The Blow-It-All-Up Billionaires

Last December, about a month before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Rebekah Mercer arrived at Stephen Bannon’s office in Trump Tower, wearing a cape over a fur-trimmed dress and her distinctive diamond-studded glasses. Tall and imposing, Rebekah, known to close friends as Bekah, is the 43-year-old daughter of the reclusive billionaire Robert Mercer. If Trump was an unexpected victor, the Mercers were unexpected kingmakers. More established names in Republican politics, such as the Kochs and Paul Singer, had sat out the general election. But the Mercers had committed millions of dollars to a campaign that often seemed beyond salvaging.

That support partly explains how Rebekah secured a spot on the executive committee of the Trump transition team. She was the only megadonor to frequent Bannon’s sanctum, a characteristically bare-bones space containing little more than a whiteboard, a refrigerator and a conference table. Unlike the other offices, it also had a curtain so no one could see what was happening inside. Before this point, Rebekah’s resume had consisted of a brief run trading stocks and bonds (including at her father’s hedge fund), a longer stint running her family’s foundation and, along with her two sisters, the management of an online gourmet cookie shop called Ruby et Violette. Now, she was compiling lists of potential candidates for a host of official positions, the foot soldiers who would remake (or unmake) the United States government in Trump’s image.

Rebekah wasn’t a regular presence at Trump Tower. She preferred working from her apartment in Trump Place, which was in fact six separate apartments that she and her husband had combined into an opulent property more than twice the size of Gracie Mansion. Still, it quickly became clear to her new colleagues that she wasn’t content just to chip in with ideas. She wanted decision-making power. To her peers on the executive committee, she supported Alabama senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general and General Michael Flynn for national security adviser, but argued against naming Mitt Romney secretary of state. Her views on these matters were heard, according to several people on and close to the transition leadership. Rebekah was less successful when she lobbied hard for John Bolton, the famously hawkish former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, to be deputy secretary of state. And when Bolton was not named to any position, she made her displeasure known. “I know it sounds sexist, but she was whiny as hell,” says one person who watched her operate. Almost everyone interviewed for this article, supporters and detractors alike, described her style as far more forceful than that of other powerful donors.
But then the Mercers aren’t typical donors in most senses beyond their extreme wealth. (The exact number of their billions is unknown.) Robert Mercer is a youthful-looking 70. As a boy growing up in New Mexico, he carried around a notebook filled with computer programs he had written. “It’s very unlikely that any of them actually worked,” he has said. “I didn’t get to use a real computer until after high school.” Robert went on to work for decades at IBM, where he had a reputation as a brilliant computer scientist. He made his vast fortune in his 50s, after his work on predicting financial markets led to his becoming co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies, one of the world’s most successful quantitative hedge funds. A longtime colleague, David Magerman, recalls that when Robert began working at Renaissance in 1993, he and his wife, Diana, were “grounded, sweet people.” (Magerman was suspended from Renaissance in February after making critical comments about Robert in The Wall Street Journal.) But “money changed all that,” he says. “Diana started jetting off to Europe and flying to their yacht on weekends. The girls were used to getting what they wanted.”
At Renaissance, Robert was an eccentric among eccentrics. The firm is legendary for shunning people with Wall Street or even conventional finance backgrounds, instead favoring scientists and original thinkers. Robert himself, by all accounts, is extremely introverted. Rarely seen in public, he likes to spend his free time with his wife and three daughters. When, in 2014, Robert accepted an award from the Association for Computational Linguistics, he recalled, in a soft voice and with quiet humor, his consternation at being informed that he was expected to give “an oration on some topic or another for an hour, which, by the way, is more than I typically talk in a month.” Sebastian Mallaby’s account of the hedge-fund elite, More Money Than God, describes him as an “icy cold” poker player who doesn’t remember having a nightmare. He likes model trains, having once purchased a set for $2.7 million, and has acquired one of the country’s largest collections of machine guns.

For years, Robert has embraced a supercharged libertarianism with idiosyncratic variations. He is reportedly pro-death penalty, pro-life and pro-gold standard. He has contributed to an ad campaign opposing the construction of the ground zero mosque; Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, a group that is associated with fringe scientific claims; and Black Americans for a Better Future—a vehicle, the Intercept discovered, for an African-American political consultant who has accused Barack Obama of “relentless pandering to homosexuals.” Magerman, Robert’s former colleague at Renaissance, recalls him saying, in front of coworkers, words to the effect that “your value as a human being is equivalent to what you are paid. … He said that, by definition, teachers are not worth much because they aren’t paid much.” His beliefs were well-known at the firm, according to Magerman. But since Robert was so averse to publicity, his ideology wasn’t seen as a cause for concern. “None of us ever thought he would get his views out, because he only talked to his cats,” Magerman told me.

Robert’s middle daughter Rebekah shares similar political beliefs, but she is also very articulate and, therefore, able to act as her father’s mouthpiece. (Neither Rebekah nor Robert responded to detailed lists of questions for this article.) Under Rebekah’s leadership, the family foundation poured some $70 million into conservative causes between 2009 and 2014. [1]

  1. According to The Washington Post, the family donated $35 million to conservative think tanks and at least to $36.5 million to individual GOP races. The first candidate they threw their financial weight behind was Arthur Robinson, a chemist from Oregon who was running for Congress. He was best known in his district for co-founding an organization that is collecting thousands of vials of urine as part of an effort it says will “revolutionize the evaluation of personal chemistry.” Robinson didn’t win, but he got closer than expected, and the Mercers got a taste of what their money could do. In 2011, they made one of their most consequential investments: a reported $10 million in a new right-wing media operation called Breitbart.

“I DON’T KNOW ANY OF YOUR FANCY FRIENDS,” ROBERT MERCER TOLD SHELDON ADELSON, “AND I HAVEN’T GOT ANY INTEREST IN KNOWING THEM.”

That the family gravitated toward Andrew Breitbart’s upstart website was no accident. The Mercers are “purists,” says Pat Caddell, a former aide to Jimmy Carter who has shifted to the right over the years. They believe Republican elites are too cozy with Wall Street and too soft on immigration, and that American free enterprise and competition are in mortal danger. “Bekah Mercer might be prepared to put a Democrat in Susan Collins’ seat simply to rid the party of Susan Collins,” a family friend joked by way of illustrating her thinking. So intensely do the Mercers want to unseat Republican senator John McCain[2]

2. Some have speculated that McCain may have angered the Mercers in 2014, when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which McCain was the ranking member at the time, asserted that Renaissance had used complex financial methods to underestimate its taxes by $6 billion. Renaissance has told The New York Times its tax practices are lawful. that they gave $200,000 to support an opposing candidate who once held a town hall meeting to discuss chemtrails—chemicals, according to a long-standing conspiracy theory, that the federal government is spraying on the public without its knowledge. In short, unlike other donors, the Mercers are not merely angling to influence the Republican establishment—they want to obliterate it. One source told me that, in a meeting with Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer a few years ago, the casino mogul asked Robert if he was familiar with certain big Republican players. According to the source, Robert shut him down. “I don’t know any of your fancy friends,” he replied, “and I haven’t got any interest in knowing them.”

And so it seemed almost inevitable that their paths converged with Bannon’s when he took over Breitbart in 2012. The Mercers recognized Bannon as an ideological ally. They also appreciated how quickly he improved the website’s finances. Unlike many people in their orbit, Bannon wasn’t obsequious: According to one person who often spends time with them, he made zero effort to dress up around his benefactors, often appearing in sweatpants and “looking almost like a homeless person.” Bannon was respectful around Robert, says this person, but with Rebekah he was more apt to say precisely what he thought: “He worked for Bob; he worked with Rebekah.”

Although the Mercers had initially been persuaded to back Texas senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primary, Bannon preferred Trump, and by the time of the Republican National Convention the Mercers were with him. Rebekah made her move last August, at a fundraiser at the East Hampton estate of Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets. According to two sources, one who strategized with the Mercers and another who worked closely with Trump, Rebekah insisted on a 30-minute face-to-face meeting with Trump, in which she informed him that his campaign was a disaster. (Her family had pledged $2 million to the effort about a month earlier, so she felt comfortable being frank.) Trump, who knew her slightly, was willing to listen. He had been disturbed by recent stories detailing disorganization in his campaign and alleging ties between Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and pro-Russia officials in Ukraine. Rebekah knew of this and arrived at her meeting with “props,” says the source who strategized with the Mercers: printouts of news articles about Manafort and Russia that she brandished as evidence that he had to go. And she also had a solution in mind: Trump should put Bannon in charge of the campaign and hire the pollster Kellyanne Conway.[3]

3. Conway had worked for the Mercers’ super PAC.

By the following morning, Rebekah was breakfasting at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with the two people he trusts most, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, to talk through the proposal in more detail. Within four days, Trump did exactly as Rebekah had advised. Manafort was out. Bannon was in charge. Trump also brought on David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, with whom the Mercers and Bannon had been close for years. Less than four months later, Mercer’s handpicked team had pulled off one of the greatest upsets in American politics. Through a bizarre combination of daring and luck, the insurgents had won. Now, they were Trump’s version of the establishment—which is to say, a very volatile one.

On July Fourth weekend in 2014, members of the Mercer clan (Robert, Rebekah and her husband, Sylvain Mirochnikoff) went to visit some new friends. They traveled on Robert’s 203-foot luxury superyacht, the Sea Owl, and anchored just off the WASP enclave of Fishers Island in New York’s Long Island Sound. Their destination, a medieval-style granite castle called White Caps, towered over the shoreline. This was the summer home of Lee and Alice Hanley, Reagan conservatives who’d made their fortune in Texas oil and gas but lived mostly between Greenwich, Connecticut, and Palm Beach, Florida. Like the Mercers, the Hanleys were convinced that the American political establishment was rotten to its foundations. Unlike the Mercers, though, they were popular and vigorous socialites. They loved to entertain and to act as connectors between politicians and donors in their assorted properties, even on their private jet.

That holiday weekend, Lee Hanley revisited the subject of a poll he’d commissioned in 2013 from Pat Caddell, a longtime friend. Hanley had wanted to truly understand the mood of the country and Caddell had returned with something called the “Smith Project.” The nickname alluded to the Jimmy Stewart movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” because its results were so clear: Americans were hungry for an outsider. It didn’t matter whether the candidate came from the left or the right; voters just wanted somebody different. They had lost all faith in the ruling class—the government, the media, Wall Street. “It showed the entire blow-up of the country coming,” Caddell told me. “A whole new paradigm developing.”

No Republican had yet emerged as a front-runner in the 2016 primary, but the Hanleys believed Ted Cruz could take Caddell’s insights and ride them all the way to the White House. They saw Cruz as a unicorn: a dedicated fiscal and social conservative who had broken with his party repeatedly. They were dismissive of Trump. “He doesn’t understand politics or geopolitics or anything about the running of the government,” Alice Hanley told me recently.

REBEKAH MERCER SAW THE KOCH NETWORK AS HOPELESSLY SOFT ON TRADE AND IMMIGRATION AND WAS HUNGRY FOR A WAY TO PROMOTE HER OWN MORE HARD-LINE IDEOLOGY.

Robert Mercer and Cruz had met before during a conference in February 2014, when Lee Hanley had invited them to the five-diamond Breakers resort in Palm Beach for a grilling session. Robert was impressed by Cruz’s intellect, according to a person at the meeting, but worried that the 43-year-old senator was too young and might struggle to capture voters’ imaginations. Still, Robert warmed to him over the course of many weekends at various Hanley homes. Apparently, Cruz can hold his alcohol (his preference is cabernet), which is a prized attribute in the Hanleys’ circle.

As the Mercers weighed whether to get involved in a presidential race, their calculus was quite different from that of other megadonors, most of whom run massive corporate empires. Various people who have worked with the Mercers on campaigns told me they didn’t pressure their candidates to adopt policies that would benefit the family’s financial interests, such as favorable regulations for hedge funds. Instead, their mission was a systemic one. Steve Hantler, a friend of Rebekah’s, says she was determined to “disrupt the consultant class,” which she saw as wasteful and self-serving. She wanted to disrupt the conservative movement, too. Rebekah saw the Koch network as hopelessly soft on trade and immigration and was hungry for a mechanism to promote a more hard-line ideology. According to Politico and other sources, she was frustrated at the time that no one was taking her seriously. As it happened, however, the family owned what seemed to be an ideal vehicle for achieving her goals.

Around 2012, Robert Mercer reportedly invested $5 million in a British data science company named SCL Group. Most political campaigns run highly sophisticated micro-targeting efforts to locate voters. SCL promised much more, claiming to be able to manipulate voter behavior through something called psychographic modeling. This was precisely the kind of work Robert valued. “There’s no data like more data,” he likes to say. Robert had made his money by accumulating piles of data on human behavior (markets might move in a certain direction when it rains in Paris, for instance), in order to make extremely precise and lucrative financial bets. Similarly, SCL claimed to be able to formulate complex psychological profiles of voters. These, it said, would be used to tailor the most persuasive possible message, acting on that voter’s personality traits, hopes or fears. The firm has worked on campaigns in Argentina, Kenya, Ghana, Indonesia and Thailand; the Pentagon has used it to conduct surveys in Iran and Afghanistan. Best of all, from the Mercers’ perspective, SCL operated entirely outside the GOP apparatus. (A source close to Rebekah said she wanted a “results-oriented” consultant.) As Rebekah saw it, SCL would allow the Mercers to control the data operation of any campaign they supported, giving the family enormous influence over messaging and strategy.

And it would be Rebekah who would actually carry out this plan. Robert preferred to focus on his work at Renaissance, often operating from his Long Island mansion, Owl’s Nest. “He wouldn’t look under the hood, because that’s not what he does,” says Bob Perkins, one of Caddell’s associates who worked on the Smith Project. Besides, Rebekah was the political animal in the family. (Her older sister Jenji has practiced law; her younger sister Heather Sue is, like Robert, a competitive poker player).

This was a relatively new phenomenon. Rebekah isn’t known to have been particularly political earlier in adulthood, while gaining a master’s degree in management science and engineering from Stanford, or in early motherhood. (She has four children with her French-born husband, who became an investment banker at Morgan Stanley.) But, after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, which significantly loosened restrictions on political spending, Rebekah decided it was time to “save America from becoming like socialist Europe,” as she has put it to several people. She started attending Koch events and donating to the Goldwater Institute, a right-wing think tank based in Arizona. The family’s political advocacy accelerated rapidly. It was in 2012 that she really attracted attention in GOP circles when, not long after Mitt Romney lost the presidential race, she stood up before a crowd of Romney supporters at the University Club of New York and delivered a scathing but detailed diatribe about his inadequate data and canvassing operation. “Who is that woman?” people in attendance asked.

With SCL, Rebekah finally had the chance to prove she could do better. The company’s American branch was renamed Cambridge Analytica, to emphasize the pedigree of its behavioral scientists. And Rebekah started flying Alexander Nix, the firm’s Old Etonian CEO, around the country to introduce him to her contacts. Nix, 41, is not a data scientist (his background is in financial services), but he is a showy salesman. Dressed in impeccably tailored suits, he is in his element on stage making presentations at large conferences. He can, however, come across as arrogant. (“I love the fact that you’re telling your story, but I’m the one giving the interview,” he told me in a conversation.)

According to Perkins and Caddell, Rebekah and Nix met with them a few times to discuss how CA could use the Smith Project. Rebekah was clearly impressed by Nix. In one meeting, according to Perkins, she gushed about his polo prowess and asked him to show off cellphone photos of himself on horseback. (Nix says he doesn’t recall this meeting or others with the three. He also doesn’t remember displaying such a picture and can “think of no good reason why Bob or Pat would be interested in horses.”) The political veterans were skeptical. “I didn’t understand what Nix was talking about,” Perkins told me bluntly. Caddell says he was perplexed when Nix wouldn’t show him the instruments CA used to predict voter behavior. He also thought the firm didn’t grasp the seismic shift underway in American politics. And yet to his great surprise, Bannon vouched for CA, telling Caddell its scientists were “geniuses.” Caddell knew that Bannon was beholden to the Mercers—they were, after all, Breitbart’s part-owners. According to The New York Times, however, Bannon was also vice president of CA’s board. “Even if he did not have a financial investment, he intellectually owned it, which was invaluable,” says a fellow political strategist. After he learned of Bannon’s involvement, Caddell stopped asking Bannon questions about CA.

In the end, Bannon helped seal the deal between the Mercers and Cruz, with CA as the glue. In the fall of 2014, Toby Neugebauer, a garrulous oil-and-gas billionaire from Texas, took Cruz and his campaign manager, Jeff Roe, to the “Breitbart Embassy,” the website’s Washington headquarters near the Capitol. Bannon flitted in and out. Nix, as usual, did most of the talking. After Neugebauer and Roe visited SCL’s London headquarters, the Cruz team agreed that CA could play a key role in their operation, running models and helping with research. However, it was made clear to Rebekah and Nix that the entire data analytics operation would be supervised by Chris Wilson, CEO of the research firm WPA. A source close to Cruz told me that Wilson’s operation had played a crucial role when Cruz ran for the Senate with only 2 percent name recognition in Texas and defeated a far better-known opponent. Why, then, was CA necessary at all? “No one ever said directly that the quid pro quo for hiring CA was that the Mercers would support Cruz,” says someone close to Roe. Nevertheless, after CA was engaged, Neugebauer took a private jet to the Bahamas to meet Robert Mercer on the Sea Owl. When Neugebauer asked him to donate to Cruz’s bid, Robert was matter-of-fact. The family would start with $11 million.

All modern political campaigns have to balance their need for exorbitant sums of money with the obsessions of the people who want to give them that money. Roe, the straight-talking manager of the Cruz operation, has observed that running a campaign is like trying to solve a Rubik’s cube of complicated personalities and uncomfortable dependencies. He has also told people that he is careful not to get too close to the donors who make his campaigns possible, because they can be so easily annoyed by the most trivial of things—his laugh, for instance, or the way he eats a bread roll.

In the case of the Cruz campaign, the donor obsession in question was Cambridge Analytica. And it wasn’t long before Roe and his team suspected that Nix had promised them a more impressive product than he could deliver. On March 4, 2015, Cruz, Roe, Wilson and others gathered in the Hyatt in Washington D.C. for an all-day meeting with Nix and a group of CA senior executives. Wilson took notes on his computer. According to multiple members of the Cruz team, Wilson was dismayed to learn that CA’s models weren’t fully ready for his focus groups the following week. As far as the team could tell, the only data CA possessed that the campaign didn’t already have appeared to be culled from Facebook. In addition, they recalled, CA hadn’t set itself up with Data Trust, the Republican National Committee’s repository of voter information. At one point, they recall, Nix explained that the National Rifle Association’s database of members would be a valuable way to target donors. Wilson typed an emoji with rolling eyes next to the statement because it was so obvious. He told people that he came away thinking, “Red flag, red flag, red flag.”

In response to an extensive set of questions, Nix disputed this account of the meeting. He denied that Cambridge Analytica had obtained any data via Facebook—a source of controversy for the firm ever since The Guardian reported in 2015 that CA based its data on research “spanning tens of millions of Facebook users, harvested largely without their permission.” Nix also claimed that it was the Cruz team that didn’t have access to the RNC’s Data Trust for much of the cycle and that “all data used for the majority of the campaign was provided by Cambridge Analytica.” However, Mike Shields, then the RNC’s chief of staff and Data Trust’s senior adviser, told me the Cruz campaign was in fact the second to sign an agreement with Data Trust, in 2014.

Meanwhile, the red flags kept coming. Wilson found the data scientists that CA sent to Houston to be highly efficient at the day-to-day work of his research operation. But according to Cruz staffers, when he began to test CA’s specialized models, he found that they were notably off, with, for example, some male voters miscategorized as women. In phone surveys, staffers said, CA’s predictions fell short of the 85 percent accuracy the campaign expected. (“Different models have differing levels of accuracy,” Nix said in his response. “I suspect these numbers have been taken out of context to make us look bad. In many previous articles the Cruz campaign have highly rated the quality of our data scientists.”) By September, CA’s first six-month contract was up. A CA employee in the campaign’s Houston office accidentally left the invoice in the photocopier, and Wilson happened to fish it out. The invoice totaled an eye-popping $3,119,052 for work that Wilson estimated to be worth $600,000 at most. “I can’t fucking believe it,” Wilson told Roe, who concurred.

Jeff Roe (left) with Ted Cruz (right), who ultimately fell out of Rebekah Mercer’s favor. “We felt to some extent she was being manipulated by Bannon,” a Cruz adviser said.

Nix disputed this account too, noting that the firm’s fee was “clearly stated in our statement of work and contract.” However, a former consultant for the campaign, Tommy Sears, attended budget meetings “for two if not three days” over the matter. “There was an understanding between both parties that the totality of the contract through March 2016 would be $5.5 million,” he says. “The heartburn felt by the Cruz team was that over $3 million had already been spent by September 1, 2015.”

When the Cruz team decided not to pay the full $3 million, bedlam ensued. A phone call was scheduled with Rebekah, Bannon and CA’s attorney. “I understand she’s a nice lady,” Wilson says politely of Rebekah. According to multiple people on the call, she accused Wilson of undermining CA. Bannon, meanwhile, unleashed a torrent of profanities at the Cruz team. Someone on the call gave me a censored version of his outburst: “The only reason this campaign is where it is right now is because of our people and I. My recommendation to the Mercers is just to pull them out of there and we’ll have them on another campaign by Monday.” Bannon’s language was so foul it was difficult to listen to, says one person on the call who had never met him before. Another of the political pros, who knew Bannon well, wasn’t shocked. “That’s Steve doing business,” he says.

The Cruz team was taken aback by Rebekah’s reaction. Some even wondered if she’d been given all the facts. One person who was close to the campaign says, “She is somewhere between the daughter of a brilliant hedge fund manager and mathematician and somebody who runs a bakery in New York. She clearly has a skill set, but the skill set we’re discussing here regarding the understanding of the value of data and analytics doesn’t fall into that area. She is operating under the information she’s been given.”

“IF REBEKAH MERCER WAS BROKE AND WASN’T A MAJOR DONOR IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,” SAYS A CRUZ ADVISER, “NOBODY WOULD SPEND TWO SECONDS TRYING TO KNOW HER… SHE’S NOT FUN. SHE’S JUST LIKE A SERIES OF AMOEBA CELLS.”

The two sides were also diverging ideologically. In the summer of 2015, according to two sources, Rebekah reprimanded Cruz for an April article he’d co-authored with House Speaker Paul Ryan in The Wall Street Journal in support of free trade. She and Bannon told Cruz that he should adopt the positions of Jeff Sessions, whose views on trade and immigration were more in line with the conservative base. By this time, Cruz and his team were becoming increasingly concerned about Bannon’s relationship with Rebekah. Bannon (who declined to comment for this article) was now blatantly pro-Trump. Over the course of the primary, Breitbart would publish around 60 pieces disputing that Cruz was eligible to be president because he had been born in Canada. Cruz repeatedly called Rebekah to complain, but she insisted that she had to be “fair and impartial.” One of his advisers says, “We felt to some extent she was being manipulated by Bannon.” A person close to Bannon counters: “There’s absolutely no way anyone could manipulate Rebekah Mercer.”

After the first debate in South Carolina, Rebekah gave Cruz a “dressing down” on his performance, according to three sources. “Given what was going on around him—and what he must have truly felt—he behaved like an absolute gentleman,” says a person close to Cruz. Rebekah was incensed that Trump had a tougher immigration policy than Cruz did—she particularly liked Trump’s idea for a total ban on Muslims. Subsequently, Cruz proposed a 180-day suspension on all H1-B visas.

Meanwhile, even though the Cruz staffers generally got along well with their CA counterparts—they sometimes took the visitors country-western dancing —the firm remained a source of friction. In retrospect, Wilson told people, he believed that Nix resented the campaign for allocating work through a competitive bidding process, rather than favoring CA. Two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Wilson assigned a contract to a firm called Targeted Victory. CA then locked its data in the cloud so it couldn’t be accessed by Roe’s team. The data remained unavailable until, a Cruz campaign source said, it was pretty much too late to be useful. Cruz won the Iowa caucuses anyway.

The Cruz operation became so fed up with Nix that they pushed back, hard, on CA’s bill for its second six-month contract. Wilson was able to negotiate the fees down after, as Cruz staffers recalled, a CA representative accidentally emailed him a spreadsheet documenting the Houston team’s salaries. (Nix said CA had intended to send the spreadsheet.) Still, the campaign wound up paying nearly $6 million to CA—which represented almost half of the money the Mercers had pledged to spend on Cruz’s behalf.

The acrimony lingered long after Cruz exited the race in May. When he decided not to endorse Trump at the GOP convention, the Mercers publicly rebuked him. In a statement, Cruz was diplomatic: “We were delighted to work with Cambridge Analytica, they were a valuable asset to my campaign, and any rumors to the contrary are completely unfounded.” (The source close to Rebekah added, “I was with Rebekah the other day and Ted Cruz was falling all over her. It’s not fair to blame CA’s methodology for Cruz’s loss.”) Others from Cruz’s team, however, remain bitter about the whole experience. “If Rebekah Mercer was broke and wasn’t a major donor in the Republican Party,” says one, “nobody would spend two seconds trying to know her. … She’s not fun. She’s just like a series of amoeba cells.”

One of the great challenges in reporting this story was that almost every single person in Trump’s orbit claims sole credit for his extraordinary victory on November 8. The multiplying narratives of his win can be difficult to untangle, but it is true that his operation ran somewhat more smoothly after Rebekah Mercer helped to replace Manafort with Bannon. This wasn’t necessarily because Bannon himself was a particularly deft manager—he much preferred to focus on big-picture strategy, especially Trump’s messaging in rallies. Most of the details were left to his deputy, David Bossie—at least until October, when Bossie and Trump got into an argument over Trump’s impetuousness on Twitter and Bossie was kicked off the campaign plane, according to multiple sources. But one undeniable benefit of having Bannon in charge was that Rebekah trusted him.

Bannon, several sources said, can be charming when he chooses to be. And he has a record of successfully cultivating wealthy patrons for his various endeavors over the years. At the same time, certain of his ventures have involved high drama. The most spectacular example is the Biosphere 2, a self-contained ecological experiment under a giant dome in the Arizona desert that was funded by the billionaire Texan Ed Bass. Hired as a financial adviser in the early 1990s, Bannon returned in 1994 and used a court order to take over the project, following allegations that it was being mismanaged. He showed up one weekend along with “a small army of U.S. marshals holding guns, followed by a posse of businessmen in suits, a corporate battalion of investment bankers, accountants, PR people, and secretaries,” according to a history of the project called Dreaming the Biosphere. In an effort to thwart Bannon’s takeover, some of the scientists broke the seal of the dome, endangering the experiment.

Because of his relationship with the Mercers, Bannon was able to avoid some of the tensions over Cambridge Analytica that had plagued the Cruz campaign. Before taking the job, he phoned Brad Parscale, a 41-year-old San Antonio web designer who had made websites for the Trump family for years. Although Parscale had never worked in politics before, he now found himself in charge of Trump’s entire data operation. According to multiple sources, Parscale told Bannon that he had been hauled into an unexpected meeting with Alexander Nix earlier that summer. Parscale, who is fiercely proud of his rural Kansas roots, immediately disliked the polished Briton. He informed Nix he wasn’t interested in CA’s psychographic modeling. Parscale and Bannon quickly bonded, seeing each other as fellow outsiders and true Trump loyalists. Bannon told Parscale: “I don’t care how you get it done—get it done. Use CA as much or as little as you want.” Parscale did ultimately bring on six CA staffers for additional support within his data operation. But he had his own theory[4]

4. Parscale has told people that the campaign’s previous models had been based on high turnout figures. “I started to run models with lower turnout which looked like the midterm elections of 2014,” he has said. “I mapped out how, based on that, we could get to 305 electoral college votes.” Trump got 304. of how Trump could secure victory—in the final weeks, he advised Trump to visit Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, three states no one thought Trump could take. The campaign never used CA’s psychographic methodology, as a CA staffer who worked on the campaign later publicly acknowledged at a Google panel.

For the most part, Rebekah kept a low profile during the last phase of the election. On the few occasions that she appeared at Trump Tower, she sat in Bannon’s 14th-floor office. “Most people had no idea who she even was,” says one person who was there regularly. “The idea that she was on the phone to Trump or anyone all the time, that’s nonsense,” says a different source from the transition. The Mercers did intervene when a tape surfaced of Trump bragging to NBC’s Billy Bush about sexually assaulting women—by making a rare statement in Trump’s defense. In a statement to The Washington Post, they said: “If Mr. Trump had told Billy Bush, whoever that is, earlier this year that he was for open borders, open trade and executive actions in pursuit of gun control, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him. …. We are completely indifferent to Mr. Trump’s locker room braggadocio.”

On election night at Trump Tower, Robert Mercer was nowhere to be seen. Rebekah was in Bannon’s office. Staffers and Trump children wandered in and out of Parscale’s office, because he was usually the first person to have any actual information. Parscale, unlike almost everyone else, including Trump’s children, was convinced his boss was going to win. Trump himself remained glued to the television, refusing to believe anything until victory was officially declared. No one I talked to recalls where Rebekah was in the blur of the celebration.

But people certainly remember her presence during the transition. One night, Rebekah called Trump and told him he absolutely had to make Bannon his White House chief of staff. Trump himself later described the phone call—in a manner an observer characterized as affectionately humorous—to a crowd of about 400 people at the Mercers’ annual costume party at Robert’s mansion on December 3. This year’s theme: “Heroes and Villains.” A guest recalls that Rebekah was dressed in something “that fitted her very well, with holsters.” To the gathering, Trump recounted being woken up at around midnight— Rebekah told friends it was around 10 p.m.—and being bewildered by the late-night tirade. “Rebekah who?” he eventually asked. Everyone laughed,” says the observer. As it happened, Bannon didn’t actually want to be chief of staff, believing himself to be ill-suited to the role. He was named chief strategist instead.

Rebekah had more than personnel decisions on her mind, however. She was particularly focused on what was referred to on the transition as the “outside group.” After the election, it was widely agreed that the GOP needed a nonprofit arm, supported by major donors, to push the president’s agenda across the country, much as the Obama team had set up Organizing for America in 2009. The most important component of any organization like this is its voter database, since it can be used to seek donations and mobilize supporters behind the president’s initiatives. Rebekah wanted CA to be the data engine, which would essentially give her control of the group. And if the venture were successful, she would have an influence over the GOP that no donor had ever pulled off. Theoretically, if the president did something she didn’t like, she could marshal his own supporters against him, since it would be her database and her money. A friend of Rebekah explains: “She felt it was her job to hold the people she’d got elected, accountable to keep their promises.”

“I’M EXPECTING TO BE FIRED BY THE SUMMER,” BANNON HAS TOLD FRIENDS.

On December 14, there was a meeting to discuss the outside group in a glass-walled conference room on the 14th floor of Trump Tower. Brad Parscale sat at the head of the table. Around him were roughly 12 people, including Rebekah; Kellyanne Conway; David Bossie; Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer; Jason Miller, then Trump’s senior communications adviser; and Marc Short, Mike Pence’s senior adviser. Parscale was known to be livid that Alexander Nix had gone on a PR blitz after the election, exaggerating CA’s role. Even worse, Parscale had heard that Nix had been telling people, “Brad screwed up. We had to rescue Brad.” (Nix denied this, saying, “Brad did a brilliant job.”)

And so when Rebekah pushed for CA to run the new group’s data operation, Parscale pushed back. “No offense to the Mercers,” he said, according to multiple attendees. “First, this group is about Trump, not about the Mercers. Second, I don’t have a problem with hiring Cambridge, but Cambridge can’t be the center of everything, because that’s not how the campaign ran.” (He did, however, suggest that Rebekah be on the board.) “No offense taken,” Rebekah replied.

But she would subsequently complain about the exchange to Bannon and others, and continued to lobby for CA to be at the center of the new organization. The situation became so testy that before the inauguration, Jared Kushner brought in Steve Hantler, Rebekah’s friend, to referee. Hantler, a quiet, gentlemanly sort, proposed that the venture be led by someone he knew would be acceptable to both sides: Nick Ayers, a senior adviser to Pence. The “outside group” is now named America First Policies. Parscale is a member, and its first national TV ads have appeared. Ayers has also been cultivating a friendship with Donald Trump Jr., who, sources say, may eventually want to lead the group himself.

The Mercers, however, have withdrawn completely. When it came to the question of whether America First should employ CA, it was Parscale’s view that prevailed: CA has no role in the group at all. “Tens beat nines in poker,” says someone involved with the formation of America First, meaning that Parscale’s close rapport with the Trump family carried greater weight than Rebekah’s connection with Bannon. Rebekah’s relationship with Jared and Ivanka is said to be diminished. Nearly every person I spoke to—Trump supporters, Cruz supporters, fellow donors, friends of Rebekah—agreed on one point: to regain some of her standing, she should fire Alexander Nix. (“We are hoping that she reads your piece and does it,” says a person she works with closely.)

On December 19, Rebekah attended a memorial service in Palm Beach for Lee Hanley, who had died four days before the election. Someone who spoke to her there was expecting her to be thrilled about the election and the position she now occupied. Instead, Rebekah was very low, says this person. She complained about John Bolton being passed over.[5]

5. Mercer seems to have favored Bolton less for his foreign policy predilections and more for his popularity with the base. The family donated at least $3 million in 2015 and 2016 to Bolton’s super PAC, which helped elect a number of conservative congressional candidates. Perhaps not coincidentally, his super PAC paid Cambridge Analytica at least $700,000 in 2014 and 2016, according to FEC filings. She was also said to be furious at the appointment of Mitt Romney’s niece, Ronna Romney McDaniel, to chair the RNC: To Rebekah, McDaniel personified the very GOP establishment that her family had worked so hard to cast out. “She was emotional,” says the person who was there. “She was talking about how there’s no rhyme or reason to the people he’s appointing, and that Ivanka was acting like first lady, and Melania was very upset about it.” When asked about this, a person very close to Rebekah said, “She thinks Ivanka is wonderful and amazing and she thinks Melania is wonderful and amazing. She’s very policy-oriented and not involved in personalities.”

In the end, Rebekah Mercer’s mistake was that she thought she could upend the system and then control the regime she had helped to bring to power. Helping to elect a president wasn’t enough: She wanted the machinery to shape his presidency. Instead, the chaos simply continued. An administration full of insurgents, it turns out, functions in a near-constant state of insurgency.

Bannon is said to be exhausted and stretched. He is largely responsible for the relentless pace of initiatives and executive orders in the early weeks of the administration, because he doesn’t expect to be in the White House for long. “I’m expecting to be fired by the summer,” he has told friends, likening himself to Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s chief minister, who was instrumental in enforcing Britain’s Reformation but ended up being beheaded by his boss. A source close to Bannon says that he may have “joked about being fired,” but disagreed that Bannon is tired: “I don’t think he even thinks in those terms. He is used to an intense schedule.” His focus, the source says, “is working for the president to deliver on the promises to the American people for the first 100 days and then beyond on the overall agenda of Making America Great Again.” Bannon returns Rebekah’s phone calls when he can. But, according to someone who knows both well, “relations are strained.” Another person who works with both of them says, “I think Bannon, once he finally built a relationship with Trump, didn’t need Rebekah as much … and he doesn’t care about that. He only cares about the country.” The source close to Bannon says that Rebekah and the chief strategist remain “close friends and allies.”

As this piece was going to press, several sources warned me not to count Rebekah out. She still has a stake in Breitbart, which holds tremendous sway over Trump’s base and has recently gone on a no-holds-barred offensive against the GOP health care plan. And on March 13, Politico reported that some Trump officials were already disillusioned with America First, which they felt had been slow to provide much-needed cover for his policy initiatives. There was talk of turning instead to a new group being launched by Rebekah Mercer. And so she may yet get another chance to realize her grand ambitions. “She’s used to getting everything she wants, 100 percent of the time,” says another person who knows her well. “Does she like getting 90 percent? No.”

It’s This Woman’s Job to Prevent a Rigged Election

hd-aspect-1478624841-es-110816-rigged

Is the election, as Donald Trump so often claims, rigged?

“I’ve got phone lines open to each of the 50 states, we’ve got constant two-way video screens, and I’ve got eight government agencies—FBI included—with me on standby,” Dr. Phyllis Schneck told me this week. Schneck is deputy under-secretary for cybsersecurity and communications at the Department of Homeland Security.

At the heart of her operation is the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. The NCCIC is situated in a windowless, classified room in an office building near Schneck’s workspace in Virginia. It’s high security in there. No cell phones or laptops are allowed in. A red light bulb on the ceiling blinks on and off to alert the team of my outsider presence. The walls are covered in screens of maps with flashing colors. As Schneck explained, no unnecessary officials will be let into the room on Election Day. “I want the NCCIC to focus uninterrupted,” she says.

Nearby in an even more claustrophobic room is the National Cyber Alert Systems (NCAS) lab. In there works the so-called “Red Team,” an army of 32 cyber detectives whose job it is to seek out vulnerabilities across our private sector and government networks. Team member Jason Hill, a stocky man with tattoos, explains cheerfully how he exploited the Ashley Madison breach in 2015 by sending out a spear phishing email to a client that read: “We have gained an initial dump of the [Ashley Madison] database. If your name is in here, you need to go see HR and re-sign the acceptable use policy.” According to Hill, 87 percent of the people who received the email clicked on it within an hour; some people even clicked on it four or five times. The good news, according to Hill, is that although he “always gets in” when he sends a spear phish like this, most of his clients are able to protect their truly sensitive data. “We’ve not been stopped getting in. We have been stopped getting to the things that we need to get to,” he says.

Schneck says she has reached out to each of the state election agencies to extend the support of the Red Team and anything else she can offer on Election Day. She says she is as over-prepared as she can be for the election, comparing her readiness to “Y2K” levels. The biggest challenge of her job is that she is not in direct control, since the government does not own the Internet, nor the so-called “Internet-of-things.” She has to be invited in by the owners of the voting machines—by state and local agencies in the private sector—to help. But she is relatively sanguine. “There’s some confidence in the way the systems are structured.” she explains. (Most are not connected to the Internet).

Schneck’s responsibilities are extraordinarily vast. She oversees the cyber protection of critical infrastructure (power grid, water systems, and electronics), government departments, and the private sector. Whenever we read about a cyber attack, whether it is on Sony or the White House, Schneck’s team is usually called in to analyze what went wrong and fix it. The only thing she doesn’t do is catch the bad guys–that’s the job of the FBI. “If the FBI is the policeman, we are the firemen,” she says.

When DHS under secretary Suzanne Spaulding told Schneck “to shake things up” upon her arrival to the department in 2013, there was a lot to do. The government shut down gave her time to study “Einstein,” the government’s intrusion detection and prevention system. Tongue-in-cheek, she reported to her colleagues that “Einstein is not 10 years old,” as they had assumed. The bad news: “It’s 25 years old.” As Schneck explained it, the system worked like a vaccine. It was effective, even essential, but it recognized only what it had seen before. This left the system vulnerable to new attacks, a flaw that was exposed last year when Schneck’s team discovered, during a check, that the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) had been hacked by the Chinese.

“The OPM hack was ingenious and appalling in that the OPM data was a treasure trove of information for our enemies,” says R. P. Eddy, a former state department diplomat and former director of the National Security Council at the White House, now in the private sector. The OPM stored SF86 forms, which are the pre-requisites for all government employees with security clearance. “They are dozens of pages long. They include details of medical history, of neighbors and friends. You feel naked when you fill it out,” says Eddy. “The idea that that information would not be protected is egregious.”

Part of Schneck’s department’s job is to share information with friendly governments. This is why when hackers sponsored by the Russian government shut off the power grid in Western Ukraine, leaving 230,000 people without power as winter closed in, a team of Schneck’s computer and controls systems experts immediately flew to Kiev. While the U.S. geeks worked on the grid, the engineers drove out into the field and put on the old mechanical cranks. “It really helps if you have the guy that knows how the electricity flows next to the guy that knows how the bits and bytes work.”

How worried should the rest of us be about a Cyber Armageddon?

We would be “80 percent” more protected, Schneck says, if we all practiced “cyber hygiene,” like changing our passwords and not handing over all our personal information to the grocery store or car salesman. But culture, she says, is hard to change. “Seat belts, until they were regulated, nobody wore one,” she explains. It takes a shock of a kind none of us want. “Suppose you go out to your car and you can’t start it until you pay some criminal electronically. Suppose you can’t start a fire truck or an ambulance, a plane. Those are the kinds of things we worry about,” she says. Or, more accurately, the kinds of things she worries about on our behalf.

At the time of this writing, Schneck’s Red Team is busy doing cyber hygiene reports on each of the 50 states, so, all being well, voting day goes off seamlessly. “I am hoping,” she says, “that all this preparation is for nothing.”

The Russian Expat Leading the Fight to Protect America

gallery-1477260587-189-dsc6317

At six o’clock on the morning of May 6, Dmitri Alperovitch woke up in a Los Angeles hotel to an alarming email. Alperovitch is the thirty-six-year-old cofounder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, and late the previous night, his company had been asked by the Democratic National Committee to investigate a possible breach of its network. A CrowdStrike security expert had sent the DNC a proprietary software package, called Falcon, that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. Falcon “lit up,” the email said, within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC: Russia was in the network.

Alperovitch, a slight man with a sharp, quick demeanor, called the analyst who had emailed the report. “Are we sure it’s Russia?” he asked.

The analyst said there was no doubt. Falcon had detected malicious software, or malware, that was stealing data and sending it to the same servers that had been used in a 2015 attack on the German Bundestag. The code and techniques used against the DNC resembled those from earlier attacks on the White House and the State Department. The analyst, a former intelligence officer, told Alperovitch that Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike’s experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia’s answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.

Alperovitch then called Shawn Henry, a tall, bald fifty-four-year-old former executive assistant director at the FBI who is now CrowdStrike’s president of services. Henry led a forensics team that retraced the hackers’ steps and pieced together the pathology of the breach. Over the next two weeks, they learned that Cozy Bear had been stealing emails from the DNC for more than a year. Fancy Bear, on the other hand, had been in the network for only a few weeks. Its target was the DNC research department, specifically the material that the committee was compiling on Donald Trump and other Republicans. Meanwhile, a CrowdStrike group called the Overwatch team used Falcon to monitor the hackers, a process known as shoulder-surfing.

Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office. Alperovitch told me that a few people worried that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was clearing house. “Those poor people thought they were getting fired,” he says.

For the next two days, three CrowdStrike employees worked inside DNC headquarters, replacing the software and setting up new login credentials using what Alperovitch considers to be the most secure means of choosing a password: flipping through the dictionary at random. The Overwatch team kept an eye on Falcon to ensure there were no new intrusions. On Sunday night, once the operation was complete, Alperovitch took his team to celebrate at the Brazilian steakhouse Fogo de Chão.

Hacking, like domestic abuse, is a crime that tends to induce shame. Companies such as Yahoo usually publicize their breaches only when the law requires it. For this reason, Alperovitch says, he expected that the DNC, too, would want to keep quiet.

By the time of the hack, however, Donald Trump’s relationship to Russia had become an issue in the election. The DNC wanted to go public. At the committee’s request, Alperovitch and Henry briefed a reporter from The Washington Post about the attack. On June 14, soon after the Post story publicly linked Fancy Bear with the Russian GRU and Cozy Bear with the FSB for the first time, Alperovitch published a detailed blog post about the attacks.

Alperovitch told me he was thrilled that the DNC decided to publicize Russia’s involvement. “Having a client give us the ability to tell the full story” was a “milestone in the industry,” he says. “Not just highlighting a rogue nation-state’s actions but explaining what was taken and how and when. These stories are almost never told.”

In the five years since Alperovitch cofounded CrowdStrike, he and his company have played a critical role in the development of America’s cyberdefense policy. Frank Cilluffo, the former special assistant to the president for homeland security, likens Alperovitch to Paul Revere: “Dmitri, as an individual, has played a significant role in elevating cybersecurity policy not only inside the private sector but more generally.”

When I met Alperovitch in late September, at his open-plan offices outside Washington, D.C., he explained that CrowdStrike was created to take advantage of a simple but central lesson he’d learned about stopping hackers. It’s not enough, he says, to play defense with technology: “Otherwise the adversary will scale up and it becomes a game of numbers, which they will win.” Instead, attribution is crucial: First you need to identify the perpetrator, then you need to discover what motivates the crime, and finally—most important—you need to figure out how to fight back.

Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike, the idea that attribution ought to be a central defense against hackers was viewed as heresy. In 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee. While sifting through server logs in his apartment one night, he discovered evidence of a hacking campaign by the Chinese government. Eventually he learned that the campaign had been going on undetected for five years, and that the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the International Olympic Committee.

That the Chinese government had been stealing information from the private sector was a shock to the security industry and to many U. S. officials. Almost no one thought that foreign governments used the Internet for anything other than old-fashioned espionage. “This was not spy versus spy,” says John Carlin, who was until recently the assistant attorney general for national security. The hacking was economic sabotage.

While Alperovitch was writing up his report on the breach, he received a call from Renee James, an executive at Intel, which had recently purchased McAfee. According to Alperovitch, James told him, “Dmitri, Intel has a lot of business in China. You cannot call out China in this report.”

Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James’s intervention accelerated his plans to leave Intel. (James declined to comment.) He felt that he was “now being censored because I’m working for a company that’s not really an American company.”

Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former colleague, founded CrowdStrike as a direct response. The cybersecurity industry at the time, Alperovitch says, was “terrified of losing their ability to market products in China.” Their new company would push the idea that hacking was a means, not an end. “We saw that no one’s really focused on the adversary,” Alperovitch told me. “No one’s focusing exclusively on how can we actually identify them, attribute them, deter them from taking this action again.” CrowdStrike’s tagline encapsulated its philosophy: “You don’t have a malware problem, you have an adversary problem.”

Aperovitch’s June 14 blog post garnered so much media attention that even its ebullient author felt slightly overwhelmed. Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian hackers. As it happened, “Fancy Bear” and “Cozy Bear” were part of a coding system Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers’ country of origin: Russians were bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song “Fancy.”

The day after the media maelstrom, the reporters were back with less friendly questions: Had Alperovitch gotten his facts right? Was he certain Russia was behind the DNC hacks? The doubts were prompted by the appearance of a blogger claiming to be from Eastern Europe who called himself Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer said that the breach was his, not Russia’s. “DNC’S servers hacked by a lone hacker,” he wrote in a blog post that included stolen files from the DNC. “I guess CrowdStrike customers should think twice about company’s competence,” Guccifer wrote. “Fuck CrowdStrike!!!!!!!!!”

Alperovitch was bewildered. In a career spanning nearly two decades, he had never made an incorrect attribution in public. “Did we miss something?” he asked CrowdStrike’s forensics team. Henry and his staff went back over the evidence, all of which supported their original conclusion.

Alperovitch had also never seen someone claim to be the only intruder on a site. “No hacker goes into the network and does a full forensic investigation,” he told me. Being called out, he said, was “very shocking. It was clearly an attack on us as well as on the DNC.”

Alperovitch initially thought that the leaks were standard espionage and that Guccifer’s attacks on CrowdStrike were just a noisy reaction to being busted. “I thought, Okay, they got really upset that they were caught,” he said. But after documents from the DNC continued to leak, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than that. He concluded that the Russians wanted to use the leaked files to manipulate U. S. voters—a first. “It hit me that, holy crap, this is an influence operation. They’re actually trying to inject themselves into the election,” he said. “I believe that we may very well wake up on the morning the day after the election and find statements from Russian adversaries saying, ‘Do not trust the result.’ ”

As it turned out, many reporters found Guccifer’s leaked documents too cumbersome to sift through, and some were nervous that files from the strange website might contain viruses. But on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a massive cache of emails that had been stolen from the DNC. Unlike the leaks published by Guccifer, these were organized and easily searchable. Reporters soon found emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three other officials, to resign.

Days later, Alperovitch got a call from a Reuters reporter asking whether the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had been hacked. CrowdStrike had, in fact, been working on a breach at the DCCC; once again, Alperovitch believed that Russia was responsible. Now, however, he suspected that only Fancy Bear was involved. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author.

Two weeks later, files from the DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0’s website. This time he released information about Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. On August 12, he went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of Congress.

Alperovitch was in New York when he read about the leak on Twitter. He and Henry were asked to join a conference call with Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, and the chair of the DCCC. Pelosi said she’d warned her colleagues to keep their phones away from their grandchildren until they got new numbers, as some members of Congress had already received threatening messages. Alperovitch offered to install Falcon on representatives’ computers until the election.

“I remember getting off that call feeling completely outraged,” he said. “I called up Shawn. I’m like, ‘I can’t believe the Russians are getting away with it. These are congresspeople. I can’t believe that there’s still no response from this government.’ ”

Alperovitch’s friends in government told him privately that an official attribution so close to the election would look political. If the government named Russia, it would be accused of carrying water for Hillary Clinton. The explanations upset Alperovitch. The silence of the American government began to feel both familiar and dangerous. “It doesn’t help us if two years from now someone gets indicted,” he said. After Michelle Obama’s passport was published online, on September 22, Alperovitch threw up his hands in exasperation. “That is Putin giving us the finger,” he told me.

Dmitri Alperovitch knows a thing or two about what the Russians call “active measures,” in which propaganda is used to undermine a target country’s political systems. He was born in 1980 in Moscow, in an era when people were afraid to discuss politics even inside their homes. His father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist who barely escaped being sent to Chernobyl as part of a rescue mission in 1986. Many of Michael’s close friends and colleagues died of radiation poisoning within months of flying to the burning power plant. The takeaway for Dmitri was that “life is cheap in the Soviet Union.”

Michael also taught Dmitri to code. Without a computer at home, Dmitri practiced by writing down algorithms on paper. In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for scientists. Per Soviet custom, Dmitri stayed in the USSR to ensure that his parents didn’t defect. He lived with his grandparents, and when his parents returned, after a year, they brought him his first computer, an IBM PC.

In 1994, his father was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority. The work was not particularly challenging, so Michael began studying cryptography on the side. While Dmitri was still in high school, he and his father started an encryption-technology business. Dmitri says he loved the beauty of the math but also saw cryptography’s fatal flaw: “If someone stole your keys to encrypt the data, it didn’t matter how secure the algorithms were.”

Alperovitch studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to work at an antispam software firm. There he met a striking dark-haired computer geek named Phyllis Schneck. As a teenager, Schneck once showed her father that she could hack into the company where he worked as an engineer. Appalled, Dr. Schneck made his daughter promise never to do something like that again.

Fighting email spam taught Alperovitch a second crucial lesson. He discovered that every time he blocked a server, the spammers deployed a hundred new servers to take its place. Alperovitch realized that defense was about psychology, not technology.

To better understand his adversaries, Alperovitch posed as a Russian gangster on spam discussion forums, an experience he wrote up in a series of reports. One day he returned from lunch to a voice mail telling him to call the FBI immediately. He was terrified. “I was not a citizen yet,” he told me.

As it happened, the bureau was interested in his work. The government was slowly waking up to the realization that the Internet was ripe for criminal exploitation: “the great price of the digital age,” in John Carlin’s words. In 2004, the bureau was hacked by Joseph Colon, a disgruntled IT consultant who gained “god-level” access to FBI files. Colon was eventually indicted, but his attack showed the government how vulnerable it was to cybercrime.

In 2005, Alperovitch flew to Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Mularski had no prior experience with the Internet; he relied on Alperovitch, whom he calls “a good guy and a friend,” to teach him how to get into the forum and speak the lingo. Mularski’s sting operation took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six arrests.

Alperovitch’s first big break in cyberdefense came in 2010, while he was at McAfee. The head of cybersecurity at Google told Alperovitch that Gmail accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected more than a dozen of McAfee’s clients.

Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He’d been asked to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. She’d decided, for the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. “In an interconnected world,” she said, “an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all.”

Despite Clinton’s announcement, Alperovitch believed that the government, paralyzed by bureaucracy and politics, was still moving too slowly. In 2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. The company needed just two hours to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before it confirmed the attribution.

The delay still frustrates Alperovitch, who saw the long silence as a kind of disinformation. “Yesterday you had no idea. Today you’re 100 percent certain. It wasn’t credible.” From the perspective of the government, however, the handling of the Sony hack was a triumph. “In twenty-six days we figured out it was North Korea,” John Carlin told me. The attribution changed the focus, he said, from what Sony did wrong to how the government was going to respond to North Korea. As Phyllis Schneck, who now works at the Department of Homeland Security, told me, the government moves slowly because it cannot afford to be wrong: “Vendors like to be first. Government must be right.”

The government’s attitude toward attribution moved closer to Alperovitch’s in September 2015, in the run-up to a state visit by Chinese president Xi Jinping. A year earlier, five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army had been indicted by a grand jury in Pennsylvania for stealing economic secrets from the computers of U. S. firms in the nuclear, solar, and metals industries. Carlin told me that the indictments were meant as “a giant No Trespass sign: Get off our lawn.” But the indictment didn’t stop the hackers. Alperovitch went on television to call for a stronger response. In April 2015, after President Obama signed an executive order threatening sanctions against the Chinese, Alperovitch received a call from the White House. “You should be happy,” he was told. “You’re the one who’s been pushing for this.”

Six months later, just before the state visit, The Washington Post reported that the U. S. was considering making good on the executive order. A senior State Department official told me that Xi did not want to be embarrassed by an awkward visit. The Chinese sent over a negotiating team, and diplomats from both countries stayed up all night working out an agreement. During the state visit, Obama and Xi announced that “neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property” for the purpose of economic espionage. Since then, the Chinese burglaries have slowed dramatically.

This past March, Alperovitch hosted a cyber war game at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. Four teams of ten people—representing the government, the private sector, European and Australian allies, and the hackers—met for two hours to play the game. Shawn Henry; John Carlin; Chris Painter, coordinator for cyber issues at the State Department; and Chris Inglis, the former deputy director of the NSA, were all part of the government team. Executives from JPMorgan Chase and Microsoft represented the private sector. A former member of GCHQ, the British intelligence organization, was on the international team. Frank Cilluffo played a hacker. Ash Carter, the defense secretary, arrived halfway through and asked to play, but the game was already under way, so he was politely turned down.

The game’s premise was that ISIS had hacked the databases of several state DMVs and their European counterparts. After a twenty-minute brainstorm, the government team said it was organizing a crisis-response group, speaking to the private sector, and sharing information with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. The private team said it was trying to get information from the government. The international team, meanwhile, complained that no one had briefed it—a mistake, Alperovitch said.

The adversary team then stood up and announced, “While the government team is deliberating and talking to the private sector, we’re going to kill some people.” It was a chilling moment that had real-life echoes for many people in the room. In June 2015, a Kosovar named Ardit Ferizi hacked an online retailer and passed the personal details of more than a thousand U. S. government and military officials to a member of ISIS, who in turn posted them on Twitter. (The ISIS member was later killed by a U. S. drone strike in Syria, and the Kosovar hacker was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison.)

The government’s reluctance to name the Russians as the authors of the DNC and DCCC hacks made Alperovitch feel that the lessons of the war game—call out your enemy and respond swiftly—had been wasted. He continued to be told by his friends in government that it was politically impossible for the United States to issue an official response to Russia. Some, especially in the State Department, argued that the United States needed Russia’s help in Syria and could not afford to ratchet up hostilities. Others said an attribution without a concrete response would be meaningless. Still others insisted that classified security concerns demanded consideration.

Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. “A lot of people who are born here don’t appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they’ve never had it any other way,” he told me. “I have.”

The government’s hesitation was soon overtaken by events. During the first week of October, while Alperovitch was on a rare vacation, in Italy, Russia pulled out of an arms-reduction pact after being accused by the U. S. of bombing indiscriminately in Syria. The same day, the U. S. halted talks with Russia about a Syrian ceasefire. On October 7, two days before the second presidential debate, Alperovitch got a phone call from a senior government official alerting him that a statement identifying Russia as the sponsor of the DNC attack would soon be released. (The statement, from the office of the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, appeared later that day.) Once again, Alperovitch was thanked for pushing the government along.

He got the news just after leaving the Sistine Chapel. “It kind of put things in perspective,” he told me. Though pleased, he wished the statement had warned that more leaks were likely. “It’s nice that you have the DHS and DNI jointly putting the statement out on a Friday night, but the president coming out and saying, ‘Mr. Putin, we know you’re doing this, we find it unacceptable, and you have to stop’ would be beneficial.”

Less than a week later, after WikiLeaks released another cache of hacked emails—this time from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair—the White House announced that the president was considering a “proportional” response against Russia. Administration officials asked Alperovitch to attend a meeting to consider what to do. He was the only native Russian in the room. “You have to let them save face,” he told the group. “Escalation will not end well.”

The House That Guns Built

hd-aspect-1474387458-gettyimages-510522054

Laura Trevelyan is very British. Her grandfather George was one of the most prominent British historians of the twentieth century. Wallington, her family estate in Northumberland, belongs to the British National Trust. Her great, great, great grandfather Sir Charles was immortalized in a Northern Irish song bitterly called “Trevelyan’s Corn,” because in the 1840s he was in charge of famine relief. In 2006 she wrote a memoir about her ancestors. Its title: A Very British Family: The Trevelyans and Their World.

So you would expect the longtime BBC correspondent to have been upset when her husband, James Goldston, the president of ABC News, informed her that in order to accept his current job, they’d have to leave Britain and move to New York. Instead, Laura immediately phoned a cousin and asked which part of New York City she should live in. (Answer: Brooklyn). The reason for her lack of discomfort was that despite her very British name, heritage, and accent, she has a second lineage every bit as intrinsic to American culture as the Trevelyans are to Britain. That lineage, and the intrigues of her colorful American forebears, are the subjects of her second book, The Winchester: The Gun That Built An American Dynasty, out this month.

Laura’s great, great grandfather Oliver invented the Winchester Repeating Rifle, which, as all students of American history know, is The Gun That Won the West. Its creation meant that the Winchesters—originally farming stock from outside Boston—became very, very rich. Nevertheless, when Laura’s grandfather Humphrey Trevelyan, a Cambridge academic, proposed to Laura’s grandmother, his relatives let him know that they considered the Winchesters “trade.”

As a boy, Laura’s father and his family would traverse the Atlantic in the QE2 to the stay at “the Big House,” a mansion on Johnson’s Point in the Connecticut Shoreline town of Branford. Built to be near the Winchester factory in New Haven, the Big House rested on smooth blue-grey rock jutting into the Long Island Sound, creating incredible views but also danger. “My father was there during Hurricane Gloria in 1956,” says Laura. “Everybody had to go into the basement with candles while the hurricane raged and windows smashed.”

Now the Big House is gone, knocked down in the 1960s so that Laura’s grandmother and her four siblings could build their own houses. However, much of the estate remains intact, as do many of the family’s idiosyncratic traditions. For example, Laura tells me as we walk the land one April morning, as a teenager she watched her great aunts, who were “fond of tennis, family, and cocktail hour,” firing tennis balls with an ancient elephant gun at trespassers. (Even now, only family members are allowed to cross a footbridge leading across an inlet to the estate.)

Even now, only family members are allowed to cross a footbridge leading across an inlet to the estate.

Trevelyan, 47, is now an anchor for BBC World News America. She, Goldston, and their three sons live in Brooklyn Heights during the week and on weekends transfer to what used to be the Johnson’s Point caretaker’s cottage. (The two-bedroom cottage is charmingly, if precariously, perched at water’s edge in a flood zone.) It was while staying at the cottage that Laura found much of the inspiration for her book, which she wrote on the train to and from Washington, D.C., where BBC World News America is recorded.

She shows me a glimpse of family life, past and present. In the boathouse a large red “war canoe” hangs upside down, since all Winchester women were given war canoes when they married. There is also a great winch for launching yachts, one of which was so magnificent the U.S. Navy commandeered it during World War II to patrol for u-boats.

We walk past a pretty walled-off rose garden planted by Laura’s great grandmother, Susan Bennett. One of the most interesting parts of The Winchester is the story of the business’s decline, which took place during the First World War, and which Susan and her husband had the misfortune to preside over. “You’d think that war would be good for gun companies,” says Laura, “but in fact they went into huge debt to expand. The contract prices of the rifles didn’t reflect what making them actually cost, so this scheme was hatched to make household products bearing the Winchester name, with the slogan “as good as a gun.”

It was a disaster, and Winchester Bennett, Susan’s husband, seemed to crack under the pressure, checking into a psychiatric hospital. He would be the last family member at the helm of the firm. His marriage with Susan is one of the book’s most intriguing mysteries. A prolific writer and sought-after beauty, Susan “cried” when her parents forced her to marry “Win.” “She never says how she feels about him,” says Laura. “So you can only guess.” Probably she suffered in silence, finding solace in her rose garden.

Perhaps the most famous Winchester is Sarah, who spent 38 years building the architecturally crazy “Mystery House” in San Jose, California, after being driven mad, according to legend, by the deaths of her child and husband. Laura argues that Sarah was quite rational, actually, which is why she donated a large chunk of her fortune to Yale instead of less-deserving nephews and nieces, who received carefully-limited income from trusts. She built the eccentrically large rambling house, Laura believes, “because she could.”

Laura’s grandmother Molly was another deeply unhappy Winchester woman, transplanted from America to “windy Cambridge” by her husband Humphrey (who was involved in intelligence work at Bletchley Park during the war), whereupon she found herself alone with five children, unable to return home. “Molly wrote letters all morning each day, describing what she missed about Johnson’s Point—the lobster cookouts, playing tennis,” says Laura. While her husband fought against the Nazis, Molly was a pacifist who spoke disapprovingly of the family’s “gun money.”

Yet nothing overcame her passion for Johnson’s Point—which she passed on to her granddaughter. “It’s a sanctuary,” says Laura. “You are so close to the water you can hear it. Johnson’s Point is why I was comfortable when James was offered the job. There was a life here that I could be part of, that I wouldn’t have to create. I think of my grandmother being born in the Big House, scrambling over the rocks just like my children. I just feel enormously lucky.”

 

How a Russian Collector Changed the Course of Modern Art

1473172619-unnamed-14

On a bright St. Petersburg evening this past spring, as the pale Russian sun glittered on the Neva River, Mikhael Piotrovsky, the director of the State Hermitage Museum, stood up at a dinner attended by curators and art critics at Menshikov Palace. Raising his glass, Piotrovsky asked the guests—many of whom had own around the globe to be at the dinner—to toast the most expensive art show in history, a blockbuster among blockbusters headed from Russia to the West.

The artworks—130 Impressionist and Modernist masterpieces, including some of the greatest works ever created by artists such as Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Paul Gauguin, and Vincent van Gogh—are stupefying to behold. Billed almost too modestly as “Icons of Modern Art,” the show pays tribute to a private collection so magisterial it occupies entire wings at two separate museums, the Hermitage and the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow.

When the four-month-long exhibition opens on October 22 at the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris, the private art museum and cultural center designed by Frank Gehry, major heads of state are likely to attend, not least the presidents of Russia and France. Among other draws: the chance to see cornerstones of Western culture, including many of Gauguin’s Tahiti paintings and Matisse’s The Dance (arguably his most recognizable work), that have spent much of their existence out of sight to the West.

“This is is a historic event that will have people coming from all over the world, something we are not likely to see again for a while,” says Jean-Paul Claverie, an adviser to Bernard Arnault, the richest man in France and the chairman and CEO of the multinational luxury conglomerate LVMH, which is financing the show.

“I can’t stress how in infrequently we see a show of this magnitude,” says Evan Beard, national art services executive for U.S. Trust and an adviser to many private collectors. He calls the collection “so staggeringly valuable that it’s almost hard to conceive.” But what may be even more astonishing is the story behind it, a tale of incomprehensible loss and redemption visited upon perhaps the greatest art collector the world has ever known.

That figure is Sergei Shchukin, a Moscow textile magnate who in 1890 began visiting the salons of Paris, where he developed a taste for Impressionist art. One of Russia’s richest men (but not a member of its old-guard aristocracy), Shchukin bought Lilac of Argenteuil, his first of 13 paintings by Claude Monet, just before his 44th birthday. Over the next few years he would add major works by Paul Cézanne, Auguste Renoir, and van Gogh, which represented a decadent avant-garde to turn-of-the-century Moscow—a city undergoing headlong industrialization, with the simultaneous rise of a new moneyed elite.

What the paintings really represented, according to Shchukin’s grandson André-Marc Delocque-Fourcaud, the 74-year-old former director of various museums in France, was “the taste of wealthy bourgeoisie: nice, trendy, not revolutionary.” As a prominent businessman—the sort of figure who today would own a hedge fund and purchase art at Gagosian—Shchukin bought art to impress other businessmen and “show you are a big man,” says Delocque-Fourcaud.

“Shchukin was a prominent businessman—the sort of figure who today would own a hedge fund and purchase art at Gagosioan.”

“There was a strange, artificial, hothouse atmosphere in Russia at the turn of the century, a sense of forced growth and impending metamorphosis,” writes Shchukin’s biographer, Beverly Whitney Kean. “It was a single leap from feudalism to the industrialism of the 20th century, and the process was jarring, unsettling the traditions of centuries of isolation and undermining a rigidly stratified social structure.” In this setting a “collector’s fever” began to grip the new moneyed class.

Soon after buying his first paintings, the handsome, urbane Shchukin—whose creation of an international textile empire had depended on his visual acuity—was introduced to the arrestingly exotic works of Gauguin, “as alien as moon rocks,” according to Kean. At the time, not only conservative Russians but the art establishment in Europe failed to appreciate Gauguin’s vivid Fauvist style, but Shchukin, who was known in the business world for shrewdness and daring, saw something (“If a picture gives you a psychological shock, buy it,” he would later say), and his method of collecting began to change. Instead of pursuing art for status or prestige (or financial incentives, as so many collectors do today), Shchukin—who belonged to a puritanical sect of the Russian Orthodox church and led an ascetic lifestyle—viewed collecting as a challenge from God.

“You have been given the eye,” Delocque-Fourcaud explains to me. Tragically, the grandson adds, “there is a price for that.”

In Moscow, 1905 was a year of riots and bombings, a harbinger of the Russian Revolution, and in November the youngest of Shchukin’s three sons simply disappeared. Months later, during the spring thaw, his body was found in the Moscow River, where he had thrown himself, upending the family. Shchukin’s self-therapy for his grief was to change the history of Western culture.

A month after the burial he sought out the 36-year-old poverty-stricken Henri Matisse at his fifth-floor studio on Quai St.-Michel. Ridiculed by the French art establishment as a charlatan, Matisse was in a critical early stage of experimentation. Shchukin bought a still life, Crockery on a Table, and sent it back to Moscow, where he boldly put it on display, inviting mockery or worse. (Viewers had been known to deface Matisse’s work.)

In 1906, Shchukin began hurriedly buying Gauguin, eventually sending 16 of the Primitivist’s most iconic paintings to his mansion in Moscow. Delocque-Fourcaud has no doubt that the suddenly manic collector was building a monument to his dead son, who was thought to have killed himself in despair over Russia’s social turmoil.

More sorrow was to come. On Christmas Eve 1906, Shchukin’s wife Lidya, who was known as one of Moscow’s great beauties, returned from a shopping spree feeling unwell. A week later she was dead of what was termed “a woman’s disease,” according to biographer Kean. Shchukin, says his grandson, rushed out into the subzero Moscow night and knocked on the door of Valentin Serov, Russia’s most acclaimed portraitist, and asked him to paint Lidya in death. Soon Shchukin left Russia and embarked on a pilgrimage to the Monastery of St. Catherine at the base of Mount Sinai.

Traversing the Egyptian desert in a caravan of 20 camels, plagued by insects, heat, and guilt, he found himself transfixed by, as he wrote, “the blue mountains, the sea, the rising of the sun and the sunset” on the Gulf of Aqaba—and, one day, in a revelation, the vivid, colorful paintings of a young monk working in a style similar to that of Matisse. He rushed home to immerse himself in color and art.

On his return to Moscow he received a telegram announcing that his brother Ivan, a profligate socialite living o family funds in Paris, had killed himself. Sergei had cut him off , and Ivan had tried to sell his own art collection, only to be told that many of the works were fake. (In yet another tragic twist, they would turn out to be authentic.) Shchukin sought out Matisse again, commissioning a panel of a woman eating fruit from a bowl, hoping it would brighten the Russian winter like a blast of light. But when, months later, the painting arrived in Moscow, it was the wrong color—Shchukin had requested that the scene be painted in blue, but Matisse had used crimson (creating his beloved Harmony in Red). Unflinchingly, Shchukin wrote the artist that the change pleased him “enormously” and subsequently became his patron, supporting him at the most critical point of his career.

“He wanted art that was a knock in the face,” says Delocque-Fourcaud, and he wanted others to feel it too. us, at considerable risk, he began opening his Moscow home, the magnificent Trubetskoy

Palace, to the public. When a year later he unveiled The Dance and Music, mammoth works now considered Matisse’s greatest masterpieces, there was an uproar. Some thought Shchukin had gone mad, but after debating with the artist whether to halt the commission, he wrote to Matisse, “Allons-y”: Let’s do it.

Matisse repaid his sponsor by introducing him to an up-and-coming Spanish artist, Pablo Picasso, whose darkness initially repelled Shchukin. But the collector soon came around, buying Woman with a Fan, the first of 50 Picassos he would eventually own.

Yet more tragedy was to come. In 1911, on the third anniversary of Lidya’s death, another son killed himself, intensifying Shchukin’s belief that art was the quid pro quo for his suffering.

Shchukin’s ultimate collection is today estimated at $10 billion, making him on paper the most successful collector of all time.

If so, the rewards were handsome. Shchukin’s ultimate collection—256 pieces bought between 1888 and 1917—is today estimated to be worth $10 billion, making him on paper the most successful collector of all time. In all likelihood, however, what was more important to Shchukin was his influence on art history.

“He built the collection during a great inflection point in the history of the art market,” says Evan Beard of U.S. Trust. “During this time, art market control shifted from state-sanctioned institutions like the Académie des Beaux-Arts in Paris to an independent dealer model. Artists went from being high-end civil servants to avant-garde capitalists like Picasso who realized that lasting in influence came by changing the conversation.

Gallerists like Ambroise Vollard and Paul Durand-Ruel—the Leo Castelli and David Zwirner of the day—targeted a guy like Shchukin, who wanted art as a way to elevate his social status and had the money to do it. It was the beginning of the capitalist art market we know now.”

“Shchukin and a handful of other collectors were far more important in shaping and elevating art than the collectors of today,” says art historian Olivier Berggruen. “Contemporary art is not scandalous in the way the avant-garde was. Shchukin was a great collector of the avant-garde at a moment when the avant- garde was shunned by the establishment.”

“When one goes to Russia,” says Edward Dolman, chairman and CEO of the Phillips auction house, “and sees all those master- pieces lined up on a wall, one is reminded that the heart of so much European culture is actually Russian.”

The Revolution came in 1917, and Shchukin fled to Germany then Switzerland, and finally Paris, where he remained. Unlike many of his piers, who were reduced to poverty, he succeeded in moving assets abroad (including diamonds stuffed in a doll) and maintaining a comfortable lifestyle. He still collected art, buying gloomy works by Raoul Dufy and Henri Le Fauconnier that “reflected a mood of exile,” according to Delocque-Fourcaud (whose mother Irina was the daughter of Shchukin’s second wife, a concert pianist he had married before fleeing Russia). However, he lived quietly and avoided Matisse and Picasso, perhaps out of pride.

His collection stayed behind, inside Trubetskoy Palace, which was renamed the State Museum for Modern Western Art, and held up as an example of “crazy bourgeois tastes,” says Alexey Petukhov, curator of 19th- and 20th-century European and American art at the Pushkin Museum. A sensation, the museum attracted cultural pilgrims from everywhere until the onset of World War II, during which the art was crated and sent east, beyond the Urals. The world’s greatest collection of European modern art was soon no longer welcome, its contents viewed as “cosmopolitan” and dangerously un-socialist. Stalin ordered that the collection be broken up, supposedly threatening to “hang the man who hangs Picasso.”

Thanks, however, to the Hermitage—the wife of the director at the time was a modern art lover—the pieces seen as the most degenerate were rescued, and they ended up in the vast St. Petersburg museum, consigned to the basement with a promise never to be shown. The Impressionist works, meanwhile, were at the Pushkin, also buried in storage. Not until the Khrushchev era were the paintings exhibited—in the case of the Pushkin, in a “small, inaccessible back room,” according to Kean, who was baffled to find the name Sergei Shchukin (who had died in Paris in 1936 at the age of 82) erased from Soviet history.

Some pieces were allowed to travel abroad. In 1970, for the centennial of Matisse’s birth, The Dance and Music (the latter will not be included in the upcoming exhibit because of its poor condition) were shown in Paris for the first time in 60 years, at the Grand Palais. However, their provenance was mysteriously attributed to “a private collection,” outraging Shchukin’s descendants, who threatened to sue any government that borrowed paintings from it, effectively confining the collection to Russia, divided and divorced from its own history, in “complete oblivion of the man…who sacrificed so much, including his own children,” Delocque-Fourcaud says.

The Russian art community knew the story behind the collection and would occasionally reach out to Shchukin’s descendants in the hope of a reconciliation. In 2012, while visiting the Hermitage, Delocque-Fourcaud relented in his legal threats and agreed to support an exhibition in France if it properly highlighted his grandfather’s legacy, not just the individual artworks. But then the real obstacle to showcasing the Shchukin collection reared its head.

Every museum today lives in fear of having prize pieces taken away in lawsuits by people, institutions, or whole countries claiming to be the rightful owners. Both the Pushkin and the Hermitage worried that the other museum, each representing the city claiming to be the true home of the Russian soul, would use a show abroad as an excuse to seize what has become, since the 1980s, hugely popular attractions. (The Shchukin collection at the Hermitage, which includes Matisse’s The Dance and Monet’s Lady in the Garden, occupies more than a dozen rooms.)

The dispute reached the boiling point and became international news in 2012, when the Pushkin’s formidable 91-year-old director, Irina Antonova, confronted Vladimir Putin on live television, challenging him to “redress the injustices of the past against the citizens” and unite the collections—in Moscow, of course. Thanks to the spectacle it caused, the move cost Antonova her job. Her less truculent replacement, Marina Loshak, publicly dropped efforts to permanently reunite the collection, enabling the Paris exhibition to advance. However, Loshak told me she has not given up hope of uniting “a lot” of the collection, if only temporarily, at the Trubetskoy Palace.

With the Russians not at each other’s throats, Delocque-Fourcaud cannily reached out to Anne Baldassari, the eminent former director of Paris’s Picasso Museum. Baldassari was herself a subject of controversy, having been terminated over an alleged dispute with the Picasso family. Now free to tackle the Shchukin dilemma, she told him that exhibiting the entire collection was a “dream—there are more people who dream that than you think. But the problem is the cost. No national museum has the capacity to afford the insurance and transport of pictures of that quality.”

Only the Fondation Louis Vuitton would have the means. Moreover, she argued, the Fondation’s extravagant, Frank Gehry–designed building, which had recently opened, “needed content” to match the soaring architecture. As it happened, Delocque-Fourcaud had once worked with Jean-Paul Claverie— known as Bernard Arnault’s right-hand man—and was able to get an immediate answer from the art-loving mogul: “Allons-y.” LVMH would pay to finally reunite the collection—65 pieces from each museum, including all but a few too-delicate-to-travel masterworks, such as Music—in, as Baldassari put it, the “radically contemporary space” of the Fondation.

” ‘Icons of Modern Art’ will be a historic event,” Claverie later said, emphasizing that Arnault (who declined to comment) intends “to pay tribute to the vision and passion of an extraordinary collector and to highlight the role patrons often play in bringing together the collections of our most important public institutions.” After February the art will return to Russia.

Of course, the parallels between Arnault, who grew a family business into a global powerhouse and later in life became a passionate collector, and Shchukin are not lost on Delocque-Fourcaud. “You are the continuation of Shchukin,” the grandson told Arnault when the two met. Arnault shook his head: “Not yet. It’s too soon to know.”

In Moscow I attempted to visit the Trubetskoy Palace, which was given to the Soviet Department of Defense under Stalin. It looked strangely peaceful on a May afternoon, with sunlight bouncing off the exterior walls. A mysterious mythology still lingers about the building, at least in Moscow. “If you take a photograph you will be arrested,” my companion, a curator at the Pushkin, warned me. Too late—I had already taken one.

Russians may have a different relationship with power and wealth, it occurred to me. They accept the fleeting nature of these things, which is why, perhaps, men like Sergei Shchukin consume so much so fast. They sense how quickly it can disappear. Mikhael Piotrovsky’s opening dinner for the Shchukin show had been held at a branch of the Hermitage, the Menshikov Palace, the grand former home of one Alexander Menshikov, who had risen from humble origins to become a friend of Peter the Great. The palace was considered the nest in St. Petersburg, but Menshikov overreached in trying to marry his daughter to Peter’s grandson, and, just as quickly as he had risen, he was stripped of his palace and the stupendous wealth he had accumulated and exiled to Siberia. at one man could amass and lose so much in one lifetime was astonishing, but when I expressed surprise my guide just shrugged.

“Welcome,” he said, “to Russia.”

 

Jared Kushner’s Second Act


hd-aspect-1471384303-es-081616-kushner-longform-3

In the spring of 2011, right around the time Donald Trump was humiliated by Barack Obama during the president’s speech at the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, placed a call to Richard Mack. Kushner was thirty years old, a decade and a half younger than Mack, but in many respects the men were peers. They were both scions of prominent real estate families, and in 2009 Mack and his wife had attended Kushner’s wedding, to Ivanka Trump. The two men were also business associates: Mack held some of the debt on 666 Fifth Avenue, a gleaming thirty-nine-story office building in midtown Manhattan for which Kushner had paid a record $1.8 billion in 2007.

Now, four years later, Kushner was calling about the tower, a symbol of immense importance for him and his family. Under the leadership of Jared’s father, Charles, the Kushner Companies had made hundreds of millions of dollars building and buying properties in New Jersey. But in 2004, future Trump surrogate Chris Christie, who was at the time the U. S. Attorney for New Jersey, indicted Charles in federal court on charges that included tax evasion, making false statements about campaign contributions, and hiring a prostitute to retaliate against his brother-in-law. After Charles pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison, Jared, who was just twenty-four, took over the family business. He sold the Kushner holdings in New Jersey and bought 666 Fifth Avenue. The significance of the deal lay not only in its size but in its location. Much as Trump’s renovation of the Grand Hyatt hotel three decades earlier had carried his family’s real estate empire across the East River from Queens, Jared’s purchase of 666 Fifth Avenue, just three blocks from Trump’s own trophy skyscraper, was an unmissable sign of the Kushners’ arrival in Manhattan.

By the time he spoke to Mack in 2011, Jared and his younger brother, Josh, had established a social and business beachhead in New York. Besides running the Kushner Companies, Jared was also the owner of the New York Observer, a once venerable newspaper. Josh had already started Vostu, a profitable social-game developer, and a venture firm called Thrive Capital.

Despite his evident success, however, Jared was in trouble: After the financial crisis led to a downturn in the rental market, the Kushner Companies risked an imminent default on the loans that had financed the firm’s purchase of 666 Fifth Avenue. Jared’s lenders were at his throat, and he stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, if not the entire building.

According to a source familiar with the call, Jared appealed to his friendship with Mack—”I am a really good person,” he insisted—and asked him to accept a substantial write-down of the loan.

Mack held firm. He had been unhappy with some aspects of how the Kushners managed the building, and, as he reminded Jared, he had a fiduciary responsibility to his investors.

Jared did not take the news well. According to the source, he began shouting into the phone, “I’ve been working my ass off!”

Mack was unimpressed. “I don’t know who the hell you think you’re talking to,” he said, and hung up the phone.

Jared was just twenty-six when he bought the thirty-nine-story tower at 666 Fifth Avenue for a record $1.8 billion. A subsequent downturn in the market caused him to scramble to preserve control of the building.

Jared was eventually able to preserve his control of the tower by ceding 49.5 percent of the building’s equity to Vornado, a publicly traded real estate investment trust. Mack, who is forty-nine, remained dimly aware that Jared had not forgotten their disagreement, but it was not until this past summer, when Elizabeth Spiers, a former editor of the Observer, wrote on her website about what she called “the Big Dick Mack Story,” that he realized the extent of Jared’s lingering animosity.

Spiers wrote that during her tenure as editor, in 2011 and 2012, Kushner had pushed for a hit piece on Mack. “If the tip he’d given me had checked out, it would have been a good story,” she wrote. “So I agreed to put a reporter on the story.” She gave the assignment to Dan Geiger, the Observer’s real estate beat reporter. Kushner called Geiger and furiously complained that Mack was a “bad fiduciary” who’d moved money around to enrich himself at the expense of his investors. (Kushner declined to comment on the record for this article, but through his publicist he denied that his pursuit of the Mack story was related to the loan on 666 Fifth Avenue.)

Geiger phoned his contacts—as Spiers wrote, he “called everyone within a hundred-mile radius”—and found nothing. He sent Kushner a detailed email outlining what his sources had said.

For a week, Geiger heard nothing. Then Kushner called him and said, as if they had not already spoken, “There’s a guy named Richard Mack, and we’ve got to get this guy.”

Geiger was bewildered. He went to Spiers, who, he says, recognized Kushner’s obsession as the “illicit powder keg” it was. “Jared insisted that it was a reporting problem,” she wrote in the blog post. To humor her boss, Spiers assigned a second reporter to the story. He, too, got nowhere; once again, nothing in the story checked out. But even this was not the end of it. Jared told Spiers to ask one more reporter, who did not work for the Observer, to look into Mack. That reporter was me.

I turned down the assignment, even though I had been friendly with Jared for many years. At the time, I knew him to be bright, charming, and polished, a pious son of a devout Orthodox Jewish family. I had never been exposed to this side of him. As it turns out, however, this side of him exists. Geiger, who now works for Crain’s, has told people that the first thing that came to mind when he found himself embroiled in the vendetta was “This guy is like his dad.”

Over the past year, Jared Kushner’s profile has risen alongside the mind-bending trajectory of his father-in-law’s presidential bid. Though Jared has no previous experience in electoral politics, he has become one of Donald Trump’s chief advisors, and much of the attention he’s received has focused on the many ways in which he’s been useful to the campaign. It was Jared who helped prepare Trump for an appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, and Jared who helped broker a truce with Fox News when Trump fought with Megyn Kelly, the network’s star anchor. After Trump fired Corey Lewandowski, his campaign manager, in June, it was reported that Ivanka had demanded Lewandowski’s dismissal for trying to marginalize Jared’s influence. A month later, after Trump tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton and a Star of David set against a backdrop of dollar bills, Jared took to the Observer to defend his father-in-law against charges of anti-Semitism. Most recently, Jared was on hand to help Trump choose Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate—over and above, it did not go unnoticed, the great nemesis of the Kushner family, Chris Christie.

There is a sense among Jared’s friends and business associates that he sees the gold-plated vision of a Trump White House as the ultimate step in a carefully plotted ascent to redemption.

And yet for all that Jared has helped Trump, there is a sense among Jared’s friends and business associates that he sees the gold-plated vision of a Trump White House as the ultimate step in a carefully plotted ascent to redemption, one that began when his father’s scandal tarnished the family name. In this respect, it seems more than usually significant that both Kushner brothers have photographs of John F. Kennedy prominently displayed in their offices. Just as Kennedy’s father was forced to yield his ambitions to his sons’ generation after uttering controversial remarks during World War II, so too did the scandal that sent Charles Kushner to prison open the door for his sons—and especially for Jared—to launch their charm offensive on society at a very early age.

Jared, who is thirty-five, and Josh, thirty-one, along with their sisters, Dara, thirty-seven, and Nicole, thirty-three, grew up privileged and sheltered in Livingston, New Jersey. Their paternal grandparents, Joseph and Rae, escaped Poland during the Holocaust and immigrated to the United States in 1949. They moved to the suburbs around Newark, where they helped create a tight-knit community of Holocaust survivors known as the Builders. (“My grandfather was a carpenter,” Josh likes to tell people.) The elder Kushners belonged to the Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ, which supported Jewish charities and schools. “That generation were cohorts,” says Andrew Silow-Carroll, the editor in chief of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the New York–based news service. “They were very collegial.”

Joseph and Rae had four children, two boys and two girls. Charles, who earned a bachelor’s degree and an MBA from NYU and a law degree from Hofstra, was less academically gifted than his older brother, Murray, who graduated summa cum laude and has a law degree from Penn. But Charles’s drive was remarkable. He took to heart the mantra passed down from one Kushner generation to the next—”Think like an immigrant, act like an immigrant”—which was at once an exhortation to work hard and a warning not to take anything for granted.

When Charles started his own real estate company, he chose his father, not Murray, as his partner. On the rare occasions that Josh and Jared have spoken about the subject in public, they have intimated that this decision exacerbated the tension between Charles and his siblings. In an interview with New York in 2009, Jared suggested that his uncle and aunts owed their good fortune all but entirely to his father, by whom they had been “literally made wealthy for doing nothing.”

Before the scandal, Charles and his pretty dark-haired wife, Seryl, were seen as the standout ambassadors of their Orthodox community. Charles became known as the Dapper Don thanks to the natty tailoring he preferred and to his growing reputation as a New Jersey power broker. As he built his real estate company into an empire worth a reported $2 billion, he contributed significantly to Jewish charitable causes as well as to political campaigns. He supported New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani but tended to favor Democrats, including senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, and Jon Corzine. In 2001, he was the largest donor to the successful gubernatorial campaign of Jim McGreevey, a New Jersey Democrat who later appointed him to the board of the influential Port Authority.

Jared attended the Orthodox Frisch School, in Paramus, New Jersey. By some accounts, he worked hard in school, but he was not especially academic. In The Price of Admission, Daniel Golden notes that officials at Frisch were “dismayed” when Jared was accepted to Harvard, since, as one former school official put it, “his GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it.” Other students in Jared’s class, the official said, were far more deserving. But Jared had a weapon that his classmates did not: his father. According to Golden, Charles donated $2.5 million to Harvard the year his son applied. Just to be safe, he also donated to Cornell and Princeton.

The disgrace that followed, for Charles and for his family, was profound.

All this lobbying to establish his family in the upper echelons of power was expensive. The scandal that eventually sent Charles to prison began in 2001, when Murray discovered that his brother had used several of the family partnerships to make political contributions without informing his relatives. Murray sued Charles in court, and not long after Chris Christie became the U. S. Attorney for New Jersey, in 2002, he launched a criminal investigation.

As Christie’s case gained traction, Charles attempted to blackmail one of his sisters and her husband to keep them from cooperating as government witnesses. He paid a prostitute $10,000 to have sex with his brother-in-law, and then sent a videotape of the encounter to his sister. The vindictive effort was for naught: In August 2004, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he had evaded taxes, made illegal campaign contributions, and retaliated against a federal witness, Charles pleaded guilty to eighteen felony counts.

The scandal made for a chilling affair, one that was severely at odds with the gracious public-service-oriented persona Charles had cultivated for public view. The disgrace that followed, for Charles and for his family, was profound. “It was very embarrassing,” says Silow-Carroll. The community, he notes, has “a self-image, largely deserved, as philanthropists and Jewish communal lions. They felt that all this nasty stuff sullied that.”

As Charles headed off to Prison in Alabama in 2005, Jared was still working on a joint business and law degree at NYU. Since a convicted felon cannot sign a contract as a fiduciary, he felt that he had no choice other than to take over the family business. In his interview with New York, he acknowledged that his father had made a mistake while at the same time insisting that Charles had been unfairly punished for his crimes. He’s made no secret of the fact that he sees his father, still, as an extraordinary man, and that he believes it his filial duty to put the Kushner name back on top.

In the wake of the scandal, Jared increasingly depended on an expanding network of older male advisors. The demographics of the group—which today includes Rupert Murdoch; Michael Ovitz, the legendary former Hollywood executive; Martin Sorrell, the head of WPP; Marc Holliday, the CEO of SL Green; Joel Cutler, a venture capitalist; Kevin Ryan, an Internet entrepreneur; and Joel Klein, the former New York City schools chancellor—were reflected at Jared’s thirty-fifth birthday party earlier this year. As one guest observed, the median age of the guests at the party, which was held at the top of the Gramercy Park hotel in Manhattan, seemed to be somewhere near seventy.

“None of it’s been him. It’s been his dad.”

The financier Ronald Perelman, who met Jared at a Lubavitch Shabbat service in East Hampton not long after Charles went to prison, recalled recently that the younger Kushner “clearly needed some comforting” after the scandal broke. Perelman invited Jared to pray with him at the synagogue in his home office in New York.

Jared openly blamed the media for his family’s troubles, particularly the Newark Star-Ledger. In 2006, in a somewhat transparent attempt to control the hand that had bitten his father, Jared bought the New York Observer for $10 million. The purchase was strategically intelligent: As a newly minted media mogul, Jared was sought out by New York’s cultural elite, and the Kushner name acquired intellectual clout for the first time.

A year later, Jared sold all of the Kushner properties—mostly residential homes—in New Jersey. He purchased 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan for $1.8 billion, at the time a record sum for a building in New York. His father was released from prison in time to stand by Jared’s side for the closing.

Though Charles is no longer the face of the Kushner Companies, he remains omnipresent in the hallways of the firm. Each Tuesday at 8:00 a.m., everyone at the company who is not a secretary gathers in a conference room on the fifteenth floor to discuss acquisitions, financing, and construction. Charles and Jared sit next to each other at the center of a long table, and other family members fan out from there. Josh has not attended the meetings regularly for years, but Seryl often attends, as does Nicole, who recently decided to join the business. (Her husband, Joseph Meyer, is the chief executive of Observer Media.) Under Jared’s leadership, the Kushner Companies has embarked on an impressive streak of acquisitions in New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. This summer the firm participated in a $340 million deal for the former headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of the most coveted parcels of waterfront real estate in Brooklyn. But no one at the Tuesday meeting, and no one who deals with the company from the outside, is allowed to forget who built the firm. When I called one of the Kushners’ underwriters to ask about Jared’s business prowess, he seemed startled. “None of it’s been him,” he said. “It’s been his dad.”

Compared with Charles, whose temper is legendary, Jared has a notably calm demeanor. “He’s calm, he’s smooth and sharp, and he knows how to court people,” says Doug Harmon, a veteran New York broker. Yet there is also an undercurrent of hostility that belies his polite veneer. Jared was described to me as “a little bit bullheaded” and “a little bit of a bully” by one person; another said that when he gets mad, “the loss of composure is the shock because he’s always so completely controlled.”

Five buildings owned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses will become part of the larger Brooklyn Tech Triangle. They were sold to Jared Kushner, the Kushner Cos. CEO, and RFR.

Several sources told me that in 2015, Jared tried to thwart a real estate negotiation that involved J. Walter Thompson, a subsidiary of WPP, the advertising conglomerate led by his friend Martin Sorrell. Jared had no financial stake in the matter, but he insisted, following many hours of due diligence, that WPP was headed down the wrong path. After WPP’s board ignored his advice and approved the deal, Jared attended a meeting at the company and told a senior executive at WPP, “You’re the stupidest person I’ve ever met in this business.” (A spokesman for WPP would neither confirm nor deny the incident.)

Then there is Jared’s standoff with Steve Roth, the CEO of Vornado, the $20 billion real estate investment trust that acquired 49.5 percent of 666 Fifth Avenue in 2011. The deal allowed Jared to keep control of the building but valued it at a mere $820 million, a steep decline from its $1.8 billion purchase price. According to the New York Post, Jared believes that the tower should be converted to a retail mall beneath luxury condos, and he is committed to a proposal from the firm of the late Zaha Hadid. Other sources, however, say that Roth believes the building is worth more as office space. Roth, who is seventy-four, and who recently joined Donald Trump’s economic advisory team, did not respond to a request for comment, but he has told people in private that he despises what he sees as Jared’s arrogance. According to several sources, meetings between Vornado and the Kushner Companies regularly become shouting fests, though one source says that most of the screaming is done by Charles Kushner. Meanwhile, the building is stagnating, and its fate is unlikely to be settled until one party buys out the other.

For those involved in the ruthless world of New York real estate, none of this unpleasantness is surprising. But overt aggression has not gone over well in the more sensitive environs of the New York Observer. A source close to Jared says that he did not understand, when he bought the company, how much resistance he would face from the journalists who worked there. In 2007, he appointed Bob Sommer, the Kushner Companies’ publicist, as the newspaper’s president. Sommer was given instructions to “rein in” the paper’s much-revered editor, Peter Kaplan. (Kaplan and Sommer both resigned in 2009; Kaplan died four years later.) At a holiday party for the Observer a few years after he bought the newspaper, Jared implored the staff to redouble its efforts, adding that worse economic times were to come. When Aaron Gell, the editor at the time, took the microphone and thanked everyone for their hard work, the gesture seemed to irritate Jared. (Jared’s publicist says that he liked Gell and cannot recall Gell’s speech or his own.) Ken Kurson, a Kushner family friend—and longtime business columnist for Esquire—is the current editor of the Observer, its fifth in seven years.
It is widely believed that the quality of the journalism in the Observer has declined under Jared’s ownership, but he has had much more success with the Commercial Observer, a real estate spin-off. According to Bill Rudin, a developer, the Commercial Observer has become a “must-read” for developers and brokers, thanks in large part to the paper’s Power 100 list. The list is celebrated at an annual event, complete with trophies, that has been attended by Michael Bloomberg and, of course, Donald Trump. “It’s the closest the industry gets to an elegant Oscars evening,” says Doug Harmon, who shared the 2016 Deal of the Year award. “I bet most look at the list and can’t figure out why they aren’t featured more prominently.” (If so, Richard Mack is not one of them: Though his firm was once number forty-one on the list, it was dropped after his phone call with Jared. Mack knew exactly why. He told the odd employee who fretted about the company’s absence, “We are never going to get on that list—and don’t worry about it.”)

In 2007, Jared started dating Ivanka Trump. The pair became a boldfaced item—their vacations were photographed by paparazzi—and in many ways the relationship seemed perfect. Jared and Ivanka, whom he calls Iva, shared a deep knowledge of real estate, and they were both the children of controversial fathers to whom they were unwaveringly, sometimes blindly, loyal. As Kenneth Pasternak, a friend and business partner of the Kushners’, put it, “You send your kid to Harvard, you network him, and he marries Ivanka Trump. I mean, you couldn’t write that script, right?”

As it happens, however, Jared’s marriage to Ivanka was not a foregone conclusion. The couple have been married for seven years and have three children together, but during the early days of their relationship Seryl Kushner had expressed concern that Ivanka wasn’t Jewish. The couple broke up, and they reunited only after Ivanka agreed to convert to Judaism. Even then, according to Bob Sommer, Charles Kushner remained skeptical. He made Ivanka’s conversion as testing as it could be. “This wasn’t like, ‘Talk to a rabbi, read a couple of paragraphs,’ ” Sommer says. “It was hard and difficult, and it was on Charlie’s terms.”
Ivanka passed the tests, and by 2009 Charles was ready to formally accept her into the Kushner family. At the couple’s wedding, which was held at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, he stood up and, according to multiple sources, gave a toast that drew tears from the assembled guests. A person who attended the wedding recalls the central sentiments of the speech: “Look, everyone thinks she’s great, but being Jewish is just unbelievably important to us, and she’s not Jewish. It’s a problem for me, a genuine problem. Then I watched and got to see she’s in love with my son and it wasn’t what I thought in the beginning. I feel right about it.”

Trump stood up to speak after Charles, and he floundered miserably. According to one guest, he “gave the most pathetic, lame, embarrassing speech I’ve heard in a long time.”

People often talk about the Kushner brothers using similar adjectives: handsome, humble, diligent, polite, intelligent, and so forth. For Josh, however, unlike for Jared, there is no “but” hanging in the air, no comma before a caveat describing a barely perceptible undercurrent. Part of the reason is almost certainly the luck of age: When his father went to prison, Josh was a freshman at Harvard, where the scandal scarcely registered.

While Josh was still an undergraduate, his friend Daniel Kafie introduced him to Mario Schlosser, a German-born engineer who was studying at Harvard Business School. Schlosser had written code for a social network, and the three students decided to take it to market. They raised the money to launch the site, which they called Vostu, but after the company struggled to find an audience, Schlosser and Kushner had a fight about equity and refused to speak to each other for six months. In 2008, Schlosser realized that Vostu might be more successful as an online soccer game. He reconciled with Josh, who was by now at Harvard Business School, and built a new site. After a crashed server and a failed initial launch, the new iteration of Vostu, run out of Brazil, took off. “We started to make real money,” Schlosser says—about $10,000 a day.

Vostu’s success meant that Josh never had to seriously consider joining his brother in the family real estate firm. In 2009, he launched a venture fund called Thrive Capital with around $5 million from a group of individual investors including Joel Cutler, a mentor of Josh’s and the CEO of General Catalyst, a Boston venture-capital firm. It was a good start, but to be taken seriously, Thrive needed institutional money. Cutler soon introduced Josh to Andrew Golden, the president of Princo, Princeton’s endowment fund, which had a reputation for investing in young talent. According to Cutler, Josh and Golden hit it off right away. “There was just this tremendous belief that this young person would be able to attract other brilliant young people and do venture capital the right way.”

Once Princeton was on board, a roster of blue-chip investors quickly followed, including Yale, Duke, Harvard, Memorial Sloane Kettering, the Ford Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. Instagram, the photography app, was an early success for the fund. In April 2012, Thrive joined four other firms in a $50 million funding round for the photo app. A few days later, Facebook purchased Instagram for $1 billion, a deal that doubled the value of Thrive’s investment. Other investments by the company include Warby Parker, Artsy, Spotify, Zola, Kickstarter, GitHub, and ClassPass.

Starting a game company and running an investment firm were not enough to satisfy Josh’s ambition.

It’s too early to tell whether the hype around Thrive is merely that. Yet Jon Winkelried, the co-CEO of TPG and former president of Goldman Sachs, says that the firm’s recent $700 million fundraising round, which brought Thrive’s total funds under management to $1.5 billion, is “big-boy stuff.” Kevin Ryan says, “If you called a bunch of entrepreneurs and said, ‘Who would you want to invest in your company in New York City?’ I think Union Square Ventures would be number one and I think Thrive would probably be number two already. That’s remarkable.” No one else, he says, has done it so young. “We just haven’t seen that.”

Josh’s ascent has necessitated a slow professional separation from his brother. Though Thrive is headquartered in the Puck Building, which is owned by the Kushner Companies, Jared has stopped making regular visits to his brother’s office. “I think there was a little source of tension with other partners at Thrive who felt like, you know, Jared swooning in and swooning out was not very constructive,” says one person close to the company. “I don’t think they very much liked it.” (Jared’s publicist says that he visits Thrive whenever he’s in the neighborhood, to give his brother “a hug and a kiss.”)

Starting a game company and running an investment firm were not enough to satisfy Josh’s ambition. In 2012, Mario Schlosser told Josh he needed to leave Brazil, and Vostu, to be with his wife, who was a researcher at Columbia University and pregnant with their first child. Schlosser says he blinked in disbelief when Josh suggested they start a health-insurance company. Josh explained that he had gone to the ER after spraining his ankle and had found the documentation required afterward difficult to navigate. He decided that health insurance needed to be made more consumer friendly. The idea, he said, was an online insurance provider that would be prepared for the day when individuals, not corporations and employers, were responsible for purchasing plans. He intended to call it Oscar Health, after his great-grandfather.

The timing was impeccable. Schlosser would later say that he and Josh couldn’t have made the company work without the Affordable Care Act, since the health-care landscape had been too “oligarchized” before the law’s passage. But as soon as the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central provisions of Obamacare, in the summer of 2012, Schlosser and his team were ready. Brian Singerman, a partner in the San Francisco–based Founders Fund, got interested in the company after Michael Ovitz sent him an email saying, “Trust me on this one.”

Josh Kushner has been dating supermodel Karlie Kloss since 2012.

Oscar has so far raised $728 million from investors, including Fidelity, Google Capital, Lakestar, and Khosla Ventures. Recent deals have valued the company at $2.7 billion, though The New York Times has questioned the wisdom of that number. (The Times noted that Oscar loses fifteen cents for every dollar it collects in premiums in New York.) Schlosser says it is still “very early days,” and, not surprisingly, he believes that from a sufficiently broad perspective his company is actually undervalued. “The U. S. health-care market alone is $3 trillion every year. That’s higher than Germany, the UK, Switzerland.”

Between running Thrive and Oscar, Josh Kushner has precious little spare time. “He is known, really, for just working,” says Kevin Ryan. “That’s all he does.” Nevertheless, Josh and Jared recently teamed up to launch an online real estate business called Cadre. The company’s mission is to create efficiency in a market that relies on a host of middlemen, but its prospects are still unclear even to some of its backers.

Schlosser says that Josh’s private life is rarely a subject of conversation. Years ago, at Harvard, Josh calmly explained the circumstances of his father’s scandal and his feelings about it, but in general the partners talk only about professional concerns—the ramifications for Oscar, say, of a Trump or a Clinton administration. Although Schlosser is not above the occasional joke about Jared’s role on the Trump campaign, he says that Josh tends to keep quiet about his personal life. “He has a girlfriend that he could talk about as well, but that is just so much less important.”

The girlfriend is supermodel Karlie Kloss, whom Josh has been dating for four years. According to Kenneth Pasternak, the future of the relationship is all but certainly being discussed by his parents. “They’d like him to settle down,” Pasternak says. No doubt Kloss would have to convert to Judaism, just as Ivanka Trump did. But whatever is in store for the relationship, it seems certain that Josh Kushner will not do anything that does not meet with the approval of his family.

Michael Ovitz says that Jared Kushner long ago made a deal with himself about how to publicly handle a familial bond with Donald Trump, a pact that meant no eye-rolling. “Donald was always controversial, always larger than life,” Ovitz says. “Jared knew that when he decided to marry Ivanka. But to both of them, it was understood that marriage meant loyalty to their in-laws. And incidentally, Jared discovered that he really liked Donald.”

Lately Jared’s liking of the Donald has morphed into something more substantial. Over the last year, Jared seems to have settled into a sort of hero worship, as though he wanted to become his father-in-law. His peers in the real estate industry talk about the stash of red “Make America Great Again” baseball caps that Jared keeps in his office, on the fifteenth floor of 666 Fifth Avenue. As he hands out the hats, he says of Trump’s slogan, “It came right out of his head!”

When Jared’s friends ask whether he endorses Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiments, he says, “You don’t understand what America is.”

Kevin Ryan, who is close with both brothers, breakfasted with Jared in early July. “He is all in,” he says. “He is in it to win.” Earlier this year, as Jared’s involvement in the campaign intensified, he named a president and a head of operations to run the family firm. The Observer has been enlisted as well: In advance of Trump’s appearance at AIPAC, Ken Kurson, the paper’s editor, reviewed the speech, causing an outcry in the newsroom. Despite these efforts, however, some have questioned whether Jared was fully prepared for the rigors and optics of a modern presidential campaign. In August, when several polls suggested that Trump’s chances for victory were cratering, Jared and Ivanka took a vacation. A series of photographs posted to Ivanka’s Instagram account showed the couple sightseeing in Croatia with Wendi Deng Murdoch, Rupert’s ex-wife.

A source close to Jared says that while he does not agree with every sentence that his father-in-law has uttered, he nevertheless thinks that Trump has been an effective candidate and would make a good president. (For his part, Trump said in a statement that “Jared represents the next generation of best-in-class developers and owners. Most importantly, however, he is a wonderful son-in-law, husband to my daughter, and father to my grandchildren.”) When his Jewish friends ask him—and they do—whether, given the history of the persecution of his own religion, Jared really endorses Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiments, he does not miss a beat justifying his father-in-law. “You don’t understand what America is,” he says, “or what American people think.”
Jared is especially proud of an article he wrote for the Observer in July, after his father-in-law’s Star of David tweet. It was a response to an open letter by Dana Schwartz, an entertainment writer for the paper, that had criticized Jared for standing “silent and smiling in the background” while Trump made “repeated accidental winks” to white supremacists. “You went to Harvard, and hold two graduate degrees,” Schwartz wrote. “Please do not condescend to me and pretend you don’t understand the imagery of a six-sided star when juxtaposed with money and accusations of financial dishonesty.”

In his response, Jared insisted that his father-in-law “is not anti-Semitic and he’s not a racist.” He defended Trump by detailing his grandparents’ harrowing experiences during the Holocaust. “It’s important to me that people understand where I’m coming from,” he wrote. “I know the difference between actual, dangerous intolerance versus these labels that get tossed around in an effort to score political points.”

(Given the contentiousness of the Kushner-family saga, it’s perhaps unsurprising that not all of his relatives appreciated his efforts. Two of his cousins complained on Facebook about his willingness to invoke their grandparents’ suffering to defend Donald Trump. “Thank you Jared for using something sacred and special to the descendants of Joe and Rae Kushner to validate the sloppy manner in which you’ve handled this campaign,” wrote Jacob Schulder, whose father, William, was the target of Charles Kushner’s retaliation in 2003. “Please don’t invoke our grandparents in vain just so you can sleep better at night. It is self-serving and disgusting.”)

Jared’s zealous support for Trump’s presidential campaign can be explained in part by a sense of loyalty that has been trained in him since birth, one way in which he and Ivanka are perfectly matched. Both have been raised in hermetically sealed family units—nearly every day the adult Trump children have lunch with each other in Trump Tower—and taught never to question their parents’ narratives in public, no matter how troubling they may be. When Trump’s anti-immigrant comments caused a number of companies to sever their ties with his properties, Ivanka told a source who commiserated with her about the damage to the Trump brand, “It’s his money. My father’s entire life has been a dream come true. He has to follow this dream.”

But many people who have dealt with Jared in the past suspect that his embrace of Trump’s political posturings carries a strong whiff of pure ambition. “How many people get that close to a presidential race?” asks Michael Fascitelli, Vornado’s former CEO and president. “In the real estate industry? Nobody, right?” And even if Trump were to lose in November by a large margin, he will nevertheless walk away from the election having won the support of a third or more of the American electorate. Whether Trump wins or loses, his son-in-law will almost certainly have a seat at the table. Jared is not one to waste a chance, and it seems unlikely that he will squander the entree into national consciousness that Trump’s campaign has given him.

“How many people get that close to a presidential race?”

Josh Kushner declined to comment on the record for this article; through a spokesman, he said that he loved his brother and did not want to say anything that might embarrass him. Nevertheless, the spokesman also said that Josh is a lifelong Democrat and will not be voting for Donald Trump in November.

Josh’s concern for his brother is no doubt genuine, yet more than one person has noted that he has little incentive to thwart even a distant chance at his family’s redemption. “He may not vote for Donald Trump,” observed a fellow real estate heir who knows the family well. “But will he be objecting to a pardon for his father, which is surely what will happen if Trump gets elected? I think not.”

The total rehabilitation of the Kushner family name would not, of course, mark the first time that money has bent the ordinary path of American justice. In many ways, the painting over of a family stain has become a rite of dynastic passage in the United States. But unlike, say, the family of financier Marc Rich, who secured a presidential pardon in the waning days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Kushners have exerted their influence in plain view, and with astonishing speed. None of us knows where it will all end. But Richard Mack has been warned.

How Frank Gehry Is Making an Impact Beyond Architecture

 

In 1971, Frank Gehry, 42 years old and not yet the most famous architect in the world, began volunteering every Saturday at the Westminster School in Venice, partly out of “curiosity” and partly to see how he might help the students. Gehry, now 87, who is as passionate about teaching as he is about his craft, observed children in different grades in order to understand their journey. He says he realized that unless they were exposed to something exciting, not just rote math or literature, by sixth grade “the faucet was off and they were no longer open to ideas.”

So he teamed up with his sister Doreen Nelson, a teacher, and together each Wednesday afternoon they would take children from Westminster out into the streets to build an imaginary city, for which the kids had to bring their hated rulers and protractors. The children loved it, Gehry says. “We were teaching math and other subjects by accident.”

According to the architect, however, the teachers did not love it. “They got jealous,” he says, and they ended the sessions, even though Gehry’s “design-based learning” methods had become the subject of a Jon Boorstin documentary and been written up in Smithsonianmagazine. Gehry learned a valuable lesson, he says, which was that “this couldn’t be done with us being injected into a school. We had to be invited.”

“I’m having fun,” Gehry says. “People have to pull me away from this stuff.”

Forty years later, in 2011, the architect had a fortuitous dinner with his friend Bobby Shriver, the philanthropist and former mayor of Santa Monica, at which he met Shriver’s glamorous wife, Malissa Feruzzi Shriver (pictured top, with Gehry), who was close to the end of a five-year term as chair of the California Arts Council. “I want to do something in arts education,” Gehry told her.

But it had to be big—”Shriver big,” he added jokingly. To illustrate the scale he had in mind, he mentioned that he had recently visited Venezuela, where he had witnessed “El Sistema,” the country’s extraordinary musical education program that involves poor children in the orchestras. “It’s a model for everyone,” Gehry says.

Fortunately, Malissa Shriver knew of an incipient project close to the heart of First Lady Michelle Obama: the Turnaround Arts program, which is targeted at underserved and underperforming elementary schools. In 2011 the program was operative in eight states; Shriver lobbied for California to become the ninth. Gehry himself would put in money, as would the state government and private arts foundations.

In May 2014 the California branch of Turnaround Arts was launched, at a White House ceremony during which President Obama and the first lady spoke. At its outset the program served 10 elementary schools, each of which was assigned an artistic mentor from a group that currently includes Forest Whitaker, Kerry Washington, Chad Smith of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tim Robbins, Russell Simmons, and Rashida Jones. Shriver and a staff of three oversee the program from offices at Gehry Partners, in Santa Monica. Metrics, she says, show increased school attendance and better performance. This year the program will take on five more schools.

For himself Gehry chose Hoopa Valley Elementary School, on Indian land in rural northern California. “It interested me because it was an enclosed society,” Gehry says. “It was a chance for me to learn as well as to help.” On his first visit the architect asked to be introduced to at-risk students. “He spends hours talking to them, asking about their lives,” Shriver says.

The children also visit the Gehry offices, where they paint fish sculptures and build cardboard towns, some of which “are just amazingly beautiful,” Gehry says, adding, “if they learn they can create something of value for themselves, they won’t turn back.” He recalls one boy who was initially wary; eventually he was coaxed into cutting up cardboard, and then he “opened like a flower.” He now corresponds with the architect.

THE ARCHITECT AT HOOPA VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN 2015

“Frank’s philanthropy is all about personal relationships,” Shriver says. There’s no grand plan or formal announcement; Gehry has simply given to causes that resonate with him, and over time, in parallel with his career, the scope of his involvement has mushroomed. Those causes go way beyond education.

In 1968, Milton Wexler, a Los Angeles psychoanalyst, started the Hereditary Disease Foundation after discovering that his wife had Huntington’s disease, an incurable neurological disorder. “Milton treated artists for free. I was one of them,” says Gehry, crediting Wexler with helping him during a dark period. In 2008 the architect’s daughter Leslie Gehry Brenner died of uterine cancer, at 54; she left her estate to the Hereditary Disease Foundation—a gift Gehry matched dollar for dollar. Moreover, since 2010, Gehry has funded an annual prize of $100,000 for a scientist working on Huntington’s.

Another of Gehry’s friendships is with Argentine-Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim, who, with the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said, founded the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, which brings together young musicians from Israel, Palestine, Syria, and other Arab countries. The orchestra performs around the world throughout the year. Barenboim wanted a permanent home, however, and Gehry, whose love of music is well documented, stepped in to help. Next year the Barenboim-Said Akademie‘s rehearsal hall, designed by Gehry, will open in Berlin. “People understand each other better through the arts,” he says.

THE GEHRY-DESIGNED WATTS CAMPUS OF THE CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE INC., IN LOS ANGELES.

The list of Gehry’s pro bono works is long. Having witnessed the 1992 L.A. riots, he was moved to design the Watts campus of the Children’s Institute Inc., a center for children traumatized by violence. Also notable is his collaboration with the Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation, which is devoted to reclaiming the 51-mile waterway. And then there are the homes built in post-Katrina New Orleans, cancer centers in Scotland, scholarships to Yale, and so on, all done with minimal fanfare. “I’m having fun,” Gehry says. “People have to pull me away from this stuff.”

Meanwhile, his protégé at the Hoopa Valley school remains on his mind. On a recent visit to the reservation Gehry was unable to find the boy; the architect asked him to call, and so far he hasn’t. So Gehry is going to call him. “I will pursue this,” he says determinedly. He has spent 40 years wanting to make this kind of difference. Now it’s time to make sure it actually happens.

Why Nicolas Berggruen is Creating an Institute for Geniuses

“Do you see? Do you see?” It’s an unusually cloudy day in Southern California, yet the view from Nicolas Berggruen’s West Hollywood apartment is dramatic. Perched atop the 31-story Sierra Towers, the highest residential building in greater Los Angeles, the open plan loft affords sweeping vistas of the metropolis and beyond. You feel as if you’re floating, and suddenly I understand what lured the enigmatic 54-year-old, once known as “the homeless billionaire,” to settle here after a decade of hotel hopping.

“The light is like nowhere else. I have space to think,” he tells me, adding that he has bought several apartments in the building (he prefers not to disclose the number). Maddeningly, this means that despite his nod to conventional homeownership, he remains a mystery.

And Nicolas is a bona fide mystery. Over the years, whether in Los Angeles, New York, or Paris, I’ve heard any number of frustrated media moguls, politicians, economists, philanthropists, architects, artists, and journalists try to engage him, and it always boils down to: Who is he? “He is very unusual, very unpredictable,” says British financier Lord Jacob Rothschild, who has known Berggruen all his life.

His apartment doesn’t reveal much. There are no chattering employees, books, photographs, or music. The decor is minimalist, the art cool. Only the bed is unusual, due to its collection of very old stuffed toys. When I enter, Nicolas, dressed in a black T-shirt and jeans—a ringer for a younger, even slighter Mick Jagger—leaps up from a table strewn with papers and darts over to the floor-to-ceiling windows.

 gallery-1462552055-nicolas

“See over there,” he says in accented yet precise English, gesturing toward the Santa Monica hills, where the starship-like Getty Center peeks out. Adjacent to the museum property, at one of the highest points in the city, is the place where, it has just been announced, Nicolas will embark on one of the more ambitious projects in the philanthropy world: the construction of a secluded mountaintop campus devoted to sheltering the world’s elite thinkers in a peaceful yet intellectually fervid sanctuary for reflection and dialogue, the so-calledBerggruen Philosophy and Culture Center.

Nicolas refers to the project as a “secular monastery.” Located on a pastoral urban woodland half the size of Central Park, the huge campus will be designed by Pritzker Prize–winning Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron, best known for the Tate Modern in London. Nicolas has already launched affiliated fellowship programs with universities all over the world and established a $1 million annual award, the Berggruen Philosophy Prize, that he hopes will recognize the power of ideas, the way the Nobel Peace Prize does with actions, to make us “good or bad humans.” (The first recipient will be announced this fall.)

“Seeing a third of my money disappear overnight made me realize how ephemeral the whole thing is, and how futile it is at the end.”

The eyebrow-raising cost of all this is estimated to be several hundred million dollars, putting Nicolas, if he succeeds, near the Gates, Koch, and Soros orbit of donors. But an intriguing blend of expensive, tasteful, and unusual is Nicolas’s trademark. A French-born German-American, and a polyglot who speaks the languages of all three nations, he made his fortune (currently thought to be around $2 billion) in his thirties—and not, he says, with the help of a trust fund, as has been reported.

Until recently he was conspicuously circumspect about the details of his success, which only fueled speculation, thanks to his eccentric personal life. Fifteen years ago Nicolas sold his homes, cars, and other possessions, claiming they weighed him down aesthetically. (He kept his Gulfstream IV.)

He lived, he would say, out of a paper bag. But his asceticism was at odds with his tendency to show up (invariably accompanied by a startlingly attractive young woman—albeit rarely the same one twice) at every international party and place du jour, whether the Oscars (he used to throw an annual party at Château Marmont), Davos (where he also hosted an A-list gathering), or Art Basel (where he is a bold-faced client).

In recent years he has morphed from a party-hopping investor into a serious-minded plutocrat who hops from the Reichstag to the California governor’s office to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing for private meetings with Xi Jinping. Often he brings one of those stunning young women along, driving some of the people in his orbit mad, which is precisely his intention, I believe.

I am friends with Nicolas and his younger brother Olivier, an art historian, and over the years I’ve noticed in Nicolas what looked like discomfort. At parties he rarely seemed to relax; never would I see him touch alcohol, hit the dance floor, or even smile much at his date. He always seemed to be looking around, searching—but for what? I do remember his excitement when he decided to shift from investing to philanthropy and activism. However, these days something about him is new. Last year, when he told me he was thinking of having children, he seemed calm.

Nicolas had long shown zero interest in being a father—not least because it might entail getting married—but in February he welcomed into the world Alexander Nicolas and Olympia Bettina, born three weeks apart via donor eggs and separate surrogates.

Whence the change of heart? Among other factors, he had been reading Siddhartha, Herman Hesse’s classic 1922 novel of self-discovery, the protagonist of which tries different paths to enlightenment. Nicolas had been a financier, then a reformer. Now, perhaps, it was time to stretch himself a different way.

“Won’t your children need a mother?” I ask.

“Not necessarily,” he replies. “People in L.A. don’t judge.”

Disappointingly, I’m not allowed to see the babies, since their pediatrician has banned visitors and they’re on another floor. I do get to see photos; both infants, wearing T-shirts for the Berggruen Institute, the California think tank Nicolas founded in 2009, already look like their father.

“I feel so much younger,” he says over lunch at his regular table at the Beverly Hills Hotel. “Children give you another life.” At the same time, he says, children bring “vulnerability.” “I put myself in a position where I’m clearly the father and the mother. They are totally dependent on me.”

“To understand Nicolas you have to understand that he is driven by competition with our father.”

Vulnerability is Berggruen’s nemesis. At 14 he was sent by his Jewish father to spend a summer in Catalonia with a Jesuit priest, one Father Gofard, who attempted to teach him “the value of accepting that you are affected by others.” “I understood it, but I couldn’t live it,” says Nicolas, who calls himself “rebellious,” “disruptive,” and “very opinionated” as a child. He distracted himself with girls and afternoon visits to Salvador Dalí, who was living nearby and served him pink champagne.

“To understand Nicolas you have to understand that he is driven by competition with our father,” Olivier tells me. “Our father was a dominating character, and Nicolas wanted independence from him. He doesn’t want to have to lean on anybody.”

What I Learned From Stepping Out of My Vacation Comfort Zone

landscape-1459914491-nicaraguabeach (1) 2

Last year, after Christmas, I did something I had never done before but that is very much in vogue with the one percent, according to travel agents. Industry jargon hails it as “soft adventure,” but I prefer to call it “insulated risk.” In a nutshell, I vacationed at a five-star resort in what used to be called the Third World.

The trip occurred serendipitously. I had just spent an entirely risk-free week of tennis and golf at a family resort in the Caribbean, and I was facing the week between Christmas and New Year’s alone. (My significant other was 5,000 miles away, in Hawaii with his adult children.) A girlfriend invited me to join her at Mukul, a luxury resort on the so-called Emerald Coast of Nicaragua. With its open-air restaurants and café tables spread out under a vast thatch palapa, it reminded me of Costa Careyes in Mexico, or what Costa Careyes may have looked like in the 1960s: a wild, raw coast offering intoxicating isolation, before the arrival of mansions and private jets. But Mukul had comfort, too: a golf course, pools, and a spa, as well as the broadest, whitest beach I had ever seen.

I also thought it sounded pretty cool to go on holiday to Nicaragua. I would earn what Klara Glowczewska, T&C‘s travel editor, calls “bragging rights,” which travelers have long coveted, she said. And my limited knowledge of Nicaragua definitely put the country in the braggable category. I had childhood memories of scary-sounding headlines: armed uprisings, volcanoes, malarial rainforests, war, all of which could be safely absorbed from the safety of the palapa, should they still pose a threat.

My only concern was that Bahía Manzanillo, the bay beyond Mukul’s gorgeous white beach, looked on the internet as if it had some very significant surf, so before accepting I called the resort to see if the water was safe, since I love to swim. Oh yes, the receptionist assured me. Now the only impediment was a steady stream of negative commentary from my other half, in Hawaii.

“Why on earth would you go to Nicaragua? There are beaches closer to home. It’s dangerous, it’s baking hot, there are bugs.”

I am not a thrill-seeker. In fact, I am a lifelong sufferer of anxiety. But I am also a bit stubborn and Type A, one of those people who believes that “no” is just the start of a conversation. So “Hawaii,” as we shall call him, had me fired up. I wasn’t hoping to fall into a volcano (I am a mother of young children), but I was hoping for something—just what, I wasn’t sure.

On December 27, I traveled to Miami, whence American Airlines was supposed to fly me to Managua. At boarding time the passengers were told that a stewardess had called in sick, and immediately my anxiety started humming. Was it possible the stewardess just didn’t want to go to Nicaragua? What did she know that I didn’t? Was she really sick? Was it contagious? An hour later a steward clutching a Starbucks cup arrived to claps and cheers, and we were off.

The wild, raw coast offered intoxication isolation, before the arrival of mansions and private jets.

In Managua I transferred to a small propeller plane with peeling leather seats that had clearly seen better days. I tried to relax by looking down at the haze-covered mountains and red dirt roads twisting through jungle. Upon landing I was met by a driver from Mukul who coolly told me that our car, a white SUV, had both air conditioning and WiFi. Some crazy adventure. Suddenly, in front of us a villager walked with his oxen. What a great Instagram, I thought, clicking away, except my phone promptly seemed to stop working. (Ahem, Verizon.) Ha, I thought, fishing out my other cell, an AT&T iPhone, the one I keep for emergencies. This one worked. A bit smugly, I did feel that I was prepared for the developing world.

The gates of Mukul opened to immaculately manicured grounds where, unlike outside, livestock did not roam freely. I was met by my personal concierge, who showed me my accommodations, a charming bungalow with French doors. It was now the end of the day. Too late for a swim? According to the concierge, it was a long walk to the beach, but in 30 minutes I could take a shuttle bus. My Type A instincts kicking in, I grabbed my bikini and goggles and asked the concierge if she could kindly drive me herself (she was, after all, my personal concierge). Not only did she, she handed me a local cell phone on which to call her should I need anything else. I would come to nickname this device the “Bat Phone,” since over the next five days the poor woman was summoned at least as often as the Caped Crusader ever was.

At the beach I raced into the water. It took me 10 minutes to get beyond the surf and the sandbars. When I looked back at the shore, I realized I was farther out than I had thought, and completely alone. The water was black. For the first time ever while swimming at sea, I was slightly frightened. As I fought my way back to land, ducking in and out of crashing waves, I wondered if the receptionist had really meant that it was a swimmer’s beach.

Back at the bungalow I discovered that another friend of mine, fellow T&C contributor Holly Peterson, had been in the space just before me. This meant two things: First, I was in the right place, since Holly has impeccable taste and a great love of adventure, and second, that Mukul’s beach was probably just for surfing, since, unlike me, Holly is a passionate and excellent surfer.

Meanwhile, thanks to the lovely young concierge, various petty grievances seemed to be in the process of being rectified. My friend had lost her luggage, which was now en route from the airport. The bungalow, which had been filthy when we arrived, was now clean. The refrigerator, which had been barren, now contained food and drink. We enjoyed a good dinner under the palapa and said goodnight. Just before I got into bed I told Hawaii he was fussing about nothing.

“Just wait,” he said. “There’ll be something.”

Five minutes later something hit the floor of the bungalow. I switched on a flashlight I had brought from New York and pointed it under the bed. Nothing. So I rolled back under the duvet. There was movement around me and much clattering, and suddenly I too was deposited on the ground. I got up and discovered that one side of the bed had collapsed. (I weigh 108 pounds, incidentally.)

It was after midnight, too late to call the concierge on the Bat Phone, so I slept on the bed’s other side, hoping it would hold up until morning, and anticipated the mockery from Hawaii. But first there was more drama. In the morning my friend’s daughter got stung by a stingray, which apparently Bahía Manzanillo was full of. “You have to shuffle when you’re wading,” we were told, a bit late. Hawaii called as the resort doctor arrived, his mockery turning to genuine alarm. “Do not leave her side,” he said in staccato. And the excitement kept coming: That night on the way home from dinner our golf cart started going slower and slower and finally stopped altogether. We pushed like crazy, got nowhere, and finally left it stranded while we walked home in the dark (not so easy for the young woman with the greenish, swollen foot).

The next night my bed started to shake again. I got up, checked the slats—all was in place—and went back to sleep. In the morning I discovered there had been an earthquake measuring 5.8 on the Richter scale. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Now the calls from Hawaii were becoming more frequent, each one beginning with: “So what has happened now?” Truth be told, we were having a fantastic time. We had nicknames for our wounded cart (Herbie) and our stick shift rental car (Ramona), which I repeatedly stalled driving up hills too slowly. We signed up for surfing lessons and loved them, even though the instructor, a tall Australian, told me he hadn’t seen wipeouts like mine in a long time. I had sizable bruises as evidence, the sight of which, e-mailed to Hawaii, would elicit exasperated sighs. A lifeguard named Juan was now swimming in flippers alongside me when I went into the water. At dinner we got used to the hourlong wait between ordering our food and eating it. I ran into friends from London, who shared their stories of the hotel’s growing pains. “We asked for a tennis pro,” Rachel, a mother of five, told me. (A search had to be conducted and someone driven all the way from Managua.) Holly told me weeks later that she had been stung by a scorpion. On New Year’s Eve the resort threw a beach party, during which they ran out of glasses, a situation the staff resolved by picking up used ones, wiping them off right in front of us, and filling them up again.

When we arrived we’d have minded this sort of service. Now we just laughed and drank from used stemware. The truth was, we’d gotten used to not being in control. My image of Nicaragua turned out to be woefully outdated; the country has had a thriving tourist industry for more than a decade. But there was a lot of well-intentioned, hit-or-miss service. All began to make sense when Mukul’s effervescent general manager told us that his favorite TV show ever was Fantasy Island. Mukul was our Fantasy Island, and it taught us that expensive paradise, unexpectedly, takes the form of chaotic goodwill.

Since I got home I’ve thought often about that trip, and here’s what I’ve decided: It wasn’t in spite of the difficulties and annoyances that I enjoyed it, it was because of them. I asked Lisa Cohen, the ebullient travel agent who had booked my trip at the Caribbean family resort, for her perspective. She said that over the last decade or so, roughly during the technology boom that has filled our lives with so much gadgetry, there has been a rise in demand for trips that take us slightly out of our com- fort zones, maybe because we are now accustomed to, and perhaps bored by, efficiency and order. We actively seek disorder—just not too much.

“People want adventure. They want to go somewhere exotic, but afterward they want to return to the comfort of the Four Seasons,” said Cohen, who works for Valerie Wilson Travel, one of the top corporate travel agencies in the country.

A day in the life of Lisa Cohen, she joked, is not unlike that of a Park Avenue psychiatrist, featuring calls from Fortune 500 CEOs who are abroad and suffering from diarrhea, or who have landed somewhere and the weather isn’t what they expected and realize they’ve packed the wrong clothes. One of her favorite stories is about the time she sent a pair of honeymooners to the Hawaiian island of Lanai and the resort was overrun by mice, so she flew them to a different island. (The couple have since divorced.)

Philip Lategan, the South African owner of the travel company Journey Beyond, told me that visitors to Africa used to want a real safari. “Now it’s really entertainment,” Lategan said. “The resorts are more luxurious than the Peninsula.” Zarafa, a camp on the plains of Botswana, has a better wine cellar than some top hotels in the U.S., he said. Some of his clients bring bodyguards; others have asked to climb Mount Kilimanjaro “and not get dirty.”

“We’ve pulled it off,” Lategan said. “It just takes a lot of money, and 30 porters.” One family he worked with had a phobia of insects, “so we nuked the place” where they were camping.

The real challenge, according to Lategan, is making safaris safe for children, who not long ago were expected to stay home, since a fearful cry or sudden movement can dangerously upset an animal in the wild. Now children get to see cheetahs and hippos from the safety of a covered vehicle. The real obstacle to giving high-end tourists the gentle buzz they want is, as Lategan put it, “idiocy.” He cited an Australian couple so determined to drive rather than fly across the Botswana bush that they spent an unplanned night in the wilderness, having plugged the wrong address into their GPS and ended up at a camp that was full.

India too has benefited from the soft adventure trend, said Raju Singh, the owner of Ventours International Travel. “Delhi Belly is a thing of the past,” he told me, adding that Indian hotels can be as good as if not better than their counterparts in the U.S. But outside? Some of Singh’s clients seemed surprised to run into cows in the street. Others have said to her, “I’d like to come to India but not see any beggars.”

A straw poll among friends tells me that the most rewarding challenge of any trip is relaxing into an uncustomary lack of control. Holly Peterson has surfed in dangerous currents all over the world, and her car once broke down in one of Brazil’s notorious favelas, but the thing she found hardest? Keeping her cool when she was delayed at the Costa Rica–Nicaragua border. She and her posse of young surfers had to disembark from one vehicle, drag their luggage 100 yards, and, clutching 19 passports, stand in a line that included chickens and other livestock. “When that 90-minute drive turns into a six-hour adventure, it’s important for your children to see you stay calm.”

Last year Suzanne Herz, the executive director of publishing at Doubleday, took her 16-year-old son to see chimps in the Mahale Mountains of Tanzania. They began with a two-day safari considerably more basic than they anticipated, after which her son turned to her and said, “Mom, I need to be evacuated to the nearest Four Seasons.” Instead, after flying to Mahale from Arusha, Tanzania, aboard a puddle jumper that kept stopping to deliver provisions to other camps, they arrived exhausted in humid 100-degree weather, hoping to cool off with a swim in clear, inviting Lake Tanganyika—but no, there were crocodiles, the guides told them, which led to a long boat ride to the middle of the lake, where the water was too deep for the crocs. A series of grueling four-hour hikes up a steep mountain followed, only some of which yielded glimpses of chimps (which Herz was unable to enjoy due to her glasses fogging up). “You have no control, you don’t know what’s going to happen, and you can’t always get what you want,” Herz told me. Nevertheless, her son ended up calling it the best trip he’d ever been on.

Travel takes us out of ourselves and opens us to new ideas, new places, and ultimately a more accommodating frame of mind. On the return from Nicaragua, our plane was delayed, and none of us minded in the slightest. Once we got to Miami, however, I was suddenly furious that my phone still didn’t work. (It turned out that Verizon had suspended my account on suspicion of fraud. It also turned out that Verizon’s fraud office is closed on Sundays.) I felt anxiety closing in, which is perhaps why I tried for so long afterward to conjure up those five slightly crazy days in Nicaragua and remember what it was like when the bed shook and the golf cart petered out, and the only possible reaction was to laugh. There was also, of course, the greatest fun of all, which perhaps was what I had been looking for all along, before I even signed up—namely, listening to the perplexed skepticism of Hawaii. He’ll never admit it, but from the barrage of phone calls and questions later on, I’d guess he was just a little jealous.

Inside the Trial All the Billionaires Are Watching

gallery-1454439627-gettyimages-1957246

“What do you see?

That is the opening line in RED, the 2009 play about Mark Rothko written by John Logan. Alfred Molina, playing Rothko memorably on Broadway, opens the 90-minute piece, pointing to one of the painter’s infamous red and black works – or since we are on stage, a replica – and asks: “What do you see?”

That’s my question as I sit off and on in the packed courtroom on the third floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse at 40 Center Street in New York, where Judge Paul Gardephe is hearing the month-long civil case of luxury goods magnate (and Sotheby’s chairman) Domenico de Sole, and his wife Eleanore (above) , against Ann Freedman, the former president of the Knoedler Gallery, the oldest art gallery in New York until it abruptly closed in 2011. The de Soles argue that Freedman and Knoedler knowingly sold them a fake Rothko, Untitled 1956, for $8.3 million in 2004. (A Long Island woman, Glafira Rosales, has already pled guilty to peddling Knoedler forty or so fake works created by Queens street artist Pei-Shen Quian, which the gallery then resold at staggering markups.) Meanwhile, a criminal investigation hovers. Rosales has not yet been sentenced, and her co-conspirators, Qian and her boyfriend, Jose Carlos Bergantinos Diaz, as well as Diaz’ brother, await extradition from China and Spain, respectively. At stake, many in the art world believe, is the opaque manner in which dealers and galleries operate, hiding behind the mythology of expensive art created by talented drug addicts and drunkards, many of whom left imperfect records. Dealers are not required to tell customers the identity of sellers, a standard that would never fly in, say, high-end real estate, or any other multimillion-dollar field.

What do you see?

Apparently RED is on the mind of several people in court. As she was leaving court last Wednesday, Eleanor de Sole told journalists she’d seen the play performed in her hometown of Hilton Head, South Carolina. So what is it we currently see in the courtroom?

First we see theater: a real-time, real-life high-stakes drama that transports one into the multi-layered art world, a jigsaw-puzzle of innumerable experts, historians, researchers, conservators, and middlemen all looking for an angle and a cut. (Never again will I listen to any art professional who says, “I’m only interested in art, not the commercial side of the industry.”) Simply put, there is no art without money: the relationship is symbiotic. Christopher Rothko, Mark’s son, has been in court testifying that he has a policy of never authenticating his father’s work. David Anfam, the world’s leading expert on Rothko and author of the Catalogue Raisonne, has said the same thing. Why? Not because they can’t recognize Rothko’s art (Anfam was clear on that) but because too much money is at stake. Rothko told Ann Freedman back in the day he thought the fake Rothko was “beautiful,” but he was not prepared to document that it was also real. The reliance the whole industry places on nebulous-sounding oratory rather than solid documentation is almost comic. No other sophisticated business does transactions based on verbal fairy-tales. The defense, according to Freedman’s lawyer Luke Nikas, plans to show early next week that this “context” – the very real world of fairy tales and no documentation – is crucial to understanding it all.

gallery-1454442230-ann-freedman-101607

So far the testimony has taken us back to the 1990s and 2000s, inside the opulent walls of the high-windowed Knoedler Gallery on 70th and Madison. Founded in 1846, Knoedler was the oldest, most reputable gallery in America. Ann Freedman, 68, sitting tall off to the left as you face Judge Gardephe, is a reedy, grey-haired, bespectacled woman who looks more like a university don than a hard-charging saleswoman; however, it was Freedman who battled her way up from Knoedler’s receptionist to become its president in 1994, earning herself a reputation that commanded respect, yes, but also fear. Peers thought she was sharp-elbowed. Many complained of the abrupt way she replaced her well-liked predecessor Larry Rubin, reportedly changing the succession arrangement he’d set up.

We also learned last week that certain people in the art community didn’t like her way of conducting business. In 1994, which was when Rosales first brought her fake wares to Knoedler, the British-born MoMA curator John Elderfield told Freedman that he didn’t think two Richard Diebenkorn works the gallery was showing were authentic. Phyllis Diebenkorn, the artist’s widow, who was with him, agreed, according to Elderfield; so too did the Diebenkorns’ daughter Gretchen, who testified that the paintings “lack soul.” Elderfield tried to be British and polite about his misgivings, which in hindsight might have been a mistake. Assuming Freedman would withdraw the works, he’d be “dismayed” ten years later to discover she had sold them. Diebenkorn’s wife was outraged. But – and it’s a big but – she never wrote to Freedman or anyone complaining.

Meanwhile, as many have testified, Ann Freedman was extremely successful at finding and selling first-rate contemporary art. Her “brand,” to quote Domenico de Sole (who, one could argue, knows a thing or two about brands given his stewardship of Gucci and now Tom Ford) was impeccable. De Sole told jurors that under her rule, the Knoedler Gallery continued to be thought of in superlatives. It was “the top.”

This was the reason, de Sole told the jury, that he and his wife, Eleanor, a former IBM executive, showed up for an appointment at Knoedler in late 2004. They’d never met Freedman, but they knew her “brand.” They also knew she represented an Irish artist, Sean Scully, whose work they’d recently admired on a friend’s wall. At that point the de Soles collected art but had never spent more than $2 million on a single item. They are rich, yes, but not billionaires. De Sole, a Harvard-trained-lawyer, had “worked hard” to get where he is, he explained.

As it turned out, Freedman told the de Soles in 2004 she did not have a Sean Scully, according to de Sole, so he asked to see the two works she did have in the office, prompting her to unwrap a Jackson Pollock she said was available for over $11 million. There was also the red and black Rothko,Untitled 1956, available for $8.5 million.

While de Sole described the scene, its subject, the painting, was beside him on an easel. It was displayed casually, almost absurdly so given the dramatic “unveiling” being discussed. “Aggressive” was the word de Sole used to describe Freedman’s pitch. She mentioned a Swiss “client” who wanted to sell his paintings discreetly. His father had been the collector. (Earlier that morning in the courtroom, one of Knoedler’s researchers, Melissa De Medeiros, had been forced to admit that although the gallery came up with various “plausible” storylines about who might have advised this client’s father, known as “Mr. X”, Knoedler had no concrete idea who this person was.)

But to the de Soles Ann Freedman gave the impression she not only knew the “client” but that all sorts of experts, including Christopher Rothko and David Anfam, had seen the work and validated it. (Anfam and Rothko both denied this.) “Magnificent” was another word Freedman used. De Sole would ask her to put it all in writing, which she did. Her letter, shown to the jury, clearly says that Knoedler warranted the authenticity of Untitled, 1956.

gallery-1454442344-christopher-rothko-82984744

De Sole and his wife let the painting, once purchased, go abroad to be viewed at the prestigious Beyeler Foundation in Switzerland, then hung it in their house in South Carolina, where many friends came to view it, said de Sole. It was bought for his daughter Laura, since he and Eleanor have taken trouble to divide up their estate fairly between Laura and another daughter, who “fight,” according to their mother.

But one morning in 2011, after he got out of the shower, de Sole found his wife shaking. She’d read a story in the New York Times saying that another painting, Untitled 1950 by Jackson Pollock, sold to hedge fund manger Pierre LaGrange by Knoedler in 2007 for $17 million, was fake. The provenance – a Swiss collector had supposedly owned it – sounded all too familiar. De Sole would ultimately call Freedman, who stated that Lagrange was wrong. Both his painting and De Sole’s were the real deal. The word “aggressive” was used again.

That was the last time Freedman and de Sole spoke. A criminal investigation began; the Knoedler gallery closed. The truth about Rosales and her scheme would emerge. Freedman, who has not yet testified, will argue that she too was a victim, having bought three works from Rosales too. (At far less of a markup than her customers.) A startled de Sole testified that he had only discovered in court that the “Rothko” he bought from Ann Freedman for $8.3 million had been purchased from Rosales by Freedman for a mere $950,000. He was spluttering as he got that last part out.

How did you feel about the painting once you discovered it was a fake? he was asked. “It was worthless,” he said, adding his wife now cries at night, and finally, “I got a fake painting for $8.3 million and they don’t want to give it back to me.”

And all the while the painting sat there beside him. At some point the lawyers picked it up and took it out – fast. Had it been worth $8.3 million – or more, because a real Rothko by would have appreciated significantly – men in white gloves would have been called. It was now a rough-handled object of scorn.

And there, really, is the puzzle at the heart of all this for people who don’t spend their time pouring over art catalogues or traipsing through galleries. How is it that one moment a painting can be loved and admired, hung on a museum’s walls, and the next it is “worthless,” jostled, bounced about, and cried over? Surely the painting was still the painting.

What do you see?

However this ends, the spectacle of that painting in court is a deconstructive mockery of all the murky pretension, hypocrisy, and greed around it. It’s testament if ever there was that art – and, as a lover of Keats and a believer in truth being beauty and all that suggests, I really hate to say this – has no intrinsic value. The value consists entirely in the perception of where it came from, not what it is.

What do you see?

So what I see in court during this trial is a rapidly expanding global industry that, terrifyingly, has zero regulation, is rife with corruption, price-fixing and self-interest, and is little more than a shady, self-interested cartel based on . . . nothing.

And that’s a depressing spectacle.