Biltmore House, America’s Original McMansion

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

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

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

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

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

Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Trump reads it. Then what happens?

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

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

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

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

And H.R. automatically hates it.

Does he say that to you?

Pretty much.

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

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

Give me an example.

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

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

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

What was McMaster’s response to that argument?

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

What happened after the meeting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

Don’t get me started on the State Department.

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you know many people like that?

I know one.

Who?

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

You took the viceroy candidate to the White House?

Yeah, but again, it’s a moot point.

Did he meet the president?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have thoughts on Charlottesville?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve given other suggestions of places.

Where did you suggest?

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

Have you ever met the president?

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

What are your feelings about his presidency so far?

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

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

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

So the allegations of you setting up secret back channels …

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

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

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

Did you write anyone to complain?

There are some electrons not worth wasting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think you’d revive Blackwater domestically?

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

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

Let the record show the witness said zero.

Michael Cohen Speaks: Trump Exec Admits Russia Dealings Were Gross, But Not Illegal

Michael Cohen isn’t really supposed to be talking to reporters. The former executive vice president and special counsel at the Trump Organization, who also serves as the personal attorney to the president, sat in the back of the bustling Hampton Coffee Company in the tony beach town of Water Mill, New York, on Tuesday, nursing a large black coffee. His two cellphones beeped every few seconds. Eventually he looked down at the offending devices. “There goes CNN again,” he said. “Friends and my attorney have recommended I not appear on air until after my testimony.”

There was certainly good reason for his lawyers to advise caution. This week has seen Cohen, 51, take another star turn in the ongoing Russia investigation. Cohen (and President Donald Trump) have insisted for more than a year that the Trump Organization has had no business dealings in Russia. Cohen has been one of the president’s most dogged defenders in the media on that point, taking his case to TV, Twitter ― anywhere, basically. Speaking to the Financial Times in December, he dismissed the idea of “any connection with Russia” as “yet another example of the press’s liberal bias towards Mr. Trump.”

JOHN TAGGART/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
Attorney Michael Cohen arrives at Trump Tower in New York, Jan. 12, 2017.

But earlier this week, details of a planned business deal with Russia emerged in the press, partly because Cohen’s lawyer filed a two-page statement ahead of Cohen’s upcoming appearance before the House Intelligence Committee. (The hearing, originally scheduled for Sept. 5, has been postponed.) The statement reveals that in 2015 and 2016, Cohen was pursuing a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The deal was brought to him by Felix Sater, a freelance Russian-American broker, convicted criminal and former FBI informant who’d worked with the Trump Organization on several previous projects.

Sater said he could lasso a Russian partner for the proposed Moscow deal, and he pursued one with customary brio. In a November 2015 email, Sater told Cohen, who he has known for 30 years, that he would “get all of Putins [sic] team to buy in on this.” He added, “Our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it.”

But that wasn’t all. According to his statement, Cohen talked about the proposed project with Trump himself on three separate occasions during the course of the campaign. Cohen also admitted that in mid-January 2016, he sent an email to Dmitry Peskov, a senior member of the Kremlin, asking where the government stood on approvals for the tower. He said he didn’t hear back, and the project never got off the ground.

This goes against Cohen’s earlier claim that Trump had no connection to Russia “altogether,” not to mention Trump’s own blanket denial from February: “I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person I deal with does.”

I asked Cohen how it feels to be caught in a contradiction. “I feel great,” he said. “Which picture did The Wall Street Journal use of me? Was it good?” He continued: “I am in many respects just like the president. Nothing seems to rattle me, no matter how bad the hate.”

As Cohen sees it, he is simply “collateral damage,” a victim of the general ill will toward Trump supporters like himself. As proof, he showed me an email on one of his phones from someone claiming to be an entertainment executive in Los Angeles. “Your a dick,” the email began, and escalated from there, with the sender threatening to molest Cohen’s girlfriend. (Cohen is married.)

He told me that he gets a lot of emails and calls like this. Still, his mood lightened when a man at the coffee shop approached us. The man said that he and Cohen grew up in the same neighborhood, and praised Cohen’s TV appearances. “You are Howard Stern meets Tony Robbins meets Ari from ‘Entourage,’” the man said. Cohen chuckled. “You can write that if you want,” he told me.

I showed him a tweet from John Podhoretz, editor of the magazine Commentary: “Nothing illegal about Trump & people kissing up to Putin while running for Prez, even if for biz reasons. Gross but not illegal.”

“Well, he’s right,” Cohen replied calmly. “Though I would argue that neither I nor Trump were kissing up to Putin for either political or business benefits. The Trump Moscow project was a proposal that came to me through Felix from a Russian real estate developer. The fact that it needed government approval from the Kremlin is irrelevant. Putin was not the partner. He is the president of the country.”

But if Trump needed the Kremlin to approve a major deal, wouldn’t that have created the possibility of undue influence? “No,” Cohen said. “Their system is different from ours. The Kremlin has to approve buildings in Moscow. That’s not undue influence. That’s just the way it is.”

I point out that for many people, it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between Trump’s business interests and his political ones. And yet Cohen told me that during the campaign there had been no internal conversations at the Trump Organization about how to avoid potential conflicts of interest. “Everything was being characterized as a potential conflict,” he said. “On CNN, they argued that unless Trump sold everything, there would be a conflict of interest. My comment [to them] was that even if he sold every asset, they’d attack the buyer as having undue influence over him. It’s the epitome of Catch-22.”

Did the Trump Organization’s stance change when reports started to emerge that Russia was attempting to interfere with the election? “No,” Cohen said, “because we had no involvement in it. We had the same information as the public.”

How, then, does he explain Sater’s email gloating that the Moscow deal would help “our boy” with the campaign? “Trump getting elected would have just been a bonus [of the deal] in my mind,” Cohen said. “Felix knew that. He was selling me. What Felix was referring to was that [the tower] would distinguish Trump from the other 16 candidates by showing his ability to get along with foreign leaders who have not been well received by the previous administration.”

Later, he added: “I think it’s essential that the U.S. and Russia work together as superpowers in order to bring stability to the world. This is why the U.S. people elected Donald Trump.”

Throughout our conversation, Cohen maintained that Trump was barely aware of the details of what would have been a “very, very lucrative” project, if it had gone ahead. He gave me an account of the precise numbers of minutes, and even words, that Trump expended on the effort. According to Cohen, when he first brought up the Moscow deal to his boss, he received a two-word response: “He said: ’OK, great.”

The second conversation, Cohen said, was in the fall of 2015, when he asked Trump to sign a nonbinding letter of intent to go out to potential Russian partners. “This meeting lasted approximately two minutes,” Cohen said. The third exchange happened in January 2016: “I stated to Mr. Trump, while talking about something else, that I terminated the agreement. His response was another two words ― ‘Too bad.’”

And so, Cohen concluded, “the entire duration of our conversations on Trump Tower Moscow, if you added them all up, lasted four minutes.”

I told him it’s difficult to understand why Cohen and Trump had denied having any dealings in Russia, if all these conversations were so innocuous. Cohen nodded. Some of it, he said, has to do with lawyers wanting to control the narrative. And some of it, he said, is just plain absurd. He claims that when he sent the email to Peskov, he had little idea whom he was actually reaching out to. By his account, he wanted to find whether the Russian government had authorized the Moscow tower. At Sater’s suggestion, he says, he looked Peskov up. “I sent my email addressed to Peskov to a general mailbox ― not his personal email, which I never had. I did not hear back from him.”

Cohen characterizes this contact as “tantamount to sending an email to [White House chief of staff] General [John] Kelly by sending the communication to ‘info@WH.org.’ It is certainly not in the Spy 101 Handbook for Stealth.”

This wasn’t the only episode that Cohen attempted to justify with an explanation that might have been a plot out of “Monty Python.” There was also his alleged effort, in February, to help broker peace in Ukraine with politician Andrey Artemenko. This was controversial because Artemenko said that he had won Putin’s backing for his plan, and Cohen allegedly delivered the proposal to Michael Flynn, who was fired from his post as national security adviser one week later.

Cohen claims that this encounter was blown out of proportion. “Felix asked that I meet him for a cup of coffee, as he wanted to introduce me to a friend,” he said, referring to Artemenko. Cohen suggested the Loews Regency near New York’s Central Park “because it is two blocks from my house and they have good coffee.”

There, Cohen said, Artemenko told him that he was going to run for president of Ukraine and that he knew how to solve the conflict between Russia and Crimea. “His plan, which was one that is not novel nor unique, was for the Ukraine to lease Crimea to Russia for 100 years. That was the whole plan,” Cohen said. “He asked if I could deliver a paper to either the president or General Flynn. He gave me a long brown envelope containing one or two pages. I never opened it and I never delivered it to either General Flynn or the president. I told him to send it to General Flynn at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He asked me to take a copy in case I saw them… But I didn’t deliver it, because I had no interest in what he was selling.”

So, why the conflicting accounts about his role? Cohen raised his hands. “I really don’t want to go into it,” he said, “except Reince Priebus later confirmed no document was ever given.” (Priebus, Trump’s former chief of staff, did not respond to requests for comment.)

“The whole thing is so stupid,” he continued. “When was the last time you saw a peace proposal on one piece of paper? SAT computations for algebraic equations take at least two pages or more. I truly hope at the end of all this nonsense that some L.A. screenwriter elects to turn this into a Netflix miniseries or movie called ‘Sheer Nonsense.’”

He waited a beat. “And I really hope Tom Cruise plays me.”

Why The Mooch Lost His Cool

I received a call Monday night from Roger Stone, the infamous political prankster and Donald Trump confidant. He wanted to talk about Anthony Scaramucci, whose 10-day tenure as White House communications director had just ended in ignominy.

Stone said that Scaramucci reminded him of “a suicide bomber,” then switched centuries for his next metaphor. “The administration is like the French Revolution,” Stone said. “You never know who will be beheaded next.”

But Stone didn’t believe that Scaramucci would stay far from the president for long. “As you know, none of us are ever really gone. He still has the president’s cellphone, the president’s private number. Just because he’s not in the White House, no one should think his influence has gone.”

When I spoke to Scaramucci on Tuesday afternoon, the financier was more interested in justifying his recent past.

From the beginning of his time in the Trump White House, way back on July 20, critics said that Scaramucci was too similar to Trump, too eager to be on TV, to last. Scaramucci was keenly aware of that particular liability. It explains why his opening news conference was so filled with compliments for the president. He knew there was only one person watching whose opinion of him mattered.

“The president thought I killed it,” Scaramucci told me the following day, still clearly hyped up by his experience in the White House briefing room.

The administration is like the French Revolution. You never know who will be beheaded next. Republican strategist Roger Stone

“If you were 7 inches taller, I’d be worried,” Trump told Scaramucci, according to someone familiar with the conversation who asked not to be named quoting the president.

The euphoria wouldn’t last long. A Politico reporter alerted Scaramucci that Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker tweeted Wednesday night that Scaramucci was at dinner with the president, first lady Melania Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox News co-president Bill Shine.

Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 10.01.54 AM

Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 10.02.00 AM

Scaramucci was livid about the information being passed on to a reporter. For one thing, he said the guest list was incomplete. The tweets didn’t mention the presence of Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade, co-hosts of “Fox & Friends,” as well as White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, who, he said, left before the sit-down dinner. For another, he knew that the full guest list also included Kimberly Guilfoyle, co-host of “The Five” on Fox News. Early the next morning, Olivia Nuzzi of New York Magazine confirmed that Guilfoyle was there.Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 10.02.08 AM

Scaramucci realized that the inclusion of Guilfoyle would raise suspicion. He said he was aware that some associates and members of the media were gossiping about his friendship with the Fox host and feared this particular connection would only make matters worse. He said he took it as “an attack.”

Scaramucci strongly denies having a sexual relationship with Guilfoyle. Stone, a friend of Guilfoyle’s, explained that Scaramucci and Guilfoyle “are very close friends but nothing more.” He added, “He is way too short for Kimberly.”

Through a Fox News spokesperson, Guilfoyle said she’s known Scaramucci for years through her work at Fox News and the two are “good friends.”

As soon as Scaramucci returned from Wednesday night’s dinner, he called Lizza and gave his now-infamous interview, published Thursday, in which he suggested that former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was a “paranoid schizophrenic” and that White House chief strategist Steve Bannon practiced auto-fellatio.

Scaramucci said he felt burned by the interview. “The Lizzas and Scaramuccis have been friends for over 50 years. My dad knew his dad from construction, and we were building a personal relationship. Most of what I said was humorous and joking. Legally, it may have been on the record, but the spirit of it was off. And he knew that.”

Still, Scaramucci told me, he has plans to take Lizza out for a beer.

Most of what I said was humorous and joking. Legally, it may have been on the record, but the spirit of it was off. And he knew that.Anthony Scaramucci on The New Yorker interview

When I asked Lizza for his response, he wrote back: “I’ve only known Anthony in his capacity as a Trump surrogate and then White House communications director. We are not and have never been ‘old family friends,’ though I think our fathers knew each other, so maybe that’s what he’s talking about. (The Long Island Italian world in that generation is relatively small.) But again, that would not be a reason to suppress an explosive on-the-record interview.”

According to several sources close to the White House, the president was initially amused by the Lizza exchange but changed his opinion when he saw how much negative attention it was bringing. Scaramucci said he offered to resign before the weekend. The president told him that wouldn’t be necessary, but he instructed Scaramucci to “watch it” in the future, according to someone familiar with the conversation.

I spoke with Scaramucci on Saturday morning, and he sounded defeated. “I think I have strep,” he said. On top of everything else, the night before, The New York Post had broken the news of his impending divorce from his second wife, Deidre Ball.

JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS
White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci arrives with President Donald Trump aboard Air Force One in Ronkonkoma, New York, on Friday. On Monday, Scaramucci was out of a job. 

That Scaramucci’s marriage was in trouble was hardly a secret. Long before Ball filed for divorce on July 6, Scaramucci was open with friends and associates about what he believed to be the sorry state of their union and how they were struggling through regular counseling sessions.

He just hated that his relationship was being discussed in public. A follow-up report from the Post said that Scaramucci didn’t attend the birth of their son last week. Instead, he sent Ball a short congratulatory text.

Scaramucci said this is an unfair characterization of events. He told me that Ball’s due date was Aug. 9, so when he boarded Air Force One to West Virginia last Monday to attend the president’s address at the National Scout Jamboree, he didn’t think he’d be in danger of missing the birth. As soon as she texted him that she was going into labor, he said, he looked into chartering a plane from West Virginia but discovered that there was a wide no fly-zone around Air Force One. He explained that he decided to wait to fly back to Washington with the president, then travel to New York from there.

As of Tuesday afternoon, he still hadn’t met his son. Scaramucci claimed that right after the birth Ball texted him her request for some space. When I asked about this text, Ball’s lawyer, Jill Stone, responded: “Any texts of that nature had nothing to do with the baby or seeing the baby.” (Jill Stone said she couldn’t comment on the rest of Scaramucci’s version of events.)

When I spoke to Scaramucci on Saturday, he didn’t have much to say about the collapse of his marriage. “It’s fine. I mean, what am I going to do?” He perked up when he started talking about the fantastic team he was going to bring into the White House’s communications shop and the big plans he was going to enact after a tumultuous first week.

But on Monday morning, Scaramucci knew he was cooked. Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, the new chief of staff, who insisted that all White House staff report to him, asked for his resignation. “It was a very polite conversation,” Scaramucci says.

Scaramucci then went to see Trump, who was unavailable. He ended up speaking with the president, his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, separately later in the day by telephone. All were gracious, he said. “The president told me he knows I have his back, but he has to try to tighten the ship.”

So what are you going to do next, I asked him.

“I am now going to go dark,” he said.

And then?

“Then I will reemerge.” He paused. “As me.”

CLARIFICATION: The section about Ryan Lizza’s and Olivia Nuzzi’s tweets was changed to more accurately reflect the night’s sequence of events.

Here’s The Real Reason Anthony Scaramucci Hates Reince Priebus

In the public feud between Anthony Scaramucci and Reince Priebus, what hasn’t been fully explained is why Scaramucci so dislikes the president’s now-former chief of staff — a man he alternates between calling “Reince Penis” and “Rancid Penis,” according to an adviser to the White House.

The acrimony first surfaced during the presidential transition. The two men had been cordial before then. They met six years ago, when Scaramucci was a fundraiser for presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Priebus was chair of the Republican National Committee. They interacted peaceably during Donald Trump’s campaign as Scaramucci made the rounds on television and at donor events.

After Trump’s victory, Priebus was named chief of staff, and Scaramucci, according to someone close to the transition, was assured that he was also in line for a big position within the administration. (Sources for this story requested anonymity to discuss the details of sensitive conversations.)

While preparing for his move into government, Scaramucci struck a deal — which is still under regulatory scrutiny — to sell his stake in his hedge fund, SkyBridge Capital, to Chinese conglomerate HNA Group and another company. He assumed that he’d be put in charge of the public liaison office, a job that Valerie Jarrett held in the Obama administration. He had it all mapped out, according to the White House adviser. He identified 2,500 influential business leaders across the United States and had come up with a clever name for them: Trump Team 2,500. He believed these people would help pressure Congress into supporting the president’s agenda.

JOSHUA ROBERTS / REUTERS
Priebus blocked Scaramucci from getting a top administration job in January, telling the president that Scaramucci “played” Trump, according to a source. Scaramucci now calls Priebus “Rancid Penis.”

But Scaramucci’s plans were foiled in early January. That’s when Priebus, according to a confidant of both Scaramucci and the president, told Trump, “He played you.”

“How’s that?” Trump asked Priebus, according to the same source, who has spoken to several people within the White House about the conversation.

Priebus then told Trump that he felt Scaramucci had been offered too much for SkyBridge by HNA Group. The deal, he implied, smelled bad — as if the Chinese might expect favors from within the administration for that inflated price. The source also said that Priebus mentioned there was email traffic between Scaramucci and the Chinese proving this.

The White House rejected this version of events and declined to make Priebus available for comment.

Ultimately, Scaramucci was not offered the job.

But he didn’t give up. He asked Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to get him in the door. According to two people familiar with the conversation, Kushner assured him that he didn’t think Scaramucci was “shady,” adding, “But it’s not what I think that matters.” Priebus had already planted the seed of doubt in Trump’s mind.

Scaramucci then tried presidential adviser Steve Bannon, who, according to those same two people, explained that he was too busy attempting to save the job of another adviser, Stephen Miller, to spend time or capital trying to help Scaramucci.

A friend of Scaramucci’s said he complained that some in the White House assumed his finances were suspect because he’s of Italian descent. Scaramucci also took Priebus’ behavior as a sign that Priebus was feeling insecure about his own job. “I will try things the Washington way first,” Trump had told his inner circle when he first named Priebus chief of staff, according to the confidant of Scaramucci and Trump. The implication was clear: If the Washington way did not work, then the New York real estate way would take over.

Finally, Scaramucci went to Keith Schiller, the president’s longtime bodyguard. He asked Schiller to put him on the phone with Trump so that he could lodge his complaints directly. The president listened, according to their mutual friend, and said he would find a position for Scaramucci as soon as he could.

In June, Scaramucci was appointed to be senior vice president and chief strategy officer of the Export-Import Bank. But the Priebus incident lingered in his mind.

So, on July 11, when Donald Trump Jr. found himself in trouble for holding a meeting with several people close to the Russian government the previous summer, Scaramucci sensed an opportunity. According to the mutual friend, Scaramucci told everyone he spoke to that day, including the president, that he was sure the person who divulged details of the meeting was Priebus. Scaramucci made the case — not necessarily backed by evidence — that with all the leaks targeting the administration, it was odd that only a few had hit Priebus directly.

Ten days later, Scaramucci was named the new White House communications director. The announcement noted that he would be reporting directly to the president — an unusual move that leapfrogged over the chief of staff.

Priebus balked, insisting that Scaramucci report to him. But Trump overrode his chief of staff. Not only was the hedge fund manager who had known Trump for 21 years officially in charge of the press shop, but he was also set to oversee the reorganization of the White House. Scaramucci seemed to have his revenge.

At least until Thursday evening. In an interview with The New Yorker, Scaramucci called Priebus “a fucking paranoid schizophrenic” and explained how he, unlike Bannon, is “not trying to suck my own cock.” Now, Scaramucci’s future at the White House is less clear, even if Trump reportedly “loved” the outburst.

Two sources close to the president said the very traits that have so endeared Scaramucci to Trump — tenacity, frankness, limitless swagger — could end up endangering his new job if he continues to steal news cycles from the president. But those same sources said he’s safe for now.

“Mark my words: Anthony will ultimately be an exceptionally good communications director,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide who still talks to the president. “His career proves he’s a master communicator. I hope he keeps his perfect chin up.”

On Friday, the news broke that Priebus had been ousted as chief of staff.

The story has been updated to remove a reference to a lawyer whom Scaramucci and Kushner share, as Scaramucci hired that attorney before he was first turned down for a job in the administration.

The Blow-It-All-Up Billionaires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hd-aspect-1478624841-es-110816-rigged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian Expat Leading the Fight to Protect America

gallery-1477260587-189-dsc6317

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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