trump initiated in May.”

Garten called Nunberg “a disgruntled former consultant” and said that after the original arbitration was filed “Nunberg asked for his job back.”

(h/t USA Today, Page Six)

Reality

Sam Nunberg has filed sensational legal papers against the presidential hopeful’s campaign, alleging he was wrongly accused of leaking a story to Page Six about a “lovers’ quarrel” between the mogul’s publicist and campaign manager.

Nunberg, who worked as a strategic adviser for Trump but was fired last year, claims in the papers that, because he then endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz, the Trump campaign is “attempting to bring a frivolous and retaliatory arbitration proceeding against me essentially to punish me and shut me up.”

Things further soured between him and the Trump campaign after Page Six exclusively reported in May on a public “screaming row” between the mogul’s polarizing former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, 42, and Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, 27, who deny rumors they had an affair. Lewandowski is married with four kids.

Nunberg says in his response filed in New York Supreme Court,

“The Trump campaign is misguidedly and improperly attempting to use the sword of private arbitration proceeding against me to silence media coverage of a loud and angry argument on a public street between its former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski … and a female Trump campaign staffer, concerning their sordid and apparently illicit affair, which … was witnessed by another Trump campaign staffer, as reported in the New York Post, Page Six.”

Nunberg also claims that there were many witnesses to the “lovers’ quarrel” that took place at 61st Street and Third Avenue, which he describes as “a public inappropriate display by the former campaign manager and, upon information and belief, his paramour.”

He continues, “I did not provide the New York Post with any information concerning that embarrassing and lurid event … [I] learned of it … long after my consulting agreement had been terminated … This tawdry public incident between Mr. Lewandowski and a female Trump campaign staffer occurred well after the termination of my consulting agreement.”

Nunberg claims the Trump campaign has falsely used the Page Six story as an excuse to accuse him of breaching his confidentiality agreement. He alleges Lewandowski “used as a pretext an eight year old Facebook post to have me terminated … [he] and other staff members colluded to leak the Facebook post to the press.” Nunberg denied making the racially charged posts about the Rev. Al Sharpton’s daughter and another calling President Obama a “Socialist Marxist Islamo Fascist Nazi Appeaser.”

However several websites had reported and captured Nunberg’s many racist social media posts.

Of his decision to back Cruz, Nunberg — who started working for Trump in 2011 and says he ghost-wrote many of the outspoken mogul’s political tweets — adds, “I am ready, willing and able to defend myself against such claims … the ridiculous nature of the Trump campaign’s irrational and vindictive assault against me simply for exercising my fully justified and constitutionally protected rights to change political allegiance and vote as I choose.”

Nunberg has filed a motion to stay the confidential arbitration, initiated by the Donald Trump campaign organizations. Nunberg also wants to make the proceedings public.

Trump Attorney Threatens to Sue, Then Demands Retraction From New York Times

A Trump Organization attorney suggested Monday night that Donald Trump might sue the New York Times over a Sunday front page story about his behavior around women. Then on Tuesday morning, another Trump attorney said “I don’t think that this is going to end up in litigation,” but called on The Times to retract the story and apologize.

The newspaper will not be doing either. It is standing firmly behind the story, which was the product of weeks of intensive reporting.

Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey’s reporting, including 50-plus interviews, revealed examples of “unwelcome advances, a shrewd reliance on ambition, and unsettling workplace conduct over decades.”

Trump began criticizing the story on Sunday morning, declaring that it was “a lame hit piece” and “a joke.”

Later in the day Trump tweeted:

He kept up the critique on Monday morning. He seized on a Fox interview with the first woman mentioned in the story, former girlfriend Rowanne Brewer Lane, who said the Times “spun” her words to make them seem negative.

Brewer Lane did not dispute any of the specific quotes or ask for a correction. But her complaint — repeated on CNN later on Monday morning — was enough for Trump to claim that the story was a “fraud.”

He called up CNN’s “New Day” control room to point out the Fox interview. And he tweeted, inaccurately, that the whole story has been “proven false.” He also told his Twitter followers that nothing in the newspaper could be trusted: “Who can believe what they write after the false, malicious & libelous story they did on me.”

Trump’s use of the word libelous stood out to some observers since Trump has talked repeatedly about wanting to “open up the libel laws” to make it easier to sue media companies.

The candidate didn’t tweet a lawsuit threat, but Trump Organization assistant general counsel Jill Martin left one on the table when asked about it on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” Monday night.

“I think that is a distinct possibility,” Martin said. “I haven’t talked to him about it personally, but, you know, when he’s attacked like that and things are said falsely, he definitely fires back.”

(h/t CNN)

Reality

We reviewed the New York Times article and found that, while 1 subject did not agree with the “tone” of her part of the piece, there have been no other complains from the 49 other women who were interviewed. There is no reason for the New York Times to retract the story from harassment and threats from Donald Trump and his campaign.

Donald Trump has a history of threatening to sue journalists and media companies who disagree with him and promised to use litigation to go after the press that write unflattering articles as President.

Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions.

While as a candidate this does not apply to him, as he is not a government agent, it is an alarming trend that is normally only found in authoritarian regimes.

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7OqplyIu4w

Donald Trump’s Lawyers Argue Calling Strategist a ‘Dummy’ is Not Defamatory

Calling a person a “loser” and a “major dummy” with “zero credibility” is not defamatory, Donald Trump’s lawyers say.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, lawyers for Trump, his campaign and his ousted campaign manager say Cheryl Jacobus‘ defamation suit against them should be tossed because their statements that she’s a “dummy” and opportunist who begged for a job with his campaign “are protected opinion speech” — and “hyperbole” should be expected from a presidential candidate.

Jacobus’ $4 million lawsuit says it was the Trump campaign that approached her to work as its political director, and she turned the job down because she feared the now-canned campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was a “powder keg.”

But, her suit notes, that didn’t stop Lewandowski from going on MSNBC in January and smearing her after she criticized the campaign on TV, saying she “came to the office on multiple occasions trying to get a job from the Trump Campaign, and when she wasn’t hired clearly she went off and was upset by that.”

And Lewandowski’s boss, the now presumptive GOP presidential nominee, went after Jacobus soon after, tweeting to his millions of followers that “@cherijacobus begged us for a job. We said no and she went hostile. A real dummy!”

In a later tweet, Trump again said she’d “begged” for work and they “turned her down twice.”

The strategist’s suit says she was defamed by their phony insistence she’d begged them for work and then turned on them when she didn’t get it.

In their late Monday filing, lawyers for team Trump said they didn’t do anything wrong.

Because Jacobus, a GOP political strategist, had said negative things about them in TV interviews, “any responsive opinions expressed by the defendants” about her motivations “are protected opinion speech in the heated national public debate that accompanies a presidential campaign, where the listening public anticipates fiery opinions, up-and-back-rhetoric, and hyperbole.”

And she might indeed have had a bias against the campaign, they claimed.

“It is indisputable that plaintiff’s motivations for criticizing the Trump campaign (and even labelling the campaign as liars) are uniquely within her own head. Any reflexive and responsive statements by defendants speculating about her motivations or biases can, therefore, only be opinion as well,” their filing says.

There “could have been an infinite array of possible motivations for plaintiff’s criticism of Mr. Trump and the Trump campaign.”

It also argues the statements were not defamation because of where they were made.

“Furthermore, the alleged defamatory statements were made via Twitter and on a morning talk show, which are both known as mediums for parties’ expressing their opinions,” their filing says.

Jacobus’ suit says the allegations harmed her personally and professionally — leading to fewer TV bookings and an onslaught of vicious online threats from Trump supporters.

Jacobus’ lawyer, Jay R. Butterman, said the focus by Trump’s attorneys on the “loser” and “major dummy” slams were a smokescreen designed to distract from what Trump and Lewandowski actually did to his client — falsely portray her as an unprofessional and vindictive spurned job applicant.

“It’s absolutely a red herring,” Butterman said. “They’re emphasizing these blunt attacks while ignoring the damaging statements regarding her professional ability — that she begged for a job.”

He noted one of the Trump tweets came after the campaign had been sent a cease and desist letter about the bogus claims.

“It is our opinion that Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss is a cowardly act of a man who, in repeating his libels against Ms. Jacobus after he received a cease and desist clearly explaining the falsity of his statements, dared her to sue him. Now, as Ms. Jacobus has bravely confronted Donald Trump and his smears, he hides behind technical arguments and claims that anything he says must be deemed merely his ‘opinion,’” Butterman said.

“He asks the courts to grant him the unique ability to intentionally and recklessly disregard the truth or falsity of his statements. Donald Trump, a shrill critic of our nation’s First Amendment rights, now cowers behind those very rights,” the lawyer said, adding that Trump’s “statements smearing Ms. Jacobus are clear and unquestionable claims of facts, which are just as clearly false and defamatory.”

(h/t New York Daily News)

Artist Threatened With Lawsuits If She Sells Nude Donald Trump Painting

Illma Gore's "Make America Great Again"

An infamous nude of Donald Trump has attracted bids of over $100,000 after it went on display at the Maddox Gallery in Mayfair, London, last week, but the artist is being anonymously threatened with legal action if she sells it, due to its resemblance to the Republican presidential hopeful.

The piece by Illma Gore, titled Make America Great Again, depicts Trump with a small penis. It went viral in February after the artist published it on her Facebook page and has since been censored on social media sites and delisted from eBay after the anonymous filing of a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice threatening to sue Gore.

The Maddox Gallery in London offered to exhibit the painting after galleries in the US refused to host the piece due to security concerns following threats of violence from Trump’s supporters. Hundreds of visitors have queued to see the work.

Gore said: “The reaction, especially in the UK, has been incredibly supportive. Everywhere apart from America has been great. Who knew it would be such a big deal? I think an artist’s job is to take the times we’re living in and then set the scene. It is a representation of where we are.”

The LA-based artist has received thousands of death threats and travelled to the UK to escape the frenzy, agreeing to allow Mayfair to manage the sale of the controversial painting, now priced at $1 million.

Cordelia de Freitas, Maddox gallery director, said: “It only really got out of hand when Donald Trump referenced it in a debate, which sums up Trump and his ego. From there, everyone wanted to see this image.”

Gore believes her work inspired Marco Rubio’s comments about the size of Trump’s hands at a Virginia rally in late February, where he said: “And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

On 3 March, Trump responded: “[Rubio] referred to my hands, if they are small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there is no problem. I guarantee.”

The size of Trump’s hands dominated the Republican primaries that week, and was even discussed at an editorial meeting with the Washington Post, where he defended his comments.

Trump’s sensitivity about his hands is believed to date back to Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter’s description of him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the 1980s.

Gore states she will donate her part of the fee for the painting to the charity Safe Place for Youth, a homeless shelter in Los Angeles.

(h/t The Guardian)

Reality

Donald Trump often threatens to sue as a scare tactic but rarely follows through, and when he does he usually loses.

Media

Click here to see the NSFW painting. (You can’t unsee it.)

Trump Volunteers Now Required to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreement

Reported by The Daily Dot, the Trump Campaign is now requiring some volunteers to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements before they can help the campaign – agreements that would theoretically allow Trump to sue volunteers for talking about the campaign and a process that some legal experts say is unusual and probably unenforceable.

2. No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

3. No Competitive Services. Until the Non-Compete Cutoff Date you promise and agree not to assist or counsel, directly or indirectly, for compensation or as a volunteer, any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump and to prevent your employees from doing so.

Volunteers also sign a non-disclosure agreement, forbidding them from sharing any sensitive information from the campaign. What kind of information is sensitive or confidential is completely at Trump’s discretion, according to the contract.

Volunteers must also sign a non-compete agreement that extends until Trump ceases his campaign for president, identified in the contract as the “Non-Compete Cutoff Date.” The agreement also forbids volunteers from working for another presidential candidate, should they change their minds.

In the event of a Trump victory in November’s general election, the non-compete clause could extend until his 2020 reelection campaign or even 2024, at the end of a second Trump term, the document explains. If Trump loses but wants to run again in the next election or in any presidential election in the future, the contract states the volunteer cannot work for another candidate.

Volunteers are, once again, theoretically bound to “to prevent your employees from” working on any other presidential campaign at any point while Trump is running for president, ostensibly locking them into Trump’s political career for life.

Reality

Trump again displays his complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. As a bully he repeatedly uses the threat of litigation to scare people, no matter how silly the lawsuit would be.

Links

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/donald-trump-volunteer-contract-nda-non-disparagement-clause/

Trump vs. the First Amendment

During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they’re “losing money” and are “dishonest.” The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he’s president they’ll “have problems.”

One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,

(h/t Politico, National Review)

Reality

Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions.

If a President Donald Trump does attempt to go after journalists and media outlets it would be a clear violation of the constitution and highly anti-American.

Media

Donald Trump Loses Libel Lawsuit Over Being Called a ‘Millionaire’

Trump Nation by Timothy O'Brien

A New Jersey appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against a book author who claimed the real estate magnate/reality TV star isn’t really a billionaire.

In a ruling, the appeals court affirms that Trump hasn’t demonstrated that author Timothy O’Brien committed “actual malice” by citing three unnamed sources who estimated the net worth of The Apprentice star to be between $150 million and $250 million.

Trump filed the $5 billion lawsuit in 2009 over O’Brien’s book, TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald. The lawsuit was rejected in 2009 by a New Jersey superior judge. Trump then appealed the judgment on the theory that relying on anonymous sources could rise to the actual malice standard needed for public figures to prevail in a libel suit.

But a New Jersey appeals court doesn’t see the logic here. According to the decision:

“There were no significant internal inconsistencies in the information provided by the confidential sources, nor was there ‘reliable’ information that contradicted their reports, so as to provide evidence of actual malice. Nothing suggests that O’Brien was subjectively aware of the falsity of his source’s figures or that he had actual doubts as to the information’s accuracy.”

The latest decision will likely give Trump another reason to gripe about the nation’s libel laws. In past public comments, Trump has said these laws “have never been fair.”

As for Trump’s own estimation of his net worth, Trump’s lawyer says it has been “proven conclusively” to exceed $7 billion.

Then again, during a deposition, Trump admitted that his sense of financial worth depends on his feelings day-to-day. Asked whether it was really true that his “net worth goes up and down based upon [his] own feelings,” here’s Trump’s funny response:

“Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day. Then you have a September 11th, and you don’t feel so good about yourself and you don’t feel so good about the world and you don’t feel so good about New York City. Then you have a year later, and the city is as hot as a pistol. Even months after that it was a different feeling. So yeah, even my own feelings affect my value to myself.”

Links

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-loses-libel-lawsuit-232923

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2016/03/14/trump-biographer-timothy-obrien.cnnmoney

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-21/dear-mr-trump-i-m-worth-10-billion-too-

1 2 3