Pro-Trump super PAC paid thousands to firm owned by Trump’s campaign manager

A company that President Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, says he owns has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the President’s flagship political action committee, which is barred from coordinating with the campaign.

Federal Election Commission records indicate that Red State Data and Digital has received  $910,000 from  America First Action,  the super PAC formed in 2017 to support the Trump-Pence agenda and  fellow Republican  candidates.

After CNN initially published a story about Parscale’s wife, Candice, being an owner of Red State, her husband contacted CNN and acknowledged he owns the company even though she is listed on legal paperwork. “I am the owner of Red State,” Parscale told CNN.

Parscale said he hadn’t originally wanted to disclose his ownership publicly because there are no available records connecting him to the company.

Delaware incorporation documents name only Candice Parscale as a “member” of Red State Data and Digital. A “member” of an LLC is usually an owner. The company was founded on March 2, 2018, just days after it was announced that Brad Parscale would become Trump’s campaign manager. His name does not appear on the documents.

In a series of texts with CNN, after initial publication, Parscale said that “so, legally we both own it,” and “she is on the paperwork yes.” He also said that “she is my wife and I allow her to file and be on my companies because I trust her. It depends on how you look at it. But no. It is all my company.” Then later he said, “I own the company solely,” and that his wife “listed it incorrectly” on the incorporation document, speaking of her being named as a “member.” “She just checked the box of what she was. I’m the owner.”

He also tweeted around the same time, “I own all my companies. My wife is member on some of them to do filings and bookkeeping. This is a disgusting trick to make a very simple thing look nefarious. Her last name is Parscale, what would that hide?”

Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of federal candidates, but they are barred from coordinating spending decisions with those campaigns, among other limitations.

Brad Parscale and his wife both insist their arrangement is legitimate and that there is no coordination.

“This is a perfectly legal and appropriate arrangement, which is firewalled, with zero chance for coordination,” he said in a statement. “There could not possibly be coordination because the ads placed were for other candidates in the 2018 midterms. Everything is in FEC compliance.”

Still, experts in federal election law consulted by CNN said earlier that the appearance of a connection between the President’s main super PAC and a firm set up by his campaign  manager’s  spouse that handles political ads walks right up to the line.

“It calls into question the independence of the super PAC,” said Larry  Noble, the former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission and a CNN contributor. “One would hope a watchdog agency would investigate allegations of coordination.”

Noble said the FEC has been “lax” about enforcing coordination rules.  The FEC was further weakened by the resignation of one of its commissioners this week, reducing the number of sitting commissioners to three and thereby stripping it of its power to enforce campaign finance laws. Federal law requires four or more commissioners to approve new rules or take actions to punish those who violate election law.

Leading the campaign

Brad  Parscale  served as Trump’s digital media director during the 2016 campaign. After the election, in January 2017 he co-founded America First Policies, the sister nonprofit closely related to the America First Action super PAC. He also helped raise  millions of dollars in support of Trump’s reelection bid.

In 2017, he founded Parscale Strategy LLC, a marketing company that did work for America First Action, as well as others including the Republican National Committee.

As Trump’s campaign manager, Parscale has come under scrutiny over the amount of money he’s made off his political companies. According to a source close to the company, Parscale was rattled by recent negative press, particularly criticism among his Republican peers over a $13,500 fee he was paid for a speech to the Republican Party of Seminole County, Florida.

Parscale has returned the money to the campaign, according to a source close to the company. In the wake of the criticism, he has begun downsizing, according to the source, who said he had let three employees go from Parscale Strategy in the past week. A Trump campaign spokesman declined to comment about whether Parscale had returned the money to the campaign.

Payments from the PAC

The America First Action super PAC made its last payment to Parscale Strategy on March 13, 2018, and its first payment to Red State eight days later, on March 21.

In 2018, America First paid Red State a total of $837,000, according to FEC records. That makes it the fifth biggest recipient of money from the group last year, according to Open Secrets.

Since then, the company has received payments totaling approximately $70,000 for fundraising consulting and website design and development, according to FEC filings. The last payment of $10,000 was made in June 2019.

The same source close to the company says it stopped involvement with ads or media spends, typically the biggest expenditures of political groups, after the midterms.

In an interview with CNN this week, Candice Parscale said she is simply the bookkeeper for Red State, which she described  as a small web-services company. The super PAC, however, remains Red State’s only client, according to FEC filings.

Candice Parscale also denied having any involvement in Red State’s strategy or work for campaigns.

“I do payroll and invoicing,” she said.

According to its incorporation documents, Red State’s listed street address is the same as a UPS Store near Capitol Hill in Washington. It’s not uncommon for LLC’s to list mailboxes as their addresses.

The company has no website. The Parscales live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where Candice Parscale says Red State employs at least a couple of people. They also said the company had one employee in Washington.

Once  Brad  Parscale moved over to run the Trump campaign last year, according to his wife, the couple took legal advice as to how to retain a few of his employees. The staff, she says, mostly did not want to leave Florida and had no long-term interest in working for a political action committee.

“These are web designers, not policy people,” she explained. Hence, according to  her,  the  formation of Red State, which could keep the web designers separate from the super PAC.

According to Candice Parscale, Red State does not have a CEO. Instead a woman whom she declined to name runs the company and reports directly to the president of America First Action, Brian Walsh. Candice Parscale said she does not have work-related discussions herself with Walsh, though she does know him socially.

Walsh did not answer specific questions about how he works with Red State or about his relationship with Candice Parscale when asked by CNN.

An America First spokesperson told CNN,  “Red State is a valued vendor that provides us with digital consulting services at a competitive rate,”  and when asked about the propriety of the campaign manager’s wife working for a firm directed by the super PAC, said, “America First strictly complies with FEC rules and regulations and any suggestion otherwise is patently false.”

Campaign experts weigh in

Campaign finance experts say it is difficult to know if the required distance between the entities is being adhered to.

“If  Parscale  wanted to sever himself completely from the super PAC, then I don’t know why he would create a company involving his wife,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21,  a nonprofit organization  committed to reducing the amount of dark money in politics.  “It’s hard to know if there’s a legal issue or not, because of the lack of transparency.”

Wertheimer said it would  be  difficult  to determine whether the Parscales were having  conversations  about work that was being done for the super PAC by Red State.  “That’s why dark money is so dangerous,” he said. “No one knows what’s going on.”

Noble agreed that the setup is “concerning” because it poses the question of  whether  Brad and Candice Parscale  talked strategy together. “It looks terrible because it’s hard to believe they would not share information,” Noble said. “Maybe they won’t,” he added wryly.

This story and the headline have been updated to include additional information given to CNN by Brad Parscale after publication.

House committee subpoenaing former White House staffer Rob Porter

The House Judiciary Committee is subpoenaing former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The committee is expected to announce the move as soon as today.

Porter’s subpoena is the sixth issued to officials close to the President in the wake of the release of the Mueller report by Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, and his committee as part of its investigation into President Donald Trump and possible obstruction of justice. The committee has been authorized to issue subpoenas to 17 individuals in total. The committee is expected to announce the subpoena Monday which asks for Porter to testify in a public hearing in September.

So far, former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn has refused to comply with his Congressional subpoena, because the White House asserted that he has absolute immunity from testifying before Congress. The committee has filed a lawsuit to force him to testify.

Two other officials have testified but did not answer nearly any questions about events after the 2016 election at the direction of the White House.

McGahn’s assistant Annie Donaldson, whose notes made for some of the more interesting reading in the Mueller report, answered written questions and is expected to testify in November.

Former White House communications director Hope Hicks testified behind closed doors in June. According to the transcripts, Hicks would not discuss conversations she had with the President while at the White House. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn were both subpoenaed earlier this month.

Lewandoski, the first non-White House employee to be subpoenaed by Nadler, said he would be willing to testify about his campaign role but not about conversations with the President since he took office.

Porter’s testimony could be critical in trying to establish the mindset of the President as he strategized what to do about the Mueller investigation while it was underway.

Who is Rob Porter?

Porter, who was known to take contemporaneous notes, is among the most cited sources after McGahn in the second volume of the Mueller report, the part that covers obstruction as opposed to possible collusion.

A former chief of staff of Utah Republican and former Sen. Orrin Hatch, Porter is a former Rhodes scholar and a lawyer who clerked on the DC circuit of appeals, The 41-year-old was the only Trump White House senior staff member who can lay claim to having worked in all three branches of the government, and he is also the only person so far subpoenaed by Nadler who was not a member of the Trump campaign.

He supported Jeb Bush in the 2016 Republican primary. When Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, asked Porter during the transition if he could be loyal to Trump given his track record, Porter replied he could be loyal to the office of the Presidency, according to a source with knowledge.

Footnotes in the Mueller Report indicate that Porter sat for two days of interviews with the special counsel’s team. As staff secretary, his job was to vet any document the President signed. But it soon morphed into much more than that, it has been widely reported. Porter’s glittering academic resume impressed the President who, according to three sources, increasingly relied on Porter for advice on a broad range of issues.

For example, when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to un-recuse himself from the Mueller investigation, the Mueller report states that the President asked Porter about associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, whom Porter knew personally.

Porter in the Mueller report

According to the report, the President asked Porter to find out if Brand was “on the team” and would be interested in becoming Attorney General one day, or taking on the investigation herself.According to the report, Porter did not do as the President asked and seek out Brand, because, according to the report, he understood that what he was being asked to do, thought it was not stated explicitly by the President, was to find someone to fire the special counsel or end the Russia investigation.Porter was also sandwiched between an angry President and McGahn, according to the report, after McGahn refused to refute an article published by the New York Times that alleged the President had asked McGahn to fire the special counsel. McGahn had not only refused, but threatened to resign, according to the report. Trump had told Porter that the article was “bullsh**” and insisted to Porter that he tell McGahn to write a letter for the public file stating he had never asked McGahn to fire the special counsel. He told Porter that if McGahn did not do as directed “then maybe I will get rid of him.”

According to the Mueller report, Porter told the President that he thought the matter would be best handled by the White House communications office. But after being pressed by the President, he went to McGahn and conveyed the message, which McGahn “shrugged off.”

According to the Mueller report, Porter also talked with then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, who set up a meeting between the President and McGahn, during which McGahn told the President that the optics of firing him would be terrible. McGahn was not fired. He left the White House in October 2018.

Porter resigned from the White House in February 2018 amid allegations from two former wives of domestic abuse. Porter denied the allegations.

But for the next couple of months, the President continued to talk with Porter frequently and wanted him to return to the White House, according to a report in the New York Times. According to the book “Fear: Trump in the White House” by veteran Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, Porter had acted as something of a guardrail against the President’s more extremist positions, especially on a trade war with China and on immigration.

Since then, it’s not clear how often the President and Porter have talked or what the nature of their relationship is now. That could be one reason House Democrats want his testimony come September.

 

CNN Exclusive: New documents reveal behind-the-scenes clash over spending inside Trump inaugural committee

(CNN) — The former adviser to first lady Melania Trump, who has come under fire for the cost of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, was among the event planners who raised concerns about excessive spending in the weeks before the events, according to documents obtained by CNN.

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend of Melania Trump, has emerged as a witness for investigators and received a subpoena last month by Washington DC’s attorney general.

The 10-page subpoena, which has been seen by CNN, asks Wolkoff to hand over a variety of information, including any evidence of inaugural-related expenditures that were “wasteful, mismanaged, and/or improperly provided private benefit.”

It asks for communications between the inaugural committee and several business entities connected to President Trump or his family, as well as communications between Wolkoff and a number of Trump family members, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

Multiple agencies are investigating Trump’s inauguration, including federal prosecutors in New York who are scrutinizing tens of thousands of documents handed over by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, according to people familiar with the inquiry. Authorities are investigating whether any of the donation money was misspent, used to improperly benefit certain individuals or came from foreign donors. Vanity Fair first reported the DC subpoena.

The DC subpoena is the third Wolkoff has received about the inaugural’s finances. The other two were from the US Attorney’s office in New York’s Southern District and from the House Oversight Committee, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Reached by CNN, Wolkoff said she could not comment, citing a nondisclosure agreement she signed with the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee, the nonprofit group that oversaw Trump’s inauguration.

In a one-page statement released in April 2019, Wolkoff said, “If the PIC were to release me from this obligation, I would be able to speak freely without the fear of legal or financial repercussions. Otherwise I am regrettably unable to provide any substantive comment.”

But two people close to Wolkoff tell CNN that she has responded to the latest subpoena. That could be worrisome for people connected to the inauguration.

Wolkoff was deeply involved in minute details of the inauguration planning and was included in emails viewed by CNN that included costs, schedules and vendors, among other information.

One of the sources close to Wolkoff told CNN that she is meticulous about record-keeping, and has maintained extensive records of her work surrounding the inauguration, including detailed ledgers and spreadsheets of budget expenses.

Welcome to Washington

This is a story, essentially, of a clash of wills and culture. Wolkoff came to Washington unversed in politics but expert in staging large-scale productions for high-end, notoriously detail-oriented cultural institutions, such as the Lincoln Center and Vogue magazine. She was used to working with people she knew and trusted and expected that her role would include checking the price of every line item, according to the sources. She was told she would be given carte blanche, they say. That turned out not to be case.

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff and Melania Trump in 2008.

Wolkoff left the White House in February 2018 amid controversy, when it was revealed that her firm, WIS Media Partners, was paid close to $26 million to plan events for the inauguration.

That month, senior administration officials said the President and first lady were not pleased to have learned about the money paid to Wolkoff’s firm by the Inaugural Committee, according to The New York Times.

The first lady’s former spokesperson Stephanie Grisham, now the White House press secretary, released a statement at the time saying the White House had “severed the gratuitous services contract with Ms. Wolkoff.”

In her April 2019 statement, Wolkoff disputed that she had been fired, and wrote that Grisham’s words were “not fair or accurate,” and that she had been “thrown under the bus.”

All but $1.6 million of the $26 million payment to Wolkoff’s company went to vendors and subcontractors for broadcast production services of events, according to a document prepared by the company and viewed by CNN.

The Inaugural Committee was chaired by President Trump’s longtime friend, the California-based financier Tom Barrack. The committee’s deputy chairman, Rick Gates, became an employee of Colony Capital, Barrack’s investment firm, after the inauguration.

In February 2018, Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy and for lying to investigators, on charges unrelated to the inauguration. Gates is currently cooperating with various investigations, as part of his plea agreement.

Barrack has come under scrutiny recently over his dealings with Saudi Arabia.

Asked about the recent subpoena to Wolkoff, spokespeople for Kushner, Gates, Barrack, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump all declined to comment.

The White House would not comment but has previously said the President and first lady were not involved in inauguration planning.

Double the cost

The Trump Inaugural was different in many ways, most notably in what it cost. The event’s record $107 million price tag was more than twice as expensive as President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, as well as the 2001 swearing-in of President George W. Bush.

Wolkoff, a longtime friend of the first lady, was asked by Ivanka Trump to run the inauguration after the election, according to one of the sources close to Wolkoff. Wolkoff had a reputation as a strong event planner, having run the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute Gala, known as the Met Gala, in New York City.

Once she landed in Washington, Wolkoff realized that the scope of the inauguration was far beyond what had been outlined to by her Barrack and Gates, according to one of the sources. She’d have to trust the “Washington way,” which included, so she was told, working with long-held partnerships.

Thomas Barrack

Four sources familiar with the situation tell CNN that Wolkoff clashed repeatedly with Barrack and Gates over the Inaugural Committee’s spending. A particular point of contention was a vendor called Hargrove Inc., a special events company that Wolkoff felt was charging prices beyond what she thought was reasonable. Hargrove has been involved in producing events for every presidential inauguration since 1949 and was paid at least $25 million for Trump’s inauguration.

Emails obtained by CNN show the concern Wolkoff and other event planners had about Hargrove’s budget. In late December, Gates was copied on an email exchange between Wolkoff and Hargrove managers that said, “I am expressing my concerns because I have no options at this point.” Wolkoff cited “many line items that were not reflected, rentals that were not sourced, budgets that were not accurate and décor elements that were not feasible.”

Hargrove’s then-president replied that “our only goal here is to make this the most successful inauguration ever,” and offered to provide 10 bars free of charge.

An email among inaugural event planners also questioned Hargrove’s prices, with one saying a bid to decorate two halls of the convention center was “literally 5 times anywhere else would be. We’ve accounted for some premium increase, but this is exceptionally high.”

Another email from another partner in the event planning asked Hargrove why the price was so high for scenic elements, writing that the “cost … is not justified with how it has been explained or shown.” CNN did not see Hargrove’s response to this email.

Despite the concerns, Gates approved the hiring of Hargrove for Barrack’s Chairman’s Global Dinner held at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, one of multiple events the company was involved in, and the Presidential Inaugural Committee signed off on Hargrove’s budget, according to documents viewed by CNN.

Hargrove declined to comment for this story, but a source familiar with the company’s work on the inaugural events said Hargrove submitted a detailed scope of work documents and invoices and because the scope of work changes with each inauguration, any comparison with other events would be unfair. Hargrove produces many other major events, including the Democratic National Convention, and CNN has, along with other media outlets, worked with Hargrove in its convention coverage.

A spokesperson for Gates told CNN he had no knowledge of Wolkoff’s concerns over Hargrove. Barrack’s spokesperson refused to comment, though it is unclear whether he knew about the cost concerns.

Rick Gates

Wolkoff soon felt excluded from meetings convened by Barrack and Gates that she thought she should have been included in, according to one of the sources close to her.

Things got so bad that Wolkoff voiced her distress in a phone call to Trump’s then-personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who recorded the call. According to a source with knowledge of the recording, Wolkoff told Cohen that she was concerned about the inaugural spending.

The recorded conversation was acquired by federal agents last year during their investigation into Cohen.

Wolkoff, according to the two sources close to her, had gone to work for the Inaugural Committee against the wishes of the majority of her New York friends, many of whom supported Hillary Clinton.

Wolkoff has told one of those sources, a close friend, that she took the job because she felt she had no choice due to her close relationship with the first lady, as well as a sense of patriotic duty

Despite the friction surrounding the inauguration, Wolkoff agreed to work for Melania Trump as an unpaid adviser. Classified as a special government employee, Wolkoff spent a lot of time working from New York City. She was tasked with crafting certain messaging points, as well as cultivating the first lady’s official children’s initiative, though to what extent remains unclear. Wolkoff departed the first lady’s staff in February 2018 — Be Best was launched in April.

Privately, Wolkoff has told multiple people that it’s her belief she was deliberately set up as a scapegoat to deflect attention from other people involved with the inaugural who, to her mind, were guilty of misspending and with whom she grew to have a difficult relationship.

“Stephanie was underestimated,” says a person close to Wolkoff. “They were hoping for a New York socialite who would not look at the details.”

CNN Exclusive: The rise of the Jeffrey Epstein mystique

New York (CNN)—In the days before Jeffrey Epstein died in an apparent suicide early Saturday morning, one of his closest associates, billionaire retail magnate Leslie Wexner, the founder and chairman of L Brands, Inc. went public with a shocking allegation.

In a letter to his charitable foundation, Wexner wrote that Epstein, who’d been his right hand and had power of attorney over his finances, had “misappropriated vast sums” of money from Wexner and his family more than a decade ago—more than $46 million according to The Wall Street Journal.

In his letter, Wexner claimed to be “embarrassed” to have been duped.

The admission raised more questions than it answered: Did Wexner go to the authorities with these claims? And if not, why not? What was the nature of the two men’s relationship? And why had he given Epstein so much control over his finances in the first place?

So much about Epstein’s life (and now his death as well) remains shrouded in mystery. Here was a man of enormous means, with no college degree, no brokers’ license, whose reputation as a financial savant seemed grounded not in any concrete evidence but in the extensive network of powerful people he had cultivated over the years. It remains striking that for someone of such wealth (his fortune was reportedly estimated at half a billion dollars) no one could ever truly say (including Epstein himself) how he actually made his money.

“Nothing about Jeffrey Epstein makes sense, including his death,” said Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s former friend and business partner and a convicted fraudster who served 18 years in prison for bilking investors out of $460 million in a ponzi scheme. Since getting out of prison in 2013 Hoffenberg has widely claimed, including to CNN, that it was Epstein who masterminded the whole thing.

Last year, victims of Hoffenberg’s firm, Towers Financial, sued Epstein for restitution of alleged misappropriated funds.

Before his death, it was widely believed that the criminal case brought against Epstein on sex-trafficking charges might finally shed light on the many unanswered questions that surrounded him. That included not just getting to the bottom of the extensive sexual abuse allegations that dogged him, but also examining the darker corners of his rarefied social network that encompassed some of the world’s most powerful people in business, finance, politics and academia.

It was this network after all that gave Epstein his ultimate power and prestige and, until recently, seemed to have made him almost untouchable.

While there are certainly secrets that died with Jeffrey Epstein, some answers may yet come to light.

On Saturday afternoon, Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who brought the criminal sex trafficking charges against Epstein in July, indicated that while the criminal case against Epstein is over, federal prosecutors still intend to investigate charges that are part of the indictment, including conspiracy.

“Our investigation of the conduct charged in the indictment — which included a conspiracy count — remains ongoing,” Berman said in a statement.

In the weeks following Epstein’s July 6 arrest, and in the hours after his death, people in his social circle in the Hamptons, Epstein’s target audience, focused in on the word “conspiracy,” and what that might mean for a handful of his most exclusive connections.

Within those rarefied orbits, the mystery behind Epstein’s relationship with Wexner is considered to be among the most important to unravel; so too is that of Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and Epstein’s alleged madam, who was not given immunity in Epstein’s non-prosecution-deal of 2007. Maxwell was named in a 2015 civil suit by Virginia Giuffre, an alleged Epstein victim, as the person who introduced Giuffre to Epstein.

The defamation case was settled in 2017, after the judge had ruled against a motion for summary judgment filed by Maxwell.

The rise of Epstein’s mystique

The irony of Epstein’s influence is that he was a deliberately enigmatic figure, who thrived on telling stories about himself that were hard to believe by people who, regardless, kept him close, including Wexner.

“Everything, the money, the girls — it was all a game to him,” an Epstein friend who received almost daily financial advice from him told CNN. “It was like a chain. He took money from the rich people he cultivated, charmed, bribed; and in turn he paid women to do what he asked them. In the end it was all about the money, the power that money gave him.”

In under a decade, Epstein went from tutoring the daughter of Bear Stearns chairman Alan “Ace” Greenberg to rising to become a limited partner with the firm while still in his twenties, advising their wealthiest clients and forming a close alliance with both Greenberg and then CEO James Cayne.

Though he was asked to leave Bear Stearns in the early 1980s, his rise to achieve the vast trappings of wealth was as rapid as it was unconventional. Epstein sold himself as a money manager exclusively to billionaires– but it was unclear who his clients were — other than Wexner — and Hoffenberg, about whom he was much less public.

Part of Epstein’s schtick was to be low key in his dress and showy in his home, where he displayed photographs of the important people he associated with. A recent visitor to Epstein’s house saw “numerous” photographs of Epstein with former President Bill Clinton, as well as photographs of himself with his arm around the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.

Within the last two years, Epstein separately told four confidants that he was advising the Saudi Crown Prince on financial matters. A close adviser to the Crown Prince denied this, as did a Saudi official who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity. “The claim that Mr. Epstein was advising HRH Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on financial matters is without foundation,” the official said.

Epstein would also tell people he was making money for various African dictators, according to two Epstein confidants, who said that people who heard this were skeptical. “I wondered if he photo-shopped the pictures,” one of those confidants told CNN.

Other people’s money

For many, Epstein played fast and loose with other people’s money.

Two former Sotheby’s executives confirmed an instance to CNN where Wexner claimed that Epstein made money for him in highly questionable circumstances. In 1994, Sotheby’s, where Wexner was a board director, was in negotiations to buy the site of the former Alexander’s department store in Manhattan, now the site of Bloomberg LP’s headquarters.

Since the talks were non-public, Sotheby’s directors were warned to make no transactions with their stock to avoid suggestions of insider trading, the two executives said.

Yet public financial records show that that same year Wexner sold more than a million shares. A. Alfred Taubman, Sotheby’s then-chairman who died in 2015, told one of the former Sotheby’s executives, that he was furious with Wexner for trading while the real estate deal was pending.

Records show that Wexner left the board the next year, after, according to the Sotheby’s source, Taubman asked him to. According to this source, when Taubman questioned Wexner about the sale, Wexner professed ignorance and blamed Epstein for the transactions.

A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment. Wexner has not been charged with any crimes. CNN reported Monday that he has hired one of the most prominent criminal defense attorneys in New York, Mary Jo White, who is a partner at law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and is the former US attorney in Manhattan.

The Social network

Epstein’s financial success was dependent on the vast, eclectic social network which enabled him to throw dinners at his house where he could introduce academics to politicians and financiers and royalty — and of course, women. In this regard Epstein appears to have received considerable assistance from the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late Robert Maxwell, a British tycoon who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991, disappearing off his yacht. It was posthumously discovered that Maxwell committed a massive pension fraud.

In an interview with CNN, a former nanny for Ghislaine Maxwell’s sister, Christine, recalled that in the 1990’s Ghislaine showed up at Christine’s home in Oakland Hills, California, to “lick her wounds” over a break-up with Epstein.

Ghislaine stayed in her sister’s house for just over 24 hours, according to the nanny, Sydney Proctor. After Ghislaine’s departure, Proctor recalled that Christine was livid on behalf of her sister, because “to add insult to injury Jeffrey made Ghislaine find his girlfriends.”

In an interview from 2002, one alleged Epstein victim, Annie Farmer, said she would never have stayed under Epstein’s roof had it not been for the fact Maxwell assured her mother she would act as chaperone.

In an email to CNN, Christine Maxwell said she has “no recollection of ever having had any such conversation with Sydney Proctor in relation either to my sister or Epstein.”

Even after they split, Maxwell stayed close to Epstein. Her name is mentioned frequently in a cache of documents that were unsealed last week in which it’s alleged she was a procurer for Epstein and other high-profile people.

According to multiple people in affluent Manhattan circles, including two of her girlfriends, Maxwell introduced Epstein to many of the social figures in his life. She herself socialized in exclusive circles that included people connected to politics.

Chelsea Clinton invited Maxwell to her wedding and even brought Maxwell backstage at the Clinton Global Initiative summit in 2009, according to eyewitness accounts.

Bari Lurie, a spokesperson for Chelsea Clinton, says the only reason Clinton was acquainted with Maxwell was because Maxwell was dating a friend of hers, Ted Waitt, the billionaire co-founder of Gateway Inc.

In recent days, Maxwell has not been spotted. Maxwell was not among the four women who received immunity in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which has left the people in Epstein world wondering if, in the wake of Epstein’s death, she now becomes the number one target of many of the alleged victims.

Multiple attempts to contact Maxwell have been unsuccessful.

A source close to Maxwell told CNN recently that she sat with Maxwell on a flight from Miami to New York around December of last year. When asked where she was living, Maxwell did not want to be pinned down. “I live all over the place,” she replied.

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

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

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

Kushners on the case

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

Trump signs off

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

Part of a pattern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I overcame my fear of going on TV

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

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

I smile politely.

They do not know my secret.


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swamp Thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CREDITS

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