The inside story of how a kosher meat kingpin won clemency under Trump

Washington (CNN)It was presented as a bipartisan slam dunk; that rarest of moments when President Donald Trump was apparently swayed by letters of support from over 30 members of Congress, including his nemesis, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as dozens of legal experts. Now-Attorney General William Barr was on board with the decision. Pugnacious pundit and defense attorney Alan Dershowitz publicly took credit for persuading the President.

That was the tenor of the official story the White House rolled out in December 2017, announcing the Presidential commutation of the sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, the former CEO of America’s largest kosher meat processing plant who was convicted in 2009 of a series of fraud charges. Rubashkin’s legal troubles began in 2008, when a federal immigration raid, similar to the one just completed across Mississippi, discovered nearly 400 undocumented workers at his plant in Iowa.
But it wasn’t Pelosi or Dershowitz who convinced Trump to give clemency to Rubashkin. It was the persistence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, according to the impression of three former officials close to the issue. It was Kushner, they say, who brought the Rubashkin case up to a dispassionate Trump several times in the summer and fall of 2017, before finally persuading him to make what would be his first commutation and only his second act of clemency.
The letters of support told a nice story, but on their merit alone, the former White House officials say, the documents would not have moved Rubashkin “to the top of the pile” of what they believe were far more legitimate candidates sitting at the Justice Department’s Pardons office. In fact, according to two former White House officials, even if Rubashkin’s name had been submitted to the Justice office for consideration under Trump, no one from the Pardon Attorney’s office had raised the case with the White House.
Interviews with those three former senior White House officials reveal for the first time the critical role Kushner played in winning clemency for Rubashkin. The exclusively reported details offer a window into the ad-hoc personality-driven way decisions are made in this administration. They also show the influence of the President’s son-in-law and Kushner’s father, Charles, a convicted felon, who sources say was lobbying the New York legal community to rally around an effort to push for clemency for Rubashkin shortly after Trump was elected.
The Rubashkin commutation is one of the earliest examples of Kushner’s success in persuading the President to make a decision that appeared to some in the White House to be a blatant example of cronyism and was out of step with their political messaging. The Rubashkin commutation was felt by those three senior White House staff who spoke to CNN, to be glaringly hypocritical, because of what one person called “the immigration element.”
The announcement came just four months after the President’s first pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an anti-immigration firebrand who long supported Trump.
One former White House senior adviser observed to CNN that, when viewed together, the Arpaio and Rubashkin cases were completely contradictory. Regardless, both were ultimately viewed as political triumphs by the President: two completely disparate camps of his base (immigration hardliners and orthodox Jews) expressed their gratitude and support. That showed him the transactional benefit of Presidential pardons and commutations, and how they might be used going forward.
In response to questions from CNN and the President and Jared Kushner’s roles, a senior administration official said: “The President was going to do the right thing — and will do the right thing — on pardons and commutations regardless what the particular messaging will look like.”
Justice Department records show that Trump has now issued at least 14 pardons and six commutations. By contrast, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton issued no pardons or commutations in their first two years of office. President Barack Obama issued his first commutation in December 2010, just shy of the two-year mark of his time in office.
This week, Trump said he is considering granting clemency to Illinois’ former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The New York Times reported that Kushner has suggested to the President that a commutation of Blagojevich’s sentence would appeal to Democrats. The senior administration official disputed this was what Kushner was suggesting.
Rubashkin’s undoing
When US Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided Rubashkin’s plant, Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa, it was one of the biggest immigration raids at the time. In the aftermath, the picture that emerged in court papers was of a chaotically run business. Reports around the trial noted that Rubashkin had used $300,000 of company money to pay his credit card bills and $200,000 on a home renovation.
Prosecutors argued that he fabricated documents that falsely claimed he had vast amounts of collateral, costing banks that loaned to him tens of millions of dollars. Although Rubashkin was initially charged with immigration offenses, prosecutors focused on Rubashkin’s financial abuses.
In 2010 when Rubashkin received a 27-year sentence there was a public outcry, not least because the sentence exceeded the prosecutors’ request, which had been for 25 years. Six former US attorneys general wrote to the judge, Linda K. Reade, to complain. In an unusual move, before formally sentencing Rubashkin, Reade released a 52-page document explaining her decision.
In addition to his prison term, Reade ordered Rubashkin to pay back nearly $27 million in restitution.
Over the next several years, Rubashkin’s lawyers made various attempts to appeal the ruling, including all the way until December 2017, the same month that Trump commuted his sentence. In their appeals, Rubashkin’s lawyers claimed Reade had been too closely involved with the US Attorney’s office and its planned raid on Rubashkin’s plant. Prosecutors subsequently said that Reade was not told in advance where the operation would take place and that she was not told about the targets.
Before leaving office, Obama rejected Rubashkin’s appeals for clemency. By then, his lawyers were lobbying intently for high-level political and legal support. Among them was Gary Apfel, a prominent California corporate lawyer who also represents the Aleph Institute, a non-profit organization affiliated with the orthodox Chabad Lubavitch movement that Rubashkin belongs to.
Apfel had read about Rubashkin’s case and had asked to take him on as a client pro bono.
The Aleph Institute reached out to the former Harvard law professor, Dershowitz, who says he was asked to do a legal analysis of the government’s role in the sentencing. Apfel says he was the one who directly reached out to legal experts and members of Congress including Pelosi.

Kushners on the case

According to a source with knowledge, Charles Kushner also started to lobby the New York legal community the moment Trump won the 2016 election. In January 2017, Reade denied Rubashkin’s motion to be resentenced. Soon after, Jared Kushner took up Rubashkin’s cause inside the White House.
Charles Kushner’s attorney said he understood Dershowitz’s lobbying is what deserves credit.
“Anyone who helped get Rubashkin out deserves a medal, not criticism,” said Benjamin Brafman.
It is not known if the Kushners personally knew Rubashkin. But Charles Kushner has talked about the gratitude he has felt toward the Chabad Lubavitch movement, according to someone familiar with that community. A Chabad rabbi took Kushner, an observant Jew, kosher meals and helped him with religious obligations while he served 14 months of a two-year prison sentence in Montgomery, Alabama, for witness tampering, tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions. President Trump has also welcomed the Lubavitch group into the White House.
In assessing the Rubashkin case, the President turned to three White House officials— Donald F. McGahn, Chief White House Counsel, whose office is the liaison with the Justice Department; Staff Secretary Rob Porter, a lawyer who at the time was a particularly trusted adviser to Trump; and newly-installed chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly, who was supposed to vet all political decisions. All three have left the White House.
Kelly had come to the job with a mandate of instituting a level of order and discipline into the chaotic West Wing. That included being told by the President to rein in his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner, according to two White House sources. Kelly bristled at the Rubashkin issue, and “wanted to get the case off his desk,” according to a former colleague. McGahn disliked it too, according to two sources close to McGahn, largely because of its association with immigration.
Though McGahn felt the Rubashkin case had some merit, given the disparity between his crime and sentence, he ultimately took a neutral position, feeling there would be more serious issues on which to oppose the President’s son-in-law.
It was a case of: “pick your battles [with Kushner],” said someone close to McGahn.
Porter, a Harvard-educated lawyer with whom the President had a special rapport, took a nuanced view, say sources, feeling that on the one hand it was a clear act of favoritism, but that, given the widespread political support for clemency, the optics were much less controversial than the Arpaio pardon which Porter and others had delayed, fearing a backlash.
Ultimately, it took Trump, who said he had never heard of Rubashkin when Jared Kushner first raised his case, months to wrap his head around what to do. “What do you think I should do?” He occasionally asked a group of his advisers who were non-committal, according to one source.
Kushner, meanwhile, educated himself on the facts of the case; his senior aide Avrahm (Avi) Berkowitz had several conversations with Alan Dershowitz who provided him with information about the case, that he in turn got from Apfel.
Apfel told CNN that Dershowitz was his main avenue into the White House, but that he had also liaised directly with McGahn’s then-deputy Uttam Dhillon. “There’s never been a more outrageous case than this,” said Apfel, adding: “it’s just nasty” to suggest there might “be more compelling cases.”
Dershowitz has previously taken credit for persuading the President on the issue, claiming to the the Jewish newspaper The Forward that it was because he had explained to Trump the belief that prosecutors in the case had deterred prospective buyers, thus driving down the price of the business, which Rubashskin’s lawyers claimed led him to commit fraud.
“When I explained that to the President, he understood that from a business point of view,” Dershowitz told The Forward.
Dershowitz denied ever speaking with Kushner on the subject, though he does admit speaking fairly frequently to Berkowitz.
“I had no knowledge [that the Kushners] were involved,” Dershowitz told CNN. Dershowitz says his meeting with Trump took place in person a few months before the actual commutation.

Trump signs off

Ultimately Trump signed the commutation after Kushner had pushed a number of times as Hanukkah was approaching. The President liked the idea of doing something that could play well in the Orthodox Jewish community, according to a former senior White House official with direct knowledge of the President’s thinking at the time. And he was buoyed by the reaction among anti-immigration voters in his base to the Arpaio pardon.
The irony of the contradictory politics in the two clemency cases never struck him, at least visibly, says a White House source.
Rubashkin’s commutation was met with ecstatic approbation in the Orthodox community in Brooklyn where he was greeted “like a war hero” according to someone who witnessed his return from prison.
But the arguments made to the President by Kushner only went so far. The commutation of Rubashkin’s sentence is not the equivalent of a pardon. A point stressed in the official White House announcement. Though he walked out of prison in Otisville, New York, a free man, Rubashkin still has to pay nearly $27 million in restitution and has a supervised release for five years.
According to a former senior White House official who spoke with Kushner frequently, the President’s son-in-law had already been asking about the broader issue of criminal justice reform, even as the Rubashkin case played out. “I think it’s fair to say that all of this started with his perception that people that he knew, including his father, had been treated unjustly,” the former official said. “And that people sort of deserve to have some mercy and second chances, but his interest was mostly in currying favor with the Orthodox Jewish community.”

Part of a pattern

Last year Kushner played a pivotal role in getting the so-called First Step Act passed into law, which essentially gives non-violent offenders a chance to re-enter society more quickly and easily than previously.
Even so, Kushner’s actions left a bitter-sweet taste in the mouths of a number of criminal lawyers working on clemency. They were disappointed by the closure of a program at the end of the Obama administration, through which more than 1,700 inmates received pardons or commutations. These lawyers say that if Trump and Kushner truly cared about clemency, they would’ve kept the program.
“On the one hand Kushner got us the First Step Act,” said a prominent lawyer speaking on the condition of anonymity, for fear of reprisals.
“On the other hand, if they’re so interested in correcting outrageous sentences, why don’t they do a clemency program? I mean, instead of, it’s all got to be personal, it’s got to be Kim Kardashian’s person, or this one’s person. I mean, it’s all celebrity bullshit.”

Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight

A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up.

Unaware of my personal history with Epstein, this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought.

Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem – to the tune of $90m

The stench surrounding Jared Kushner has grown more pungent with every passing day.

On Monday, the Guardian’s Jon Swaine reported that, since Kushner entered the White House as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, a company Kushner co-founded has received over $90m in foreign funding, channeled through secretive offshore companies.

The public has no idea where this money is coming from – a major problem given that Kushner is not just one of Donald Trump’s chief international envoys, he is the de facto chief envoy.

The former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and former defense secretary James Mattis found Kushner’s interference in Middle East diplomacy opaque, irritating and – by the summer of 2017, when he greenlit a blockade of Qatar, a country with a US airbase – downright dangerous. His zeal for settling a “deal of the century” for the Israeli prime minister, “Bibi” Netanyahu, an old family friend, has made him the US government point person in a region notorious for attempting to curry US political favor with dollars.

But this is Trump World. There is only one guiding rule, which the principals barely bother to hide: pay to play. The corruption and self-dealing by Trump and his family is on so vast a scale that if it wasn’t so horrifying you’d almost admire the audacity.

Kushner founded the company in question, an online commercial real estate broker called Cadre, with his brother, Joshua, in 2014. “Cadre is going to make us billionaires,” Kushner announced to colleagues shortly afterwards. He refused to give up the entirety of his stake when he joined the Trump administration. (Kushner claims he divested from most of it, but shareholders were not notified of any sale, which is highly unusual.)

Worse: on his initial financial disclosure form, which he filed in March 2017 with the Office of Government Ethics, Kushner did not even list his stake in Cadre, which was worth up to $25m at the time. After the glaring oversight was reported by the Wall Street Journal, a lawyer for Kushner said that the omission was inadvertent and would be rectified. By June 2018, Kushner’s stake in Cadre was valued at up to $50m, or between 3% and 6% of the company.

A whistleblower has alleged that Kushner’s business interests are among the reasons career White House personnel security officers recommended that neither he nor his similarly conflicted wife, Ivanka Trump, be given a security clearance – a recommendation President Trump ignored.

Many administrations suffer embarrassing exhibits of corruption from family members who see proximity to power as their opportunity to cash in. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter’s little brother, Billy, tried to profit by endorsing Billy Beer. In 1999, Neil Bush, son of the 41st president and brother of the future 43rd, founded a classroom technology company that received investments from the Kuwaiti royal family, a Chinese technology executive and a Russian billionaire. That same year, Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s now deceased brother, partnered with the political opponent of a United States ally to export hazelnuts from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

But those efforts were made outside the White House by relatives without top-level security clearances. They pale in comparison to what the Trumps and Kushners may have done.

Some highlights to date: first there is the issue of the president’s tax returns, which Trump has refused to disclose despite a law that says that the treasury secretary must provide them to Congress if requested. We also know that, starting in 2010, Deutsche Bank lent money to the Trump Organization not from the bank’s own balance sheet, but via the private banking division, which means that Trump’s business is on the hook to entities or individuals whose identity is obscured.

Meanwhile, as president, Trump has brazenly intermingled politics with his business by flaunting presidential access via Trump properties like Mar-a-Lago, the so-called “Winter White House”, and the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, which have been flooded with foreign occupants looking to curry favor with administration figures.

Then there was “the bangle”. On 16 November 2016, just days into the Trump transition, Ivanka promoted a diamond bracelet from her jewelry line on 60 Minutes. The next day, her company sent out a “style alert” advertising the bangle for over $10,000. For the next 17 months, Ivanka moonlighted as a White House adviser while keeping ownership of her company, which was awarded several lucrative foreign trademarks, sometimes around the time of her meetings or chats with those foreign countries’ leaders.

Meanwhile, her husband, Jared – nominal head of foreign outreach on behalf of the Trump transition – and his father, Charles, were meeting secretly with the Chinese and various Middle Eastern rulers, seeking funds to bail out their financially stricken building at 666 Fifth Avenue, for which they needed $1.4bn by February 2019.

Fortuitously for the Kushner family business, the blockade of Qatar continues, which means the Qataris are still vulnerable. In the spring, representatives of the Qatari government told me in person and by email that there was another payment due to Jared via an offshore fund in June – which happens, apparently, to be when Cadre received the $90m.

In any other administration, a senior government official (let alone son-in-law) who was revealed to have clung on to a $50m stake in a company while serving in office and not disclosed it would have been asked by the president to leave. But President Trump will do no such thing – so other parts of the government must.

The Department of Justice should investigate Jared’s initially non-disclosed $50m stake in Cadre, and the investments the company has since received.

And Congress must work harder to overcome stonewalling and investigate the strange relationships that Kushner Companies and the Trump Organization have had with Deutsche Bank, where senior executives ignored calls to report Trump and Kushner transactions to the government for potentially suspicious activity. At least Senator Elizabeth Warren is demanding that the government-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac supply details about its $800m Kushner deal this spring.

Congress should also put the microscope on Jared’s private communications and unwavering alliance with the clearly dangerous – but rich – crown prince of Saudi Arabia. (The Saudis, it should be noted, were shareholders in the Canadian firm that bailed out 666 Fifth Avenue.) But somehow that message gets lost in noise about Russia and other red herrings.

History will judge corruption to be the most destructive and defining characteristic of the mob-like family occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And it will be – but only if Congress takes action.

How I overcame my fear of going on TV

Since March 17, I’ve been on what is technically termed a “book tour,” which in my case is a misnomer, since I am yet to leave New York City. But in the past seven weeks since the publication of my book on the Kushners, I have been transformed from a hermit who scarcely left my desk between September and January into an in-demand expert on the first daughter and her husband. Predictably, the White House dismissed the book as “fiction” — but this grandstanding lacked teeth, not least because four days after publication Tricia Newbold, a whistleblower, told Congress that following ordinary vetting procedure the security clearances for Ivanka and her financially conflicted hubby had been denied and that the Trump administration had been forced to override the denials. The press reported that the president had personally stepped in to clear Jared Kushner, Ivanka’s husband, even though she had said in a taped interview that her father had “no involvement” in the process.

So, in order to posit repeatedly about how the apple — or, perhaps, in this case, the orange — has not fallen far from the tree, I’ve become a TV pundit. When I bump into friends, they tell me to relish the moment, because it will pass. “Enjoy it,” they say.

I smile politely.

They do not know my secret.


I have always suffered terribly from stage fright. As a child I was a talented pianist (I was even appointed “School Pianist” in acknowledgment of my hard work and ability). But whatever flair I displayed in the practice room vanished in front of an audience. Then, my fingers shook and I missed all the keys. I ended up giving up the piano. It was the same with singing: I sang clearly and beautifully until the parents showed up for the school concert and my voice turned to a whisper.

In my adult life, for years, I have been leery of going on television, not least because of its requirement that you speak concisely and, at least in America, somewhat passionately. This flies directly in the face of the skill set which enables me, I hope, to be a good reporter: namely, that I ask the questions, rather than give the answers. I’m able to see around all corners of an argument, which helps me build bipartisan relationships, which is fantastic for Rolodex-building but does not translate to being a pundit. When someone asks me, “What do you think?” I think so many thoughts all at once that the noise inside my head gets so loud it’s deafening — and I am speechless. As a result, one of the things I’ve come to truly dread is being on set, earpiece in my right ear, and a producer saying: “Ten seconds before we are live, and Ms Ward, please look at Camera Two . . . ” In that moment, I’d rather be having a root canal.

But this spring I knew that I would be on a lot of TV shows and that some of them might be adversarial. I had to master my fear, so I had booked a veteran Washington media coach, Michael Sheehan, on the recommendation of a New York plutocrat, a private equity tycoon, who confided that once upon an unimaginable time, 20 or more years ago, Sheehan had told a far less confident version of himself that he had a few things to learn about public speaking; apparently, it had worked. Sheehan had told me over the phone I’d need two or three sessions. But then he arrived, off the Acela train, for our first session and saw my anxious expression. I explained I’d been so nervous about our training that I had not slept the previous night. “We might book a few more sessions, then,” he said kindly. My other half popped in as Sheehan positioned his camera on our dining room table. “She needs help with being concise,” my other half told Sheehan before heading out the door. My other half was previously married to a very successful news anchor. Again, I thought about the root canal.


After we’d done a few hours of Q&A — on the playback my “A’s” were as rambling and boring as I’d feared — Sheehan asked me if I liked tennis. I don’t just like tennis. I love it. I have played competitively all my life. “You are always serving,” he told me. “Whatever they ask you — you are serving.” But with what? At that point, he produced a pack of flash cards. “Get out a pen.” And then he started to dictate lines. “Here are your five themes. Whatever they ask you, it’s one of these themes. Memorise the flash cards. Next time we are going to expand the flash cards. And come up with specific details for the flash cards.”

Flash cards. Words. Memorising. Now we’d moved into a territory where I felt much more comfortable than the land of cameras and lights and overly energised anchors. But even so, what happened if I just blanked and forgot my lines on air? That afternoon I went to see my psychiatrist, with whom, amazingly, in over half a decade’s worth of weekly 45-minute sessions, I had never raised the subject of my performance anxiety. He looked at me a little bit sceptically: “You realise there’s a medication for that?” he said. Apparently, I am the only person on the planet of my age who has never heard of beta blockers. So, I took a pill before my next practice session in the dining room with Sheehan. And I didn’t panic. I served. I remembered the flash cards. Even better, weeks later, I did the same thing on air with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. “I see your media training paid off,” observed my other half, which, for him, is high praise. I became so confident, that I went on CNN one night and was so comfortable, I started to yell. “The content was good, but the delivery was most unladylike,” observed my other half later. Even Sheehan was taken aback by my verve. “You were a bit hyper,” he said gently, “but it fit the show.”


So, as I wrap up my media tour and remember what it feels like to book an Uber, and fix my own hair and make-up, I am far more confidently pitching myself to news shows. “I can talk about anything,” I told one producer recently, wondering, even as I said it, if that was me or a beta blocker saying something that until a mere three weeks ago would have been remarkably out of character. But proof that something transformational had happened at dinner last night, during the conversation with my other half. “I think you could be very good on TV,” he said. Then he paused, looking intently at my elated expression. “But first you’d need to fix your wonky nose.”

Vicky Ward is the author of ‘Kushner Inc: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’ (St Martin’s Press)

 

Vicky Ward on Why She Wrote About Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s Unprecedented White House Role

My new book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption—The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, is dedicated, not to a person, but to “my newly adopted country, the United States of America.” That may seem like just a rhetorical flourish—but it isn’t: After two years of intense reporting, my findings show that the threat that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump pose to the systems and protocols that have kept this great country safe and free, is both extraordinary and extraordinarily under-recognized.

That is why, after living here for 22 years, I decided it was imperative to become a U.S. citizen—and to report the book. I felt that it was my civic duty, the most important and urgent thing I could do for a country I’ve grown to love deeply and to which I owe so very much. I must play my part to rescue it from two entitled New York silver-spooners. I needed to report the systemic damage they’ve caused, and even more importantly, the why.

That is why my book delves into their pasts and the culture that shaped them into two people who consider rules, including the rule of law, as something that exists for other people. As I said on Sunday on ABC’s This Week to George Stephanopoulos: “Most people go into government for public service. They [Jared and Ivanka] have gone in for self-service.”

I glimpsed the dangers of “Javanka” during the Transition: I think like many of us, I was hoping for the best. Surely, no one wants an incoming President to fail. But when the Trumps gave their first TV interview to CBS’s 60 Minutes, it wasn’t Donald Trump who, back then, worried me. It was Ivanka. The fact that she wore a $10,000 bangle from her fashion line, on television and then hawked it to viewers the next day was appalling.

We have clear conflict of interest laws that say you cannot profit from a role in government. (The subsequent apology from Ivanka’s spokesperson was worthless, since to quote a former Senior White House official, “you cannot un-see the bangle,”—and Ivanka would not sell or close her company, at least for the next 18 months). Even as she said she was not going to seek an official role in the Trump Administration, I gathered from DC sources that she was making plans to do just that.

And then, before the Inauguration, it was reported Jared Kushner, self-appointed head of “foreign outreach” on the Transition, and therefore point-person for the Chinese government, had, during the Transition’s very first week, also met secretly with a Chinese insurance firm, Anbang, a potential savior for the Kushner family’s dire financial problems.

Kushner, who appears never to have thought too deeply about the meaning of the word “transparency” or its importance in government, didn’t mention his business dealings to any of his Transition colleagues. Unsurprisingly, as I report, when they learned of it, they were utterly appalled. As I say in the book, the stench of corruption was so overwhelming that in-coming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was terrified that, all by himself, Kushner would topple the US’s “maximum pressure” campaign on North Korea (a campaign which also requires maximum pressure on China). Gary Cohn, the incoming director of the National Economic Council, told Kushner that everything he did from now on would now look as if he’d come into government for one purpose—to enrich himself.

The story gets worse. Much worse. You’ll need to read the book for all the gory details, but do pay attention to the important issue of who closed the White House visitor logs—and why. Interestingly, it wasn’t President Trump—you can probably guess who it was.

Meanwhile, though I am certainly not a member of Trump’s base, when I see the caps saying “MAGA” I smile to myself because Kushner, Inc. is my small effort to really Make America Great Again. And, if I want anyone to read—well, flick through—this book, it’s Donald Trump himself. The President knows Jared and Ivanka are his greatest liability, particularly as the issue of how they got their security clearances is now under investigation by Congress.

The question is, can the man who prides himself on his appeal to “tough people,” find the courage to send his daughter and her husband home? If he needs any help with justification, I can point him to specific page numbers. Mr. President, sir, I am just a phone call away.

An investigative journalist, Vicky Ward is a contributing editor to Town & Country magazine and the author of three books, including The Liar’s Ball: The Extraordinary Saga of How One Building Broke the World’s Toughest Tycoons.

Swamp Thing

1.
‘I AM NOT A LIAR’
THE CHAOS IN THE WHITE HOUSE was threatening Mike Pence’s chances of ever becoming president, and that was unacceptable. It was the spring of 2017. Special counsel Robert Mueller had just launched his investigation into the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump associates were scrambling to lawyer up, Pence included. And a group of the vice president’s close friends and advisers were growing fearful that everything Pence had worked for was about to be lost. His unquestioning loyalty to Trump was becoming an enormous liability. A friend familiar with the discussions said a decision was made that they had to be more strategic. Luckily, Pence knew someone who could help, an operative he trusted completely.Nick Ayers was only 34 at the time, but in his short career, he had already inspired more admiration, envy and animosity among his peers than almost anyone else in Washington’s consultant class. On June 29, it was announced that Ayers would be taking over as Pence’s chief of staff. In an interview with The New Yorker, Anthony Scaramucci summed up the calculation this way: “Nick’s there to protect the Vice-President because the Vice-President can’t believe what the fuck is going on.”

Pence has always relied unusually heavily on his staffers, according to five people who have worked with him. One confessed to being “surprised” by his malleability. A consultant who knows Pence well explained that while he is ideologically unshakeable, he is often unsure about operational matters. “If you bump into him at an airport and tell him he needs better yard signage, he will immediately assume you are right,” said the consultant, who has done pretty much just that. [1]Before Ayers’ arrival, Pence could not quite bring himself to tell Josh Pitcock, his well-liked aide of 12 years, that he was going to be replaced. Instead Pitcock, who was planning to depart at some point anyway, found himself having endless, confusing calls with Ayers about the newcomer’s role. Eventually, Pitcock suggested: “Why don’t you just have my job?”

In the early months of Trump’s presidency, according to a former senior White House official, Pence had been “acting like a staffer, wandering in and out of the Oval Office with nothing to do.” Ayers swiftly inserted himself into meetings at which Pence had not been included and carefully guarded access to his boss. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and an old Pence friend, told me that for a while he couldn’t even get his calls returned. Ayers was also close with the right people. He had ingratiated himself with Jared Kushner and the younger Trumps while volunteering as an adviser for the campaign and later as a well-regarded member of the transition team. (He and the Trump sons share an enthusiasm for hunting.) After arriving in the White House, Ayers started flattering Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, relentlessly. (A regular West Wing visitor told me that Kelly “completely has his number.”) [2]Another example of a canny Ayers attempt to win support for himself within the White House: In October, Ayers exhorted a gathering of RNC donors at the St. Regis hotel in Washington D.C. to purge any Republican lawmakers who failed to vote for the MAGA agenda. Somehow, a recording of the speech found its way to Politico. Trump’s inner circle reportedly approved.

Perhaps most useful of all is Ayers’ knack for staying on the right side of the president. During the 2016 GOP primary, Ayers served as chief strategist on Pence’s gubernatorial reelection campaign in Indiana. Pence remained strategically supportive of nearly all the final presidential candidates. He eventually endorsed Ted Cruz in a video, but was so flattering of Trump that Trump would (not incorrectly) call it “more of an endorsement for me.” People on the Cruz campaign detected the hand of Ayers. “Nick is really good at threading a needle,” one person close to Cruz explained.

Ayers and Pence on the night in 2016 when Trump asked Pence to be his running mate. TWITTER

These days, Pence is almost deferential around his chief of staff, two sources told me. “The more Nick is right, the more the vice president is empowering him,” said one. And the 2018 midterms will see Ayers’ power expand significantly. It is Pence, not Trump, who will anchor the GOP’s urgent effort to avoid massive losses in Congress. By the end of April, Pence will have appeared at more than 30 campaign events this year, with Ayers masterminding the details. Ayers is also one of the chief arbiters of which candidates receive money from Pence’s leadership PAC, the Great America Committee.

Even Ayers’ many detractors concede that he’s very good at his job. A number of Republicans believe he has salvaged Pence’s chances of succeeding Trump as president—which is very far from where he was nine months ago. The person close to Cruz said that Cruz would not run against Pence unless he is implicated in a serious finding by Mueller. “Ayers is critical to helping Pence (and by extension the GOP),” this person wrote me. On the one hand, he explained, Ayers “is carefully crafting strategies to show Trump [Pence] is loyal.” On the other hand, he went on, Ayers “is insulating Pence from Trump’s radioactive decisions. No easy task. Few can do it consistently. Ayers is a master at it.”

In person, Ayers is known to be exhaustingly charming. He has a panache you don’t normally encounter in D.C. Floppy blond hair, wide smile, swift stride, expensive suit. His greatest weapon is a Southern drawl that makes you feel as if everything is happening in slow motion. “If you talk slow, people think you think slow,” said Mark Meadows, the Republican congressman and chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “[Ayers] thinks four times as fast as he talks.”

Despite his age, Ayers is solicitous in the manner of a courtly older gentleman. Sometimes, he will ask permission from reporters to remove his coat or tie with an elaborate politeness. He is given to grandiloquent declarations of integrity. “One thing I am not, is I am not a liar,” was an example recalled by a Republican consultant who has spoken with him often. “I am always truthful. People can call me a lot of things, but one thing I am is a truthful person.” This “Southern Baptist preacher schtick” is the sort of thing GOP donors “swoon over,” the consultant told me, but it doesn’t always go over so well with Ayers’ peers. “Almost every operative that comes across Nick just absolutely cannot stand the guy,” the consultant added. Still, while Ayers’ affect may be cloying, it does place his principal guiding motive—himself—disarmingly in plain sight at all times.

It is a central tenet of politics that you can have money or power, but not the two at the same time. Ayers is a rare exception. He is not shy about showing his wealth—issuing gracious invitations to hunting parties on his estate on Georgia’s Flint River; sending Christmas cards that are fatter than most and wrapped in a bow. He has occasionally been known to lease a private jet—unusual among a crowd of strategists-for-hire who are accustomed to Marriotts and economy class.

THE QUIET UBIQUITY OF NICK AYERS (CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT): Ayers getting sworn in as chief of staff, with his wife and triplets watching (TWITTER); with Pence on the way to meet Senate Republicans in December DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES; walking to the West Wing AL DRAGO/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES; conferring with National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

When he joined the administration, Ayers’ White House financial disclosure attached some hard numbers to his high-roller image. After less than seven years of working as a political consultant and a partner in a media buying firm, Ayers reported a personal net worth between $12 million and just over $54 million. (For context, one leading strategist told me that a top-level consultant could expect to make $1 million in an election year and about a third of that in the off year.) And his business arrangements can be difficult to track. In the 2016 election cycle, Ayers spearheaded the Missouri gubernatorial campaign for Eric Greitens, who is now under indictment for invasion of privacy. In addition to the consulting fee of $220,000 paid to Ayers’ firm, he was paid over what appears to be a very similar time period by at least two different entities involved in the race.

Astonishingly, when Ayers entered the White House, he didn’t immediately sell his lucrative business, C5 Creative Consulting, as previous administrations would have required. He also obtained a broad waiver permitting him to talk to former clients. His ownership of C5 turned his White House job into a minefield of possible conflicts of interest. As chief of staff to the vice president, Ayers’ duties can include advising Pence on which candidates to support—decisions that can have a huge influence on fundraising and, hence, political advertising. In addition, in his private work for the Pence PAC, he is in a position to steer donor dollars into races where the company could potentially benefit. “That’s staggering,” one seasoned Republican operative told me.

In an environment where ethical scandals are spilling into public view on a near-daily basis, each seemingly more flagrant than the last, no one paid much attention to Nick Ayers’ consulting firm. Ayers himself declined to speak on the record and did not respond to a detailed list of questions for this article. After multiple attempts to clarify the status of Ayers’ business, Pence’s office sent a statement just as this story was going to press to say that his next financial disclosure in May “will reflect” the sale of his company. The White House provided no proof that the sale had occurred.

Waiting for so long into his White House tenure to address the issues posed by his ownership of C5 (and seemingly only under pressure) was a characteristic move from Ayers—and one strikingly at odds with the plain-spoken virtue that the vice president seeks to project. But, as is clear to those who have followed Ayers’ rapid ascent to the top of his profession, he has made an art form of skillfully navigating the gray areas in electoral politics. And in the process, he has demonstrated that the real danger in our porous, post-Citizens United campaign-finance regime isn’t always what’s illegal, but what’s been made possible.

CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT: Jamie Ayers and their children; Haley Barbour, Ayers’ boss at the RGA; Ayers and his close friend Paul Bennecke (right); video of Ayers’ DUI; Sonny Perdue, an early mentor.
2.
THE APPRENTICE
AYERS GREW UP MODESTLY in Cobb County, Georgia. His father, a landscaper, and his mother, who worked for a laundry equipment company, divorced when he was young. Ayers took summer jobs, including buffing cars, for extra cash. “I decided I never wanted to be in a position of anxiety,” he once told The Washington Post. “I have always been a worrier and planned way ahead.” In high school, he told the reporter, he was the cautious one in a crew that ran on the “edge of the line”—the guy who would organize “huge drinking parties” but serve as the designated driver. “I would say, ‘Look, we have to be careful here. We can’t let people find out.’”In 2001, while he was a freshman at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, Ayers met a reserved senior who would become his close friend and sidekick: Paul Bennecke, the state chairman of the College Republicans. The pair signed on to state senator Sonny Perdue’s long-shot campaign for governor. In a matter of days, Ayers was zipping around the state in Perdue’s four-seater plane. Perdue’s upset victory swept a Republican into the governor’s mansion for the first time since Reconstruction—and two very young, very ambitious operatives into the big leagues.

Two years later, Ayers was running Perdue’s reelection campaign. The 22-year-old gained a reputation for being a shameless self-promoter, a recurring accusation he has never done much to dispel. A post on the Georgia political blog Peach Pundit observed that people were “so focused on hoping Nick Ayers screws up the Governor’s race and gets egg on his face that they’ve forgotten they should be focused on getting the Governor re-elected and worry about Nick later.”

Less than two weeks before the election, Ayers did get egg on his face. One night, on his way back to campaign headquarters, he was arrested for driving under the influence. Refusing a breathalyzer test, he admitted to imbibing a Jack Daniels and Diet Coke. (All counts were dropped except one for reckless driving.) A two-part video of the arrest can be found online. It is impressive mainly for the deluge of flattery that the handcuffed Ayers directs at the arresting officer as he is driven to the station. “I have a ton of respect for the state patrol,” Ayers tells him. At one point he asks brightly, “Can we chat politics?”

In 2006, Perdue was appointed chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Ayers became the RGA’s executive director—a spectacular promotion for a 24-year-old with no experience in national politics. Bennecke was the political director. Someone who met Ayers through the RGA remembers him dipping tobacco and partying frequently at the hotspots of D.C. in that era, places like Rhino Bar or Smith Point. For a time, he roomed with Bennecke. In 2005, Ayers had married Perdue’s second cousin, Jamie Floyd, although he would tell The Washington Post he was so consumed by his work that the couple “didn’t really have sex” for the first three years of their marriage.

“MY GOD, THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE HIM WHATEVER HE WANTS.”When Ayers showed up at the RGA, it was a bit of a backwater, mostly a place for parking spare corporate dollars. But it was about to transform into one of the most powerful loopholes in campaign finance law. Under the leadership of Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, who assumed the chairmanship in 2009, the organization took full advantage of its unique legal status. Unlike other major party committees, the RGA and its Democratic counterpart are not subject to regulation by the Federal Election Commission. The only oversight comes via a patchwork of state laws, which are often lax—and in many states, court rulings have made it nearly impossible to regulate the associations at all. This means the governors associations can solicit unlimited donations, unlike the party national committees. Although the RGA and DGA must disclose donors to the IRS, the list is essentially meaningless, since they don’t have to provide any information on where the money was spent or which races it was used to influence.

As it happened, Barbour took charge at the RGA just before the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision sanctioned unlimited corporate spending in elections, as long as that spending is “independent” of campaigns. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, an election law expert and associate professor at Stetson University, argues that both the RGA and DGA are functioning as giant dark money operations. “They can basically funnel money to where there is the least enforcement of campaign finance law,” she said. “Pick your metaphor: daisy chains, Russian dolls, shell game …”

The 2010 midterms were set to be a huge year for the RGA—Republicans were fielding 37 gubernatorial candidates, including rising stars such as Nikki Haley and Scott Walker. And so Barbour created a club of the country’s wealthiest individual conservative donors, many of whom had been lackluster supporters of the RGA in the past. It was Ayers’ job to convince them that they could get a better return on their investment through the RGA than any other party machine. In this mission, he could not have had a better tutor than Barbour, whose fundraising prowess is legendary. “I think Nick would tell you he learned everything he knows from Haley,” said a former RGA colleague, Lauren Lofstrom. She recalled an evening in Chicago when Ayers charmed a clatch of billionaires, including Sam Zell and Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel. Some of the guests actually moved toward the edge of their seats as Ayers talked. “At the end I [thought,] ‘My God, they are going to give him whatever he asks for,’” Lofstrom said. According to Lofstrom, Griffin told Ayers that his talents were being wasted in politics and he should be working for his hedge fund. “Nick made people pause for the first time and go, maybe there’s more than just federal politics,” a former colleague said.

On Ayers’ watch, the RGA moved vast sums of donor money all around the country. When he joined the organization, its budget for the 2005-2006 election cycle was $43 million. By the end of the 2010 cycle, the budget had increased to $132 million. As for Ayers, he had amassed a Rolodex that would be the envy of his peers. Someone who knows him well said: “I’ve just watched: He can pick up the phone and call 30 governors, and they’ll all take his personal phone call. And he can pick up the phone and call the top 200 donors to give to governors in the country, and they’ll all take his phone call.”

In all, it was an experience totally unlike those of his contemporaries, who were working their way up on candidate campaigns or through other party organs with far greater restrictions on raising and spending money. Barbour told me that Ayers “matured beyond his age.”

When Ayers concluded his term in early 2011, he was being talked about as a successor to Karl Rove. He was expected to follow a well-trodden path: build up his own political consultancy, advise major candidates and help shape Republican politics. And so his friends were baffled when Ayers took a partnership at a media buying firm that was barely known in D.C. Target Enterprises was a company of about 15 people who worked out of an office tower in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Its founder, a brash New Yorker named David Bienstock, was about as far away as you could get from the Washington establishment. Ayers “was seen as a classy guy,” said a friend, explaining the consternation at his career move. “And Target wasn’t a classy compan

David Bienstock (left) and Adam Stoll, Ayers’ former partners at Target Enterprises.
3.
THE DANGLE
NO ONE HAS EVER MADE A FORTUNE in electoral politics merely by giving sound advice to candidates. The real money is in political advertising. “Everybody sees the media budget as the golden ticket,” said a senior executive at one of the five largest Republican media buying firms.Even the standard way of doing business is, frankly, dubious. There can be variations on the model, but usually a consultant hired by a campaign or political action committee chooses a creative firm to make its TV ads. The consultant also hires a media buying firm to negotiate with TV stations over distribution. A commission of up to 15 percent of the advertising expense is split in various combinations between the consultant, the creative firm and the media buyer. And this is where the dubiousness comes in: Neither the candidate nor the donors typically have any idea how the split is divided. Often, at the end of the election, the TV station will not have run the exact number of ads the media buyer purchased. So the stations rebate the media buyer, who—in theory—is supposed to return that money to the campaign. But “only the media buyer knows the true amount of the rebate,” said one veteran creative director.

The sheer volume and speed of the transactions can obfuscate a lot of double-dealing. Campaigns are largely forced to trust that the media buyers pay the TV stations the contracted amount for the right ad spots. Two buyers emphasized to me that they pride themselves on returning leftover funds, suggesting that such scrupulousness may be the exception rather than the rule.

It is also not unusual, I was informed by a handful of industry insiders, for the consultant to privately negotiate a fee for bringing the media buyer the business. These sums can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, far outstripping a consultant’s typical monthly retainer of around $15,000 on a gubernatorial or senate race. All of which provides a powerful incentive for the consultant to use the media buyer who will give him the best deal, not the one who will deliver the most effective ads. “That’s what happens a lot,” said one top buyer. Most political campaigns don’t conduct even perfunctory oversight of their spending. “There is no CFO on any campaign,” said the buyer. “There is a treasurer. The treasurer’s job is to make sure that the reports get filed properly at the FEC. That’s it.”

“IT’S MUCH EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO PULL THE WOOL OVER THE EYES OF A POLITICAL CLIENT THAN A CONSUMER CLIENT.”Until about a decade ago, Target Enterprises hardly had a presence in national political advertising. But in his West Coast milieu, David Bienstock was known as a consummate hustler. A flashy figure, he “was the kind of man to carry cash,” said a former colleague who remembers him being visited monthly at his offices by a banker who delivered envelopes of bills. Bienstock, who did not comment for this article, has a taste for lavish real estate. [3] His properties include a Sherman Oaks home previously owned by movie director Brian de Palma and a $5.6 million house in San Diego.He changes cars often and used to drive a gullwing model with doors that opened upward. The former colleague recalls a framed photo in Target’s hallway of Bienstock standing next to his favored private plane. He’s known as both a charmer and a screamer who sometimes holds court at Shutters on the Beach in Santa Monica, dressed in a black T-shirt and blue jeans. When discussing pitches with colleagues, he talks a lot about “the dangle”—that is, what the client really wants. He might say, “So, the dangle is … ”

In 2009, Bienstock acquired a right-hand man who could help him break into national politics. Adam Stoll, a former Goldman Sachs executive then in his mid-30s, had run New York governor George Pataki’s 2002 reelection campaign. Quiet and preppy, Stoll is Bienstock’s outward opposite. Someone who has worked with him remarked to me that “he probably showers in his suit.” Stoll was also a longtime friend of Ayers, who was then midway through his tenure at the RGA.

The RGA had never used Target before 2009. That year, the firm was hired to work on, among other things, the Virginia gubernatorial race—a “test run” of sorts, said someone involved with discussions between Ayers and Target. But Bienstock and Stoll wanted a much closer relationship with the RGA for 2010. So they invited Ayers and Bennecke to a retreat at the Wynn hotel in Las Vegas over the weekend of November 20 to cement a deal. The weekend “has become legend,” said one media consultant. “Nobody could figure out why Nick and Paul would even go anywhere with Bienstock. You’d see why if you met him … [he] makes my skin crawl.” One of the items on Saturday’s agenda was a talk by Bienstock: “Media Buying: The Inside Story … A View from Behind the Curtain.”

I talked to four people who have heard Target’s pitch. Their experiences were not identical, but two consultants gave very similar accounts of someone at Target proposing the following arrangement: Target would charge the campaign a much lower fee than its competitors. The Target representative would go on to explain that the company would later invoice for an amount that represented a payment for how much the firm had saved the campaign—with Target determining what the savings had been. This model might be described as “performance-based pay,” said an industry insider. A more accurate term, said one person who listened to the pitch, is “fucking bullshit.” However, most campaigns either lack the expertise to spot the catch in a highly technical pitch or are too focused on winning to closely monitor how their media budgets are spent. “It’s much easier for someone to pull the wool over the eyes of a political client than a consumer client,” said a veteran buyer in both spaces.

Whatever Target’s dangle to Ayers and Bennecke was, it seemed to be persuasive. “David can be very charismatic,” said the former colleague. In 2010, according to IRS filings, Target suddenly became the RGA’s biggest vendor, receiving $31 million for buying ads—about 36 percent of the RGA’s budget. (The next-highest-paid media buyer was Crossroads Media, which got $7 million.) Bennecke and Target did not respond to questions about Target, its business practices and its relationship with the RGA. I asked Haley Barbour why the RGA had chosen to give Target so much of its business. He told me he could “not recall that one firm got an especially large [share] of the media buy.”

CLOCKWISE FROM BOTTOM LEFT: David Perdue, senator from Georgia; Bruce Rauner, governor of Illinois; Eric Greitens, governor of Missouri. (CENTER) Ayers with former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, center.
4.
THE COLOR OF DARK MONEY
AYERS HAD ONLY BEEN at Target for a few weeks when he made a startling announcement: He was taking a hiatus. “I have prayed deeply about my purpose in life and how best to utilize the talents God has given me,” he wrote in an email to friends in April 2011. “I wanted my decision to be wholly about how best to serve Him, not what was most politically or financially expedient for my family and me. As He often does in walks of faith, He has called me to a higher purpose.” The higher purpose, it turned out, was attempting to get Tim Pawlenty elected president. (After the email was leaked, Ben Smith, then of Politico, noted that Ayers’ sounded “a bit as though he’s the one who will be running.”)The Pawlenty campaign was a bust, fizzling in less than three months and somehow racking up a debt of half a million dollars. When I spoke to Pawlenty last fall, however, he told me he doesn’t regret hiring Ayers. “I think he did a terrific job,” he said. The debt, he added, “wasn’t his fault. It was a campaign that was sort of a start-up operation that didn’t have a good insight into how much financial trouble we were in, in real time.”

I was curious to hear what Pawlenty thought of the fact that his campaign had paid nearly $600,000 for media buys through Target, according to FEC records. Ayers was not legally required to disclose his relationship with Target to the campaign, but various consultants I talked to argued that it would have been the ethically correct thing to do. Pawlenty paused. “That part I wasn’t as clear about,” he said, “as for what his status was relative to Target.”

After the campaign wound down, Ayers returned to Target and immediately resumed pitching the firm to his political friends. One recalled his firm receiving a classic Bienstock dangle: “I’ve got this great buying company. Doesn’t cost you anything.” This person actually ran a model using Target’s stated methodology and found that it would be more expensive than negotiating with the TV stations directly. And yet in the election cycle immediately following Ayers’ departure from the RGA, the organization gave Target at least 63 percent of its media business. [4]IRS filings show that the RGA paid Target more than $18 million in 2012 and a similar sum in 2014.

Ayers’s influence at the RGA was—and remains—significant. Ayers and his replacement, Phil Cox, were sufficiently close that Ayers would become an investor in Cox’s media business. The RGA’s general counsel, Michael Adams, would go on to work on personal legal matters for Ayers, according to a person who saw documentation. And many of Ayers’ team also stayed on after he left, according to a person who regularly deals with the RGA and remarked on their fierce loyalty to him. In 2014, when it came time for the RGA to select Cox’s successor, it named Ayers’ longtime friend, Paul Bennecke.

The RGA’s reliance on Target would become controversial among consultants—encouraging competition among vendors is what helps to keep prices down. (In response to questions, a spokesperson said the organization has been “managed with the utmost integrity.”)

“IT’S NOT LIKE STICKING YOUR HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR. IT’S AS IF HE BUILT A PENTHOUSE IN THE COOKIE JAR AND HAD EVERYBODY BRING HIM COOKIES.”And Target itself was attracting some scrutiny. Brian Baker is an attorney who runs a PAC affiliated with the Ricketts’ family, who are major conservative donors and the owners of the Chicago Cubs. Baker has told three people that in the spring of 2012, he had gone to some effort to check out Target’s practices. (Joe Ricketts intended to spend millions on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and Baker wanted to be sure he was dealing with an honest media buyer, two of the people said.) Based on the accounts of those three people, a clear story emerges. Baker visited a cable station in New England to follow up on some ad buys he’d asked Target to place. This was not a straightforward task. The FCC mandates that every TV station must maintain a public file recording purchased airtime for political ads, but many records are still kept in paper form. “It would have looked like a trash can,” said one of Baker’s confidantes.

According to the sources, Baker discovered a discrepancy between the services Target had promised to deliver and what actually ran on the air. Baker “hit the roof,” said one friend. Two of the sources recalled that he switched media buying firms.

When I asked Baker about this episode, he told me that “in no way, shape, or form, was there any irregularity.” He added, “When I began buying TV, radio and digital ads, Adam [Stoll]—a true pro—was a great help to me. While the groups I run work with a variety of media vendors, we have used Target since 2010 and continue to do to this day.” (Stoll and Target did not comment.) One of Baker’s confidantes told me, “You’re going to have a hard time getting people to screw with Pence and Nick Ayers.”

It was during this period that Ayers started aggressively working on races from multiple angles. He stayed on as a partner at Target, but also advised candidates and outside groups through his company, C5. In 2014, Ayers was working as the lead strategist for Bruce Rauner, the Chicago businessman who had launched a bid for governor of Illinois. Rauner’s campaign chose Target as its media firm. By the end of the race, the campaign had paid Target $15 million to make media buys, while C5 received more than $500,000 for its services.

These arrangements started to become conspicuously convoluted. In 2014, Target was working for David Perdue’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. In that same race, C5 was retained by an outside group supporting Perdue (who is Ayers’ distant relation by marriage). Under federal election law, a campaign and outside groups can’t coordinate spending on any form of political communication, advertising included. To avoid allegations of coordination, vendors that work with both a campaign and outside groups typically create a firewall ensuring that no knowledge of the campaign’s “plans, projects, activities or needs” is shared. After reporters commented on Ayers’ role, he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Target had instituted a firewall.

Both Rauner and Perdue won their races, which only served to burnish Ayers’ reputation as a Republican wunderkind. But despite all the business he was bringing to Target, Ayers never fully immersed himself in the company’s operations. “It was very hard to even get Nick on the phone,” someone who worked for the firm recalled. “If you needed him, you might not be able to find him for two days.” By early 2015, Ayers had left his partnership. Yet a relationship of sorts continued. On his White House disclosure form, which spans from 2015 to September 2017, he listed a “business partnership with Target.” And for every campaign he worked on after leaving the firm, Target served as a media buyer.

IN THE RUNUP TO THE 2016 ELECTION, Ayers was busier than ever. His most high-profile assignment was an attempt to rescue Indiana governor Mike Pence’s foundering reelection effort. [5] On March 29, 2015, Mike Pence gave an excruciating interview to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. The Indiana governor repeatedly dodged the question of whether a new bill he’d just signed into law would enable discrimination against gay customers. As activists called for companies to avoid doing business in Indiana, Pence’s poll numbers plummeted.Ayers had pitched Pence on Target back in 2011. Pence didn’t use the firm, but had warmed to the young operative, not least because he was a fellow evangelical. “Ayers is very religious and Mike liked that about him,” said a Pence ally.

Ayers also spent 2016 talking up a new media arbitrage fund that would purchase TV advertising slots and resell them for a profit to campaigns of both parties, according to two sources pitched on the idea. He used his extensive Rolodex to enlist potential investors, including Texan oil and gas magnate Toby Neugebauer. After Trump won the nomination, Ayers acted as a part-time, unpaid adviser for the Trump campaign but kept pitching the arbitrage fund. “He assumed Trump was going to lose,” said someone he confided in at the time. “So he hedged himself.”

But perhaps his most ambitious venture was an effort to create his own political star—a candidate with the potential to one day go all the way to the White House. Eric Greitens, a candidate for governor of Missouri, was a GOP consultant’s dream. The 41-year-old was an intensely ambitious, chisel-jawed former Navy SEAL and Rhodes scholar turned best-selling author. [6] He reserved the domain name EricGreitensFor
President.com when he was only 34 years old.He had also been a lifelong Democrat until shortly before he entered the GOP primary. Greitens championed transparency in campaign finance. “We’ve already seen other candidates set up these secretive super PACs where they don’t take any responsibility for what they’re funding,” he said in a radio interview. “Because that’s how the game has always been played.”

After Ayers signed on as the campaign’s lead strategist in the summer of 2015, his influence quickly became visible. “Eric was a chalkboard, a very, very blank, black chalkboard. And Nick wrote in white chalk on the chalkboard whatever he wanted,” said a former member of the campaign who’d observed them together. Greitens replaced his campaign manager with a 20-year-old from Georgia named Austin Chambers. A Republican consultant described Chambers to me as Ayers’ “place holder.”

Greitens with a semi-automatic weapon in one of his notorious campaign ads.

Under Chambers’ watch, the money flowed to some familiar names. Target was ultimately paid $21 million to buy media for the Greitens campaign. The digital team was replaced by a Target offshoot called BASK (the A stands for “Ayers”). And a C5 client called Something Else Strategies, a creative firm, was enlisted to produce ads, including one of Greitens firing a machine gun at “Obama’s Democrat machine.” Meanwhile, Ayers talked up Greitens at RGA meetings and introduced him around to donors. “We all thought Greitens was a golden boy,” the Pence ally told me. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, however, would question Greitens’ “oddly national” fundraising effort, which included sizable donations from people like Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and the now-disgraced Silicon Valley venture capitalist Michael Goguen: “Why would scores of business tycoons from Manhattan to Silicon Valley lavish contributions … on a political novice running in a primary election for governor of a Midwestern state where none of them live?”

Ayers would later give The Missouri Times an insight into the campaign’s strategy. It was important for Greitens not to peak early, he explained, or the other three contenders would have too much time to tear him down. As it happened, a dark money-funded super PAC would play a useful role. In the early summer of 2016, LG PAC started airing negative ads against two candidates in the GOP primary, seemingly on behalf of a third: Peter Kinder, the state’s sitting lieutenant governor, or LG. But LG PAC had nothing to do with Kinder. Near the end of the primary, it would emerge that the group was actually backing Greitens. It was an extremely clever ploy. By giving the impression that Kinder was the source of the attacks, LG PAC made Kinder look sleazy. [7] Kinder has said he did not purchase any negative advertising.It also allowed Greitens to maintain a lower profile, not to mention his image as a campaign finance crusader. Kinder told people the episode was the dirtiest political trick he’d witnessed in his career.

After the negative ads started airing, reporters unearthed video footage that captured Greitens talking with the LG PAC treasurer, Hank Monsees, at a May 19 campaign event. People started raising the possibility of illegal coordination. A photograph posted on Facebook showed Monsees on a phone in Greitens’ war room, apparently making calls for the campaign. (Monsees told The Associated Press that he was sitting down by the phones because he has a bad back. Asked why he had a phone to his ear in the photo, he said, “I may have played with the phones or something, but I made no calls.”) The chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party filed a complaint with the state ethics commission, which was dismissed. “The Ethics Commission is formed to be weak and able to do very little, and in this case they did very little,” said Scott Faughn, the publisher of The Missouri Times and a former politician. After Greitens won easily, the controversy over dark money died down. On January 9, 2017, he was sworn in with Ayers and Chambers at his side.

Almost a year later, however, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, discovered a financial connection between LG PAC and Ayers. LG PAC’s sole funder was Freedom Frontier, a dark money nonprofit based outside Missouri that appears to have operated almost exclusively in the Greitens race that election cycle. On Ayers’ White House disclosure form, Freedom Frontier is listed as a client of C5 that he had personally worked for, during a very similar time frame. In national races governed by the Federal Election Commission, and in most states, it would be illegal for a campaign to coordinate with outside groups on ads. In Missouri, however, the laws on coordination are less explicit.

Freedom Frontier is no small-time advocacy outfit. It is part of an influential network of dark money groups that funnels donor money into elections nationwide and is clustered around an Ohio lawyer named David Langdon. The network, by design, defies easy explanation—there are nonprofits that fund PACs that fund campaigns, a constellation of blandly named entities linked by the same few legal representatives. But what is clear is that such groups have become an invaluable weapon in elections. They enable candidates to keep a respectable distance from negative ads, which voters dislike. In addition, nonprofits like Freedom Frontier—so-called 501(c)(4)s—are permitted to conceal the identity of donors. Their primary purpose is supposed to be issue-oriented, rather than political, but violations are hard to prove and rarely penalized.

Paul Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, a government accountability think tank, said that laws on both the state and federal level have not caught up with the explosion of dark money groups after Citizens United. Regulations on coordination, he said, are “wholly inadequate.” Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, the election law expert, added, “People using these opaque nonprofits are sort of making a calculated risk that no election regulator will stand in and stop them.”

Ayers’ ties to the Langdon network go back years. [8] In 2012, C5 was paid to raise funds for two nonprofits in the Langdon network: Citizens for a Working America (CWA) and the Government Integrity Fund (GIF). Between 2015 and 2016, C5 received $60,000 from a super PAC called Maryland USA, which paid Langdon’s law firm over the same period. Then, in 2016, a super PAC called SEALS for Truth donated nearly $2 million to the Greitens gubernatorial campaign, on which Ayers was the strategist. At the time this was a record-breaking donation in Missouri. The super PAC’s only funder was a nonprofit called American Policy Coalition, whose secretary is Langdon.It would be considered highly unusual for a consultant of his caliber to simultaneously work on a campaign and for a dark money group supporting that campaign. “One would think Ayers had enough business not to need income from both a campaign and the dark money group doing its independent expenditures,” said former Missouri state senator Jeff Smith, who has the dubious distinction of being perhaps the only person in the state to do prison time for coordination with an independent group. “Being paid by both entities certainly raises questions around coordination.”

The link between Ayers and Freedom Frontier is precisely the kind of association that is nearly impossible to detect in real time under current campaign finance laws. The only reason CREW was able to make the connection was because Ayers had to list C5’s clients on his White House financial disclosure—which chief investigator Matt Corley likened to “a light being shined in the dark.” And for once, this was a discovery that would not simply fade away.

FROM LEFT: Greitens, Ayers and Pence.
5.
‘A LEAN AND HUNGRY LOOK’

CREDITS

STORY – VICKY WARD
Vicky is an editor-at-large at HuffPost. An investigative reporter and New York Times best-selling author, she is the former executive editor of Talk Magazine and was a contributing editor to Vanity Fair for 12 years.
RESEARCH – DELPHINE D’AMORA
CREATIVE DIRECTION & DESIGN – SANDRA GARCIA
Sandra is the creative director of Highline.
DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN – GLADEYE
Gladeye is a digital innovations agency in New Zealand and New York.
COLLAGE CREDITS
Collage 1: Jamie Ayers and their children: Twitter; Haley Barbour: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images; Sonny Perdue: Ric Feld/Bloomberg via Getty Images. Collage 2: David Bienstock: Flickr; Adam Stoll: Twitter; Palm trees, TVs: Getty Images. Collage 3: David Perdue: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Bruce Rauner: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call; Eric Greitens: Christian Gooden/St. Louis Post-Dispatch/TNS via Getty Images; Ayers with Tim Pawlenty and Alex Conant: Win McNamee/Getty Images; Collage 4: Mike Pence: Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images; Nick Ayers: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst.

Biltmore House, America’s Original McMansion

The Biltmore House, circa 1900.CreditJohn H. Tarbell/Library of Congress

THE LAST CASTLE
The Epic Story of Love, Loss and American Royalty in the Nation’s Largest Home
By Denise Kiernan
Illustrated. 388 pp. Touchstone. $28.

Three years ago, I toured Biltmore House, the 175,000-square-foot mansion in Asheville, N.C., that, on completion in 1895, became America’s largest private home. I found the labyrinth of rooms and architectural detail both intimidating and soulless. I recall thinking that, had I been alive and deemed suitable to merit an invitation in its heyday, I would have preferred one of the 66 bedrooms designated for the servants, in which I’d be less likely to get lost.

In “The Last Castle,” Denise Kiernan tries to reveal the answer to what is surely the greatest mystery for any of Biltmore’s million annual visitors: Who, exactly, conceived of such a huge undertaking? What kind of bachelor really wanted to inhabit a 250-room house, replete with an indoor swimming pool and bowling alley?

Kiernan hangs her dense narrative on a potential love story featuring an unlikely lead. George Washington Vanderbilt was the wealthiest grandson of Cornelius Vanderbilt, the cunning entrepreneur nicknamed Commodore because he got his start undercutting New York ferry services, an enterprise he expanded into a network of steamships and railways. George’s father, William, inherited the Commodore’s nose for business and doubled his $90 million inheritance within six years, accumulating what Kiernan describes as the “greatest fortune in America, very possibly in the world.”

Photo

All eyes, inevitably, are on young George from the first chapter of “The Last Castle,” but he never lives up to our expectations, no matter how hard the author tries. Kiernan, who lives in Asheville, recounts her difficulty in finding original sources that reveal much about Vanderbilt. But, one wonders, even if all his letters had been kept, would he have been worth her while?

An inheritor who never worked, Vanderbilt lived with and was inseparable from his mother, Maria. Only upon her death, in 1896, did her son, then 34, half-heartedly consider finding a wife. His friend William Bradhurst Osgood Field (whom I find the book’s most entertaining character) warns in exasperation to his mother while Vanderbilt is courting the New York blue blood Edith Dresser: “I think his attachment, in whatever quarter it might lie, would be on a basis of business, as the rest hardly comes into his constitution.”

While single, Vanderbilt had decided to outdo all his friends on the so-called Four Hundred — the Gilded Age’s equivalent of the 1 percent — by building himself a monster mansion in Asheville, where the air was good for his health. The name Biltmore, it emerges, is a compression of “Bilt,” an ancestral name, and “moor.” Vanderbilt stamped the name not just on his own land but on local institutions like the post office — a gesture that, unsurprisingly, met with “Anti-Biltmore” protests and complaints about “snobbery.” Chiefly, then, the estate was a vanity project, one that turned out to be financially disastrous despite the best efforts of Edith, whom he eventually married and who was central to creating the flourishing artisan business that remains the heart of Asheville today.

Biltmore House survived as a private entity for under 40 years before the 1929 stock market crash put the remaining Vanderbilts’ fortunes in peril. The bulk of the 125,000-acre estate, in which Vanderbilt had experimented with America’s first managed forest, had to be sold off quickly. Cornelia Vanderbilt, George and Edith’s only child, could stand to live in her inheritance for only seven years before the debts and the boredom crushed her. She abandoned her British husband, John Cecil, as well as their two young children, George and William, and headed, ultimately, for England, where she changed her name, married twice more and is buried in the Orkney Islands in an unmarked grave. (Tellingly, the Cecils, not the Vanderbilts, were the ones who found a way to make the estate’s core commercially successful. They are the reason the house is open to the public today.)

Kiernan’s wider lens on the Gilded Age compensates for her protagonists’ insipidness. The book’s vitality lies in the details she reveals about the architects, writers, artists and peers of the Vanderbilts who spent time at Biltmore. A particularly comic but perhaps truthful voice is that of Henry James, who complained, after he had trouble finding a bathroom, that Biltmore was a “colossal heartbreaking house” seemingly built “based on a fundamental ignorance of comfort and wondrous deludedness.”

Kushner Again: How He Helped Push Trump Into A Ditch In Alabama

Once again, President Donald Trump finds himself in trouble after taking political advice from his son-in-law.

Over the last few months, Jared Kushner, who is also a White House senior adviser, was chief among those who lobbied the president to endorse Luther Strange, the losing candidate in Tuesday’s Republican Senate primary in Alabama.

According to two sources who work closely with the young real estate tycoon, Kushner suggested the endorsement, in part, because he believed that a Strange victory would enrage Steve Bannon, the newly reinstalled executive chairman of Breitbart News and a nemesis of Kushner’s from their time together in the Trump White House. Bannon backed the primary winner, Roy Moore, who thinks that homosexuality should be criminalized and suggested this week that parts of the United States are operating under Sharia.

Kushner also thought that getting Trump to support Strange would improve his own tenuous standing with Republican leaders in the Senate, according to several allies of Bannon. “He’s going to need them if things go south in the Russia investigation,” one explained.

The senatorial primary between Strange and Moore was widely viewed as a proxy war between the Republican Party’s establishment forces and its white nationalist fringe. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate majority leader, strongly supported Strange. Bannon, on the other hand, suggested at a rally for Moore on Monday that a “reckoning is coming” not just for McConnell, but for all the “donors” and “corporatists” he believes run the party.

That Trump ultimately supported Strange, tweeting on his behalf and attending a campaign event for him last week, was puzzling to many of the president’s supporters, given his strained relationship with McConnell and his sympathies for Bannon’s populist worldview. Presidents rarely endorse one candidate over another in a primary election. But Kushner was a critical early voice in convincing the president to take a side. McConnell and Rick Dearborn, the White House deputy chief of staff, also were instrumental at various points in the process. Sources close to Bannon noted that Trump first tweeted about Strange on Aug. 8, when Kushner was with the president at his country club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

“No senior adviser to the president in their right mind would ever lead the president to get involved in a primary, let alone a highly contested one that pitted his own base against him,” said Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to Trump ― and a close friend of Bannon’s. “Anyone with a pulse knew that Luther was going to lose the runoff. Luther barely survived the primary.”

The president hadn’t paid attention to the race until recently. According to three sources with direct knowledge, when Moore emerged victorious in the three-candidate first round of voting last month, winning 39 percent, Trump asked confidants: “Who’s he?”

Kushner started advocating for Trump to back Strange after speaking with veteran Republican strategist Jeff Roe. Roe, who is friendly with Kushner, ran Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) presidential campaign in 2016 and was hired by Strange earlier this year. Roe sent Kushner emails loaded with polling data that suggested Strange would win easily over Moore and the third candidate in August’s primary election, Rep. Mo Brooks. Kushner forwarded those emails  “to appropriate parties,” a White House official said.

Kushner was also alerted to the fact that Brooks had called Trump a “serial adulterer” during the 2016 primary, when Brooks was supporting Cruz. Trump, several sources say, had no idea that Brooks disparaged him until Kushner passed along the news, and it sunk any chances of Trump endorsing him. (The White House official denied this, saying Kushner never spoke about Brooks or the Alabama race to the president.)

Backing Strange, then, seemed like an obvious choice to Kushner. Several sources close to both Moore and Bannon said they believe Kushner wanted to show McConnell that he had real influence with the president ― and that he wanted to show Trump he knew how to win.

“All Jared thinks about is beating Bannon,” said a well-connected friend of the Breitbart chief. “It consumed him before Bannon left the White House, and it consumes him now.” That sentiment was confirmed to me by a source who knows Kushner well and has a more positive view of him. (The White House official dismissed the anti-Bannon notion as “totally untrue.”)

But Kushner misread the mood of Alabama Republicans. Moore won this week’s race by 10 percentage points. And shortly thereafter, ProPublica discovered that Trump had deleted his previous tweets supporting Strange. According to CNN, Trump went to bed on Tuesday night “embarrassed and pissed.”  

Breitbart wasted little time in highlighting Kushner’s “awful advice.” An article Wednesday noted that Kushner has a “disturbing pattern” of getting the president in trouble, referencing Kushner’s suggestion that Trump fire former FBI director James Comey. This time, according to Breitbart, Kushner stands accused of dividing Trump from his base. “He has succeeded in doing the only thing that could be fatal to Trump’s presidency and re-election prospects — driven a wedge between the president and his supporters.”

What’s clear, explained someone who has good relations with both Bannon and Kushner, is that the feud between the two of them shows no signs of dying down ― and that Bannon’s side will offer little grace in victory. “Kushner wants to show Trump he is the smarter of the two, but it is not working,” said a friend of Bannon’s.

Two sources confirmed that Trump told confidants Tuesday night that while he is not pleased that Bannon’s candidate won, he is not upset at his former strategic adviser. What he feels about Kushner and his role in the Alabama fiasco is not known.

Trump Lawyer Insists In Planned Senate Testimony He Never Colluded With Russia

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee originally scheduled for Tuesday, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer plans to insist he never colluded with Russia during the 2016 election and to outline the public scrutiny he and his family have faced.

“Let me be totally clear that I am innocent of the allegations raised against me in the public square, which are based upon misinformation and unnamed or unverifiable sources,” reads the statement by Michael Cohen, which he was set to read before the committee and which was provided to HuffPost. (Read his full opening statement here.)

As the former executive vice president of the Trump Organization, Cohen has long been one of the president’s closest advisers.

He was scheduled to testify before a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Lawmakers subpoenaed him in their investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the presidential campaign and whether members of Trump’s campaign or inner circle were involved in those efforts.

In his statement to the committee, Cohen sticks up not only for himself but for the president as well, saying he saw “not a hint of anything” that showed any involvement in Russian interference.

“I’m also certain that there are some in this country who do not care about the facts, but simply want to politicize this issue, choosing to presume guilt ― rather than presuming innocence ― so as to discredit our lawfully elected president in the public eye and to shame his supporters in the public square … this is un-American,” Cohen’s statement says.

Cohn has faced increased attention since he was named in a dossier prepared by a former British spy who claimed the lawyer had an important role in an “ongoing secret liaison relationship” between Trump officials and Russia. The document, first published by BuzzFeed, said Cohen had traveled to Prague to meet with Kremlin officials about getting involved in the election.

Cohen was set to deny that allegation in his testimony Tuesday, saying he was “in Los Angeles with my son who dreams of playing division 1 baseball next year at a prestigious university like USC. We were visiting the campus, meeting with various coaches, and discussing his future.”

The statement says the dossier damaged his reputation and the continuing scrutiny has taken a toll on his family ― as well as on other people around the country who dare to show their support for Trump publicly.

“My wife and I have been married for 23 years, and are now entering the season of our lives when we get to watch our children become adults themselves,” Cohen’s statement says. “My daughter, who is at an Ivy League school, and my wife, who is of Ukrainian descent, have especially been subjected to harassment, insults and threats … some so severe I cannot share them in mixed company.”

“You might say that the experiences I am living through are the cost of being in the public eye, but they shouldn’t be as I am not a government official,” he continues. “Many Trump supporting Americans are also paying this cost, like the twelve year old child in Missouri who was beaten up for wearing a Make America Great Again hat.”

Cohen also reached out to the Kremlin during the campaign for help on plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

In his prepared statement to the Senate, Cohen says the Trump Tower proposal was rejected in January 2016, “before the Iowa caucus and months before the very first primary.”

“This was solely a real estate deal and nothing more,” the statement says. “I was doing my job.”

CNN reported that Cohen was not expected to be under oath during his appearance Tuesday. Donald Trump Jr. also recently spoke behind closed doors to Senate Judiciary Committee staffers. He is expected to testify publicly before the committee this fall.

“If we really are concerned about a Russian attempt to divide our country and discredit our political system then the best thing we can do is put aside our infighting, stop presuming guilt rather than innocence of American citizens, and address this national security threat as a united people at its source,” Cohen was set to testify. “Otherwise, the priorities of the American people will continue to be neglected, and the Russians will use our distraction to continue to harm us from the shadows while we harm each other in front of the camera lights.”

UPDATE: 5:34 p.m. ― The Senate Intelligence Committee canceled its meeting with Cohen on Tuesday, reportedly because he violated an agreement not to speak to the media by circulating his statement beforehand. Cohen’s lawyer told reporters that they provided his opening statement to the media because the fact of his appearance before the committee was leaked to the press, and it was public knowledge that he would be there.

“That statement was factual,” said Stephen Ryan, Cohen’s attorney. “It was accurate. It was respectful, and we stand behind that statement.”

Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and ranking member Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) released a statement confirming that they had canceled Cohen’s interview because he released his testimony to the media.

“We were disappointed that Mr. Cohen decided to pre-empt today’s interview by releasing a public statement prior to his engagement with Committee staff, in spite of the Committee’s requests that he refrain from public comment,” they said. “As a result, we declined to move forward with today’s interview and will reschedule Mr. Cohen’s appearance before the Committee in open session at a date in the near future. The Committee expects witnesses in this investigation to work in good faith with the Senate.”

On Tuesday afternoon, the committee put out a statement saying it was inviting Cohen to testify publicly at 10:00 a.m. on Oct. 25.

Blackwater’s Erik Prince On How He Got Into The White House

WASHINGTON ― Last week at Fort Myer military base in Virginia, President Donald Trump gave a speech outlining his new policy in Afghanistan, which was in fact not so very different from the previous administration’s policy in Afghanistan.

“My original instinct was to pull out. And historically, I like following my instincts,” Trump said. “But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office ― in other words, when you’re president of the United States.”

He went on to say that he would be sending more troops ― estimates have suggested around 4,000 ― without committing to any deadlines for pulling out.

Trump’s U-turn came as bad news to Erik Prince, founder of the private security company formerly called Blackwater, whose employees were accused of committing a number of crimes during the Iraq War, including the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad, on Sept. 16, 2007. The incident sparked numerous federal investigations, and Prince sold the company in 2010.

Now he’s the chairman of Frontier Services Group, a logistics company based in the United Arab Emirates, and he feels newly emboldened by Trump’s election. In May, the 48-year-old former Navy SEAL wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal advocating a completely different solution in Afghanistan. Prince’s five-point plan suggested that, instead of sending U.S. troops, private contracted soldiers ― including U.S. and NATO veterans, Prince has said elsewhere ― should be used alongside U.S. Special Forces troops. They would serve under the command of a “viceroy,” who would coordinate all military strategy and report to the president.

“There are too many cooks,” Prince wrote, outlining the financial waste (approximately $1 trillion) and the massive damage to U.S. lives (around 2,000 deaths and 20,000 injuries) since the war began 16 years ago.

Prince’s views are popular with some inside the White House and on Capitol Hill, where he is scheduled to meet with 50 members of Congress next week. I met with him on Monday in Washington, D.C., to discuss how close he came to convincing the administration to go his way and what he plans to do for the rest of Trump’s tenure. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Your Wall Street Journal piece got a lot of attention in Washington. Did you ever speak to the president about it?

We didn’t meet about it, but he read it, and I’m told he circulated it around. I wrote it for an audience of one, and it worked.

This was after [national security adviser] H.R. McMaster had asked for 70,000, 80,000 troops. McMaster basically wanted a redo of the Obama surge, where we have tens of thousands of Americans come back to Afghanistan and do the fighting there. I think that’s a bad idea. I think the president did, too.

So Trump reads it. Then what happens?

Well, I get calls from McMaster and from [then-White House chief strategist] Steve Bannon. They say, “Hey, the president saw your article. Please come in and tell us what you were thinking.” So I came in, and I gave a presentation [to Bannon, McMaster and then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus] that fleshed out more of the points made in the op-ed and hit the notion of vetting contractors and all the rest.

Your use of the word “viceroy” in the op-ed stirred up a lot of controversy, raising questions of colonial power and accountability. Surely, the Afghans would not want to answer to a viceroy?

To be very clear, when I say a viceroy, that is not to rule over Afghanistan, but rather to harmonize what has been a very chaotic U.S. policy. Between the Department of Defense, the Department of State and the CIA in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there has been no unity of commands. Seventeen commanders in 16 years. Come on. It’s a joke. It’s embarrassing.

Talk me through the timeline. You write the piece. You get called in to talk with McMaster and Bannon and Priebus and …

And H.R. automatically hates it.

Does he say that to you?

Pretty much.

In other words, he’s called you in because the president is interested in your ideas, not because he wants to meet you.

Correct. I went through the slides, and he completely discounted it. The nature of the questions he asked made it clear that it was going to be an all-Army solution, period.

Give me an example.

I pointed out the challenge of deploying U.S. troops the way they had been for 16 years, where they go for six or nine months and they leave and all that local knowledge leaves with them.

Here’s the thing. Every U.S. trooper is statistically at the highest risk for the first 60 days they’re in country, because most of those guys, it’s their first deployment and they’re figuring it out. Meanwhile, the same Taliban that have been there for 16 years, the ones that have survived, are the smartest, most capable fighters.

They see the Americans come and go every six to nine months. They know exactly how they patrol. They know exactly how they clear mines. They know exactly how they communicate. They know exactly the response times for aircraft. They know the deal, so doing the same thing for another 16 or 17 years means the outcome is going to be the same. It’s like the last two kids that were killed two weeks ago, blown up in a roadside bomb in their fully armored vehicle. Terrible. What a loss. What a waste.

What was McMaster’s response to that argument?

He largely just refused to answer, and I wasn’t there to debate him. I was there to pitch an idea.

What happened after the meeting?

Steve and Reince liked the concept. They saw it as something the president would or should consider. A couple weeks later, I got a call from Steve saying, “OK, lay it out. Figure out what that costs. And tell me exactly because the typical Beltway pundits will discount a low number.”

So I did a very hard number: 91 aircraft, 84,000 flight hours, all the food, fuel, ordinance, man days, insurance, 3,200 ground mentors [Special Forces members or contractors who attach to Afghan army battalions], the whole thing. It comes out to about five and a half thousand personnel. It was 7 percent of what they’re spending now, way less than $4 billion.

Still, if you got what you suggested, you’d get a big cut from that, no?

What I’d say is that Elon Musk advocates for private space flight. Is he demonized for that? I would be very happy to compete for a solution that saves American lives and saves the taxpayers $40 billion a year. I will not apologize for that in any way.

You wrote about the vulnerability of air power in Afghanistan. Presumably you also mentioned that in your meeting?

Yes. The U.S. has completely failed to deliver on this. There is no adequate Afghan air force, ranging from maintenance deficiencies to pilot training shortages to operational support capability.

My old company, we used to have 26 aircraft in Afghanistan doing that kind of support for the U.S. Army. So even as large as the U.S. military is ― and it’s the most expensive military in the world ― they still had a requirement for extra aviation capacity. So they rented it from the private sector. I thought, Why don’t they let the Afghans do the same thing?

The premise of what I’m laying out with ground mentors and with the air package is that they serve as an adjunct in the Afghan forces, wearing an Afghan uniform, Afghan rules of engagement. The premise of this is a true Afghan-ization.

One big question is what happens if something goes wrong, like it did in Iraq with Blackwater. Who is accountable?

Sure, if the guys do an evil act, they can be held to account under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a trial held in Kabul. I thought long and hard about that. A cell of JAG [Judge Advocate General] lawyers can be detailed to handle this for the contractors that are there, just like they’re there for any active duty forces.

I assume your position on this is related to the yearslong case against a few Blackwater contractors for the killing of 14 people in Iraq.

Well, a week and a half ago, the appeals court threw out the murder conviction [of Nicholas Slatten, who had been sentenced to life in prison], and they threw out the sentences of the other guys. It was a pretty stinging review of the federal government. They still have to be resentenced. I think they’ll get time served.

The issue there was this: If the government had asked us, we would have preferred to be under the Uniform Code of Military Justice [which regularly tries military crimes where they occur], because all the guys that were doing that job were former military veterans. They know the deal. Having the trial close to battle makes way more sense than [having it] 7,000 miles away in a D.C. courtroom with people who have fortunately never seen the aftereffects of a car bomb. But the State Department prohibited that because they didn’t want their people [civilian government employees] held under that standard.

Subscribe to the Politics email
How will Trump’s administration impact you?

Why?

Don’t get me started on the State Department.

Why?

It was a turf issue between the agencies. Leave it at that.

OK, back to your discussions with the administration. After Bannon and McMaster and Priebus, who did you talk to next?

I saw [Defense Secretary Jim] Mattis three weeks after that first meeting at the White House, and he just fired away with questions ― practical questions ― for an hour. They were questions like: How could the men operate? Under what authority? How would they be accountable? Basically, how would this actually work? He is a historian. He gets it, He was not as quick to discard [my ideas] as many in the Pentagon bubble would be.

But he also pushed back. He said, Why do you say we have to change the rules of engagement [so a viceroy could have greater autonomy]? I showed him pictures of open-air Taliban victory parades in Afghanistan, dozens of captured U.S. vehicles, hundreds of Taliban fighters with their Taliban flag beating their chests, hoorah. They’re winning.

I later heard from multiple people at NSC [the National Security Council] that Secretary Mattis said at a national security Cabinet meeting that I gave the best analysis of the root problems that have to be fixed in Afghanistan of any he’s seen.

Who were you picturing as a viceroy? A civilian? A military person?

Absolutely not a general. We have enough generals. I was thinking about a guy who had a military and intelligence background in his early career, who spent a long time in business, was very successful at it, and who’s also done something very senior in the intelligence community.

It’s not for everybody because that job will, of course, be vilified. You’re making difficult decisions. He’s going to leave a life of total luxury here and go live in a place where he’s worried about being blown up.

Do you know many people like that?

I know one.

Who?

I’ll just say that I floated a name to Steve [Bannon]. He liked it. I took him in and he met him.

You took the viceroy candidate to the White House?

Yeah, but again, it’s a moot point.

Did he meet the president?

No, but the president knows him and his wife pretty well. And we’ll have to leave it at that.

The weekend before Trump made his Afghan announcement, he went to Camp David with many members of his Cabinet and national security teams. I heard you were supposed to be there, too.

I was called by three or four reporters saying they wanted comment because they heard I was supposed to go. That was news to me. We were actually at that time hosting a bunch of wounded veterans at my family’s ranch out in Wyoming.

But I think it was a sliding door moment because my concern is that the only people in that room who challenged the consensus were Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions, who I understand spoke passionately about the need to just leave because it’s a mess, and [Office of Management and Budget director] Mick Mulvaney, who as the budget guy said, “Don’t keep signing up for $50 billion forever.” If there’d been another voice there who could have spoken rationally on a cheaper way to accomplish the mission without having to have a whole bunch of uniform forces to do it, it might have carried the day. If Steve Bannon had not been fired, he would have been the voice.

Why do you think the president made the decision he did on Afghanistan?

I think it was partly because of the fiasco in Charlottesville and all the media heat from that. I don’t think the president wanted to take any more pounding doing anything different in Afghanistan, so he went with the most establishment-type position. [Republican Sens.] Lindsey Graham and John McCain are praising him for it. That’s pretty much the Beltway establishment.

Do you have thoughts on Charlottesville?

We’ll narrow the scope of the interview and leave that out of it. I’m not going to give you multiple avenues to attack me. I still remember that recorder’s running.

Do you think that Trump will ever change course in Afghanistan?

I think the Afghan war has largely been ignored for the last eight years, and now that it’s Mr. Trump’s war, every casualty, every loss of an Afghan base will be reported, and they will hang it around his neck.

So the door isn’t closed for you and your ideas?

I don’t know. I would say, politically and operationally, the president needs to figure out how to end this thing. It’s his supporters who are doing the fighting and dying. I just saw a study that said that casualties were one of the big issues that swung voters to Trump in districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They liked that he was outspoken. “Hey, let’s stop the same insanity we’ve been doing.”

Did you and Steve Bannon ever talk about using private contractors in areas beyond Afghanistan?

I’ve given other suggestions of places.

Where did you suggest?

That’s for next time. I’ll just say that there are a lot of places [where] the fires of insurgency have to be put out because these constant failed states export terrorism and refugees. That’s bad.

Have you ever met the president?

I’ve met him. I certainly met him during the transition. It was at an event; it was not preplanned. But I never met him on this.

What are your feelings about his presidency so far?

I still have high hopes that as a businessman who has restructured problematic or failing efforts, that he’s still going to come to the right conclusion on this.

Let’s move to the report in The Washington Post that claimed that the UAE, where your firm is based, set up a meeting in the Seychelles in January between you and someone close to Putin, with the idea that you’d create a “back channel” between the incoming Trump administration and Russia.

That was honestly a private business meeting that came about because [a Middle Eastern businessman I was talking to] said, “Hey, there’s this Russian guy you should meet.” I had a beer. I think he had a vodka. It was a quick meeting. I can drink a beer fast.

So the allegations of you setting up secret back channels …

Zero, totally baseless. The bizarre thing is, it’s connected to the left’s whole fantasy about this Trump-Russia election collusion, right? So I met with some Russian investment manager whose name I don’t remember in January, which is two months after the election. So if this grand conspiracy is true, why the hell would I need to meet with any Russians for any back channel stuff?

And the thing that really bothers me about it is the only reason The Washington Post got the story ― and I have zero doubt about this ― is from signals intelligence that the Obama administration was leaking. [Editor’s note: No proof of this has been reported.]

I don’t want to live in a bureaucratic super state with unlimited surveillance powers. There should be certain rights and privileges a citizen enjoys, and having your private business communications leaked by the security apparatus by a political party for political ends, that is full-stop wrong.

Did you write anyone to complain?

There are some electrons not worth wasting.

You seem very aware of the fact that you became a villain during the Iraq War.

Look, in World War II, the hard-core anti-war left went after the troops. In Iraq, they went after the contractors. It was politics. Blackwater represented everything they loved to hate and I was the sole owner. I didn’t have a board with a bunch of former generals. I didn’t pay all the Republican Party and the Democratic Party fundraising apparatuses, but it was a business group that executed exactly what the customer needed us to do. We grew and performed. It was actually built on merit, and politics always trumps merit.

It seemed as if you disappeared after the war ― at least until the WSJ op-ed.

Here’s the thing. In the Obama administration, I stopped trying. There was no point. Now, there’s a chance for a fair hearing.

You must enjoy feeling like you’re back in the game.

Well, I put everything else on hold to push a different approach in Afghanistan, and it’s been a big goose egg so far.

Do you think you’d revive Blackwater domestically?

Maybe. I still own the name. But I have no plans to start a U.S. defense contracting business.

Still, I would encourage any objective observer of all the insurgencies going on around the world to ask which one of them has the U.S. actually, directly assisted in ending. Which one?

Let the record show the witness said zero.