In 1988, business mogul Leonard Stern commissioned a television documentary to be made about Donald Trump, but the film was never aired because Trump managed to prevent its circulation.
“He did everything he could to suppress this documentary,” producer Libby Handros said. “And back in the day when we made the film, there were only a handful of networks. You had a few independent entities, but everything was controlled by big corporations, the three networks. And Donald was threatening lawsuits and stuff and they just didn’t need to take that on, even if the lawsuit would have no merit in the end.”
“Now that Trump is running for president, it is time for the American people to meet the real Donald and learn how he does business. The old Trump and the new Trump? They’re the same Trump,” notes the film’s website.
Trump: What’s the Deal? chronicles the real-estate developer and presidential hopeful’s rise to power. His self-described “addiction” to acquiring cash and real estate drove him to build developments in Manhattan, Atlantic City, Palm Beach, and Los Angeles. He skirted the law on multiple occasions throughout his career, underpaying his workers, associating with mob bosses, committing union fraud, harassing tenants, and ignoring environmental regulations, yet managed to evade legal retribution.
“It’s the American dream gone berserk,” actor Christopher Reeves jokes in the film.
Often Trump’s developments were unprofitable, but he kept acquiring new properties anyway, continuing his construction projects with a Sarah Winchester-like delusion. His perpetual publicity stunts and position as the “poster child for 1980s greed” kept his image as “the people’s billionaire” afloat for a while, but he eventually began facing criticism for his antics from the media. The film delves into his tumultuous personal affairs, stubborn business behavior and descent into bankruptcy, ending with the introduction of his Monopoly-esque board game, Trump: The Game, which parodies his attitude toward life with the motto: “It’s not whether you win or lose, but whether you win!”
‘He got caught!’: Adam Schiff gives impassioned condemnation of Trump to close out the day’s impeachment hearing
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was gaming out the plan for impeachment hearings, she took a somewhat surprising step by placing the Intelligence Community front and center in the proceedings as it pursues the Ukraine investigation. And on Tuesday, after a long day of testimony from four critical witnesses, Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) delivered an impassioned speech that exemplified why Pelosi entrusted the trying task of leading the effort to him.
Schiff thanked Ambassador Kurt Volker and White House aide Tim Morrison for their testimony, noting that Volker had debunked Republicans' attacks on former Vice President Joe Biden.
Don Lemon notes the GOP panic after their own witnesses gave testimony harming Trump: ‘Worried much?’
CNN anchor Don Lemon explained how witnesses called by Republicans in the impeachment inquiry destoryed the defenses employed by President Donald Trump and his allies.
"Now, let's just be honest, the shakedown -- that's exactly what it is -- the shakedown is exposed, people," Lemon said.
"And the evidence comes from the Republican's own witnesses," he noted. "The former envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker -- who resigned just one day after the release of the whistleblower's report -- telling the president's defenders exactly what they did not want to hear."
"They called him apparently expecting him to say what he said in his closed-door testimony, that he saw no evidence of a quid pro quo, or let's call it for what it is again -- a shakedown," he continued. "Well, now he says he was wrong."
NSC aide Morrison flounders as lawmaker asks why he reported Trump’s phone call if he didn’t think it was a big deal
At the impeachment hearings on Tuesday, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison stressed that he didn't believe there was anything inappropriate about the call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But when Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) asked him why he reported the call to government lawyers, he had no answer.
"You responded to a series of questions about the call and saw nothing wrong with it, yet you skipped your chain of command to go to legal counsel to find out — I guess to find out what to do, because you were concerned about the political fallout, not about anything being appropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct?" asked Demings.