Showing posts with label Ivanka Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ivanka Trump. Show all posts

Sunday, 21 October 2018

Michael Moore on 'Fahrenheit 11/9' documentary: 'Trump didn't create the mess we are in'

The filmmaker speaks to Geoffrey Macnab about his new documentary, the ‘Trumpian’ times we live in and why he feels sorry for Ivanka

Michael Moore wants to make one point very clear. In his new documentary Fahrenheit 11/9, he is not comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. The film includes archive material of Hitler in full, deranged demagogue mode, giving an eyeball-rolling, arm-waving performance in front of the Nazi faithful – but out of his mouth come words spoken by the Donald.

“People said to me you’re comparing Trump to Hitler,” says the 64-year-old filmmaker, author, comedian and activist, in London for the documentary’s UK premiere. “I said, no, that is a scene where Hitler is speaking like Trump. I am comparing Hitler to Trump, not Trump to Hitler. If you don’t understand the difference, I can’t explain it.”

The director says he hopes the film will remind people of the mess they are in – and of how they got there ( Briarcliff Entertainment )
Obviously, says Moore, Trump is not Hitler. However, in making the documentary, Moore drew on Bertram Gross’s 1980 book Friendly Fascism, which predicted that 21st century fascism wouldn’t come with concentration camps and swastikas. It would come instead “with a smiley face and a TV show”.

Moore first had the idea for Fahrenheit 11/9 when he was in London promoting his previous film, Where To Invade Next, which came out in the UK last June, a few days before the EU referendum. He travelled all over Britain, “talking to a lot of working-class people, people who seem similar to me to the people I live with in Michigan. It was clear to us by the end of the week that this thing Brexit was going to pass. That sent a shiver down our spine.” To Moore, the parallels with the then ongoing US presidential election were clear. “We knew we were going to see this six months from now except it will be called Trump, not Brexit.”

“Here’s what we saw,” Moore continues. “Brits who didn’t necessarily really want to leave [the EU], yet the system had so failed them, the [political] parties had so failed them, that Brexit represented a Molotov cocktail they were being handed. They could throw it into the system and blow it up so that somebody would listen.”

Fahrenheit 11/9 is a sprawling, angry and often very funny film that begins with Trump’s election (and the unlikely – and unwitting – part he thinks pop star Gwen Stefani played in setting him on the trail to the White House). But it also deals with school shootings, the poisoning of the water supply in Moore’s hometown Flint in 2014, and the dirty tactics used by senior Democrats to ensure that Hillary Clinton was their presidential nominee rather than Bernie Sanders.

“We started out with a challenge to ourselves to not chase the news every day so that it didn’t matter what Trump was doing,” says Moore. Instead of being about “Trump per se”, the film is intended to look at the “Trumpian” times that we live in and to ask how on earth they’ve come about.

The new documentary looks into the poisoning of the water supply in Moore’s hometown Flint in 2014
“We got here not by Trump. Trump didn’t create the mess we are in. When we get rid of him, we are still going to have the mess. We are still going to have mass shootings, we are still going to have people with no healthcare. The film became about the greater Trump and the Trump that is us, as Americans.”

Moore chastises liberals and Democrats for not taking Trump seriously enough, for treating his political aspirations as a joke. “Just as you here [in the UK] treated Nigel [Farage] and the crazy guy with the hair.” (Moore doesn’t specify the identity of “the crazy guy with the hair” but Boris Johnson would be a good guess.)

There is a certain poignancy in Moore’s fighting talk. He has made films about school shootings (Bowling For Columbine, 2002) and the chaotic state of the American healthcare system (Sicko, 2007) and in commercial terms, he is the most successful documentary maker in history. Yet his movies haven’t managed to change things. Gun law hasn’t been reformed. The American healthcare system is still in a parlous state.

“To be honest, for the last few films, I’ve had to ask myself ‘why’ and ‘what’s the point’,” says Moore, reflecting on the fact that his movies, for all their popularity, appear to have had minimal social impact. “But I am a filmmaker, not a politician. I am making it for the art. First off, I want to make a great piece of cinema. If it can help people to think, if they cry, if they laugh – all the things that any filmmaker wants – I want those same things.

‘Fahrenheit 11/9’ also deals with school shootings, and includes an interview with student activists from Parkland, Florida
“Obviously, I have my own politics, my own agenda in terms of how I hope it will help the country but I can’t make people change or do the right thing,” he continues. “What I do know is that over these 30 years [Moore’s breakthrough film Roger & Me, about the closure of the General Motors plant in Flint, was made in 1989], there have been enough young people who started watching my films at the age of 12 who are now in their 30s and their 40s. They have different politics than their parents and grandparents. Gradually, this will change. It is just not going to be overnight.”

The new documentary includes a fascinating scene in which Moore is shown on TV alongside his then friend Roseanne Barr and Trump himself. They all seem to get on famously. In 2018, though, the chances of these three sharing a platform seem remote. Moore has fallen out badly with Roseanne (whose sitcom on ABC was cancelled following her racist tweeting earlier this summer). Moore speaks of the end of their friendship with obvious regret.

In 2004, he flew around the US with Barr, campaigning for John Kerry in the US presidential election against George Bush. “I had days and nights with her and her family,” he says. They were very close but something “snapped”. Barr started taking increasingly right-wing positions. “Then, she started attacking me on Twitter. I never attacked her back. On the day she was fired from the show, she began that morning with four tweets, one attacking Valerie Jarrett [Barack Obama’s adviser], another attacking me.” He responded by posting a message referring to her as a “damaged soul”.

In 2002’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’, Moore seeks to explain why the Columbine massacre occurred (MGM)
The American director also has some intriguing observations about his former business partner, the disgraced movie tycoon Harvey Weinstein. In 2011, Moore famously sued the Weinstein brothers over profits from his hugely successful 2004 documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, about the presidency of George W Bush. The multimillion dollar case was eventually settled. In spite of the dispute, Moore had originally been planning to work with the Weinsteins again on Fahrenheit 11/9. Then came the sexual abuse allegations and Harvey Weinstein’s spectacular fall from grace.

Why partner with the Weinsteins when you’ve already had to sue them once? Moore seems surprised by the question. After all, all they did was steal from him. He was perfectly happy to work with them again as long as he had a better contract and a better agent. “That’s Hollywood!” he exclaims. “It was only money. If it had been other things, had I ever seen Harvey behave in the way that has been alleged and what he has been arrested for, oh my God, I would have had nothing to do with him. But this was just common Hollywood thievery that goes on all the time.”

Moore’s view of Harvey Weinstein is nuanced. His obvious disgust at the movie tycoon’s alleged behaviour with women doesn’t stop him from acknowledging other aspects of Weinstein’s career.

After meeting Ivanka Trump, Moore says he feels bad for her: ‘I think she’s a good person’
“Harvey raised half a billion dollars for [Aids charity] amfAR. The people at amfAR, at least at the time, credited Harvey with being one of the key reasons why they were able to fund the research and get the AZT inhibitor that essentially means that anybody with Aids now is not going to die before his or her time. That’s Harvey Weinstein. When the whole story is told, it is going to be a very interesting story. You have the politically left Harvey, who is right on all the issues. You have the Harvey who has saved tens, even hundreds of thousands of lives as the result of the work he did to help fund the research to provide medicine for people who have HIV. Then, you have this new Harvey we have all learned about and that none of us knew.”

Moore has known Weinstein for years. When he was with him, he says Weinstein never exhibited casual sexism. “In the almost three decades of knowing him, I never once heard a comment like ‘oh, she looks good today’.” Now, he thinks Weinstein was “purposefully covering up”.

There are disturbing moments in the new film in which Donald Trump makes salacious remarks about his own daughter, Ivanka. Moore has been unsettled by how audiences have laughed at the scenes. “It’s so weird,“ he says. ”My editor and I were like, ‘oh, they’re laughing. We meant this to be serious.’ But it is such a late night comedian’s joke. People are so engaged in laughing at Trump, as they have been since the beginning.”

Moore has met Ivanka and reveals in the documentary that her husband, Jared Kushner, was one of the backers of Sicko. “I feel bad for her. I’ve met her and seen her at various functions over the years to support the right to have gay marriage, Planned Parenthood, all that stuff. She has always been really good about those things and I think she’s a good person too.”

Trump’s “genius”, Moore suggests, is that he does everything in “plain sight”. That makes him all the more difficult to manoeuvre against. The elites on both sides of the American political divide hate him – and that perversely adds to his popular appeal, too. Moore isn’t under any illusion that his film is going to change people’s minds about him overnight but he hopes it will at least remind them of the mess they are in – and of how they got there.

He also knows precisely the audience he is trying to reach – those who voted for Trump as a protest against a political establishment that was ignoring and humiliating them. “I don’t care about the 20 or 30 per cent that’s way out there and are lost Americans,” he says of the Trump supporters whose minds he hopes can still be changed. “I am talking about the 70 per cent who aren’t lost.”

(Source: The Independent)

Friday, 31 August 2018

This is what White House staff call Ivanka Trump behind her back

Flynn, Dubke, Shaub, Corallo, Spicer, Priebus, Scaramucci, Bannon, Gorka - the list of departed staffers from the Trump White House grows longer and longer.

The surviving cabal at the head of President Donald Trump's dwindling retinue appears to be the faction led by First Daughter Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner.

Alongside the plethora of military officers who now hold civilian posts in the administration.

According to Vanity Fair, the White House aides that remain have an unflattering nickname for the Assistant to the President.


One former staffer told Vanity Fair:

Excuse me, this is not a royal family, and she's not the princess royal.

'Princess Royal' is the nickname that has apparently stuck.

One assumes this is a reference to nepotism, rather than any likeness she may resemble to Anne, Princess Royal.

Aides should be wary, as President Trump has been at his most volatile when opponents attack his family.

At a G20 summit, after the First Daughter 'sat in' for President Trump while he absented himself, the President took to the airwaves to defend his daughter from accusations that she benefited from nepotism.

If she weren't my daughter it would be so much easier for her...It might be the only bad thing she has going, if you want to know the truth.

(Source: indy100)

Thursday, 28 June 2018

Review: Born Trump: Inside America’s First Family by Emily Jane Fox

A gossipy study of the Trump clan reveals little of note besides their obsession with keeping up appearances

When Melania Knauss, a Slovenian-born model, married Donald Trump in Palm Beach at 7pm on 22 January 2005, all was right with the world – at least in the eyes of the groom. At his wedding to wife No 2, Marla Maples, in 1993, only a load of B-listers had turned up. “It’s just like I was afraid of,” the radio star Howard Stern would tell a reporter. “I’m the biggest name here.” Now, though, Trump looked around and saw among those gathered at the Episcopal church of Bethesda-by-the-Sea not only Billy Joel, Barbara Walters and Simon Cowell, but also, infamously, Hillary and Bill Clinton. No wonder that once the vows had been exchanged he was moved enthusiastically to kiss his new wife three times in a row (the doomed Maples had received only a peck on the cheek).

Trump and his family set great store by appearances. Look beyond the surface of things, however, and whatever the occasion, you’ll find so wide a selection of cheap metaphors for the wobbly way their universe operates, you’re truly spoilt for choice. Shortly after midnight, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, the happy couple cut into their cake: a 70in, seven-tiered gold and white sponge, adorned with 2,000 sugar flowers. Weighing in at more than 90kg, by rights it should have fed the hundreds of guests with perfect ease. Only there was a problem. This mammoth confection was held together by a web of hidden wires, an intricate structure that made it all but impossible to slice. The crowd had to be fed specially baked back-up cakes. The real thing was only eaten later, once the party was over, by the staff.

 Their lives, being all riches and no rags, afford neither reporter nor reader even the slightest change of tone or pace

Eric, Barron, Melania, Donald, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr at the Celebrity Apprentice final at Trump Tower, New York, February 2015. Photograph: Jim Spellman/WireImage
Emily Jane Fox’s Born Trump: Inside America’s First Family fairly bulges with scenes like this; thick and fast they come, five or six to the page. If everything in Trump Land is flashy, super-abundant and wholly exorbitant, it’s also superficial, shoddy and almost entirely mean-spirited. At first, to put it mildly, this is queasy-making. When Trump flies in to Slovenia to meet Melania’s parents, a trip that lasts in total only a few hours – “I was there about 15 minutes…. I landed, said: hi Mom, hi Dad. Bye!” – you think all over again: my God, how ghastly he is. After a while, though, a certain numbness sets in. The news that Jared Kushner proposed to Ivanka Trump with a ring from her own jewellery collection barely raises an eyebrow. The fact that Donald Jr agreed to ask his wife, Vanessa, to marry him in front of a load of television cameras in a New Jersey shopping mall, in order to bag a discount on a $100,000 emerald-cut diamond, strikes you as so predictable as to be almost unworthy of comment.

This, I think, is one of the major problems involved in writing about the Trumps – and all the more so for a writer such as Fox, whose breathless prose is neither quietly angry nor laced with irony (a reporter at Vanity Fair, she is much given to the kind of glossy magazine talk that has her writing sentences such as: “They [Eric Trump and his wife-to-be, Lara] hired both a wedding planner and an event designer who worked with the couple to strike a balance between what Eric described as ‘formal and fun’ with elegance mixed in.”) Their lives, being all riches and no rags, afford neither reporter nor reader even the slightest change of tone or pace.

But there are other difficulties, too. For one, the Trumps have for decades lived out their lives in public, mainstays both of the New York Post’s Page Six and of reality TV, and thanks to this, Fox’s text often reads like nothing so much as an elaborate cuts job. For another, and this is perhaps the more important fact should you unaccountably be thinking of buying this book (I’ve read it so that you don’t have to), the Kennedys they are not. How unutterably stupid-seeming they are, and how unspeakably tedious reading about them is. From Fox, we learn, for instance, that Donald Jr’s nickname at university was Diaper Don, on account of the fact that in his frat boy days, he was inclined to wet the bed when drunk. His young brother Eric, meanwhile, was known by some school friends as Choad, a term that denotes a penis that is wider than it is long (good to know!). Ivanka, the oldest of Trump’s three children by his first wife, Ivana, used to try and make herself seem a touch more interesting than her brothers, and perhaps a little more classy, too. “My friends always joke that I’m going to marry a 90-year-old Pulitzer prize-winner,” she told a (baffled?) interviewer when she was still a single girl. But then she went and married poor little rich boy Kushner, whom even she once described as “a mutant”. What was on their wedding list? (Yes, they really had one.) Answer: 75 items from Williams-Sonoma, Crate & Barrel and Tiffany’s, among them some spatulas, a rolling pin and a Bundt cake pan.

Advertisement

Fox’s book is a gossipy family study; by design, it touches on politics hardly at all. Still, from her brief account of the transition, we learn that Trump wanted nothing to do with the team working on it (“bad karma”, he called the idea of his involvement, using a term he presumably picked up from Marla, who horrified him by giving birth to their daughter, Tiffany, surrounded by candles, with a Native American “nurturer” on hand to provide massage and prayers). Also, that on election night, it wasn’t only Melania who was seemingly traumatised. Asked for a kiss by her vice-president-elect husband, Mrs Pence – the poor creature whom we now know to call Mother – could only snap: “Mike, you got what you wanted.”

What does Fox make of the fact that Trump immediately tasked his son-in-law Kushner with achieving peace in the Middle East? Her analysis is bold. “Years of political know-how and understanding of an issue so complex that it has eluded seasoned diplomats for decades isn’t like conjunctivitis,” she writes. “It doesn’t rub off on shared pillows, nor is it picked up in conversations with a father’s friends over Shabbat dinner.” And having laid this matter thus to rest, she returns swiftly to the important stuff: Ivanka’s brief stint as a model and Jared’s Common Project sneakers; Tiffany’s tragically brief pop career and Eric’s excessive fondness for sauces; Donald Jr’s predilection for shooting prairie dogs in Montana and Donald Snr’s passion for the film Zulu. All in all, it fairly makes you weep, though whether from boredom or because no fewer than three of these people are now installed in the White House, it’s sometimes hard to say.

(Source: The Guardian)

Thursday, 21 June 2018

Trump retreats on separating families, but thousands may remain apart

President Trump caved to enormous political pressure on Wednesday and signed an executive order meant to end the separation of families at the border by detaining parents and children together for an indefinite period.

“We’re going to have strong — very strong — borders, but we are going to keep the families together,” Mr. Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office. “I didn’t like the sight or the feeling of families being separated.”

But ending the practice of separating families still faces legal and practical obstacles. A federal judge could refuse to give the Trump administration the authority it wants to hold families in custody for more than 20 days, which is the current limit because of a 1997 court order.

And the president’s order does nothing to address the plight of the more than 2,300 children who have already been separated from their parents under the president’s “zero tolerance” policy. Federal officials initially said those children would not be immediately reunited with their families while the adults remain in federal custody during their immigration proceedings.

“There will not be a grandfathering of existing cases,” said Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Wolfe said the decision about the children was made by the White House.

But later Wednesday evening, Brian Marriott, the senior director of communications for the agency, said that Mr. Wolfe had “misspoke” and insisted that “it is still very early, and we are awaiting further guidance on the matter.” Mr. Marriott said that “reunification is always the goal” and that the agency “is working toward that” for the children separated from their families because of Mr. Trump’s policy.


His statement left open the possibility, though, that the children could be connected with other family members or “appropriate” sponsors living in the United States, not necessarily the parent they were separated from at the border.

The president signed the executive order days after he said that the only way to end the division of families was through congressional action because “you can’t do it through an executive order.” But he changed his mind after a barrage of criticism from Democrats, activists, members of his own party and even his wife and eldest daughter, who privately told him the policy was wrong.

Mr. Trump had previously been told by advisers that there was no way for the policy to be changed through an executive order, and it was unclear what the genesis of the measure he signed was. But the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, had concerns about moving ahead with an executive order that would face an uphill battle in the courts.

The president’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, did not voice major objections, according to a White House official. The move also helped alleviate pressure on Kirstjen Nielsen, Mr. Kelly’s protégée and handpicked successor at the Department of Homeland Security.

Undocumented migrants waiting for asylum hearings on Wednesday outside the port of entry in Tijuana, Mexico.CreditSandy Huffaker for The New York Times
Stories of children being taken from their parents, audio of wailing toddlers and images of teenagers in cagelike detention facilities had exploded into a full-blown political crisis for Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans, who were desperate for a response to those who have called the practice “inhumane,” “cruel” and “evil.”

The president’s four-page order says that officials will continue to criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, but will seek to find or build facilities that can hold families — parents and children together — instead of separating them while their legal cases are considered by the courts.

But the action raised new questions that White House officials did not immediately answer. The order does not say where the families would be detained. And it does not say whether children will continue to be separated from their parents while the facilities to hold them are located or built.

Officials on a White House conference call said they could not answer those questions.

Justice Department officials said the legal authority to end family separation relies on a request they will make in the coming days to Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, the daughter of immigrants from China who was appointed by President Barack Obama. She oversees a 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores settlement, which prohibits immigration authorities from keeping children in detention, even if they are with their parents, for more than 20 days.

The 1997 case imposes legal constraints on the proper treatment of children in government custody, which stopped Mr. Obama after his administration began detaining families together during a similar flood of illegal immigration several years ago.

“It’s on Judge Gee,” said Gene Hamilton, the counselor to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Are we going to be able to detain alien families together or are we not?”

Mr. Hamilton said the judge’s previous rulings prohibiting extended detentions of families has “put this executive branch into an untenable position.”

He said that the president’s order is a stopgap measure that could be fixed permanently if Congress passes legislation to overhaul the immigration system. While the House is scheduled to vote Thursday on two competing immigration bills, the president’s decision appeared to lessen the urgency for lawmakers to address the issue.

With Republicans in the House and Senate pursuing different approaches to put a stop to the heart-wrenching scenes at the border, no legislative breakthrough seemed imminent.

Republicans in the Senate have proposed narrow legislation that would end the practice, while House Republican leaders are focused on a broader bill, though its passage was in doubt on the eve of Thursday’s vote.

In the meantime, legal experts said it seems highly unlikely that the courts will agree to the request by the Trump administration. That would mean the president is almost certain to face an immediate legal challenge from immigration activists if the government tries to detain families for more than the 20-day limit.

“I don’t think anyone wants to see little children detained for long periods of time,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the Trump administration’s separation of families. “If they start detaining families and kids in tents or other places, I think you will see immediate lawsuits.”


Kevin Appleby, a senior director at the Center for Migration Studies, predicted such a challenge.

Advocates said officials should jail only those immigrants who have committed other crimes, are a flight risk or pose a danger to others.

“It is outrageous that the president is pushing the criminal detention of innocent children as a solution to his own evil act,” Mr. Appleby said. “The best solution would be releasing families to sponsors or placing them in community-based alternatives to detention programs, which are less expensive and much more humane.”

Until Wednesday, Mr. Trump had refused to simply end his government’s zero-tolerance policy that was announced last month and led to the separation of more than 2,300 children from their parents, saying that the alternative would be to fling open the country’s borders and allow immigrants who cross the border illegally to remain in the United States.

But the president, furious about the pummeling he has taken in the news media in recent days, began casting about for a solution to the politically damaging situation, people familiar with his thinking said.

He made his announcement flanked by Vice President Mike Pence and Kirstjen Nielsen, the secretary of homeland security, and vowed not to relent in his administration’s prosecution of people trying to enter the country illegally.

“We are keeping a very powerful border, and it continues to be a zero tolerance,” Mr. Trump said. “We have zero tolerance for people that enter our country illegally.”

But he added, “The border’s just as tough, but we do want to keep families together.”

In signing the order to end the separation of families, Mr. Trump also abandoned the positions that he and his allies had stuck to for weeks: that Democrats were to blame for the wrenching scenes of kids being torn from their parents, and that the administration was helpless to fix the problem without action by Congress to overhaul immigration laws.

In effect, though, the president was caught between his messaging and the likelihood of inaction on Capitol Hill. That became clearer on Tuesday when Republicans in the Senate and House moved in different directions on confronting the family separation issue.


Mr. Trump acknowledged his position during remarks to reporters before his announcement on Wednesday.

“The dilemma is that if you’re weak, if you’re weak, which some people would like you to be. If you are really, really pathetically weak, the country’s going to be overrun with millions of people,” Mr. Trump said. “And if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart. That’s a tough dilemma. Perhaps I’d rather be strong.”

In addition to the public condemnations of his policy — including by Pope Francis on Wednesday — Mr. Trump had been lectured by the first lady, Melania Trump, and Ivanka Trump, his eldest daughter, according to White House officials.

Melania Trump had been pushing her husband about the family separation policy from the beginning, an official said, arguing that there was a middle way between opening America’s borders and tearing children away from their parents. Separating children from their mother and father, she told him, is wrong.

Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, were also pressing the president to find a way to end the political crisis caused by the family separations at the border, according to people familiar with their conversations.

But it is not clear what the political damage may be to Mr. Trump from having taken actions that he repeatedly said he was not allowed to do.

As recently as Tuesday, in a speech to the National Federation of Independent Business, the president insisted that there were “only two options: totally open borders or criminal prosecution for law breaking.”

“And you want to be able to do that,” he said. “We don’t want people pouring into our country.”

The president has also opened himself up to charges of hypocrisy. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly slammed Mr. Obama for abusing his executive authority when he issued an executive order to protect the young immigrants known as Dreamers.


As a candidate, Mr. Trump said he would use executive orders sparingly, adding that “Obama, because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him, he starts signing them like they’re butter. So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”

Mr. Obama, whose administration also grappled with how to handle massive flows of illegal immigrants from Central America, has remained mostly silent during the controversy over the separation of children from their parents at the border. But in a Facebook post on Wednesday, Mr. Obama denounced the lack of morality in a policy that leads to the kinds of scenes that have played out across television screens during the past several weeks.

“To watch those families broken apart in real time puts to us a very simple question: are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms, or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?” Mr. Obama wrote. “Do we look away, or do we choose to see something of ourselves and our children?”

(Source: NYT)

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Trump threw a match into Jerusalem with no plan to put out the fire

The killing of 52 Palestinians is the result of the US president’s folly in giving Netanyahu what he wanted 

The images coming out of the region today said it all. In one frame there is the Israeli president, Benjamin Netanyahu, looking like the cat who got the cream, sitting next to Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, at the opening of the new US embassy, which has just relocated to Jerusalem.

And in the second frame, there is Gaza, suffused in teargas smoke during protests in which 52 Palestinians were killed, and 1,200 wounded by Israeli fire. Perhaps reflecting on these images, the former US peace negotiator Martin Indyk bizarrely noted that the contrast was a “bittersweet moment”.

But this is not the usual duality of experience on the eve of the day that is both the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Israeli state and the concurrent Palestinian nakba – by which some 700,000 people were either forced from or fled their homes in the war that led to Israel’s creation. This is a violent escalation that was foretold, the result of a deliberate upturning of international conventions. It is the US presidency striking a match and throwing it into the tinderbox of Jerusalem, half of which is deemed by the international community to be occupied by Israel and intended as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Palestinians protest near the border of Israel and the Gaza Strip, left, while dignitaries including Sara Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump attend the opening ceremony of the new US embassy in Jerusalem. Photograph: AP
Amid widespread condemnation of both the US embassy move and Israel’s deadly, disproportionate response to unarmed protesters, rightwing agitators are already pushing their usual with-us-or-against-us binaries, suggesting such denunciations are by definition anti-Israel. Don’t fall for it. The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has issued a statement condemning Israel’s use of live ammunition in Gaza as showing “appalling indifference to human life”. Daniel Seidemann, founder of the Israeli NGO Terrestrial Jerusalem, had warned about the US embassy move that “there will be blood”, adding: “Utter hopelessness is the great destabiliser.” And Chemi Shalev, a senior columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, notes the “current bedrock of US-Israeli relations: fundamentalists, messianics and avid fans of end times” – referring to Trump’s evangelical Christian supporters who cheered the US embassy move, based on an Armageddon prophesy that does not end well for Jewish people.


Netanyahu had long been asking the US to move its embassy and ditch the Iran nuclear deal. In the past week Trump has delivered both, decisions that have rocked an already volatile region. Yet these dangerous shifts are not the sign of a new US policy. Letting the grinding Israeli-Palestinian conflict drift on, even while Palestinians are suffering the everyday realities of occupation, would be bad enough, but no worse than the default international stance has been for some time.

But with the embassy move, Trump has deployed that far-rightist trick of disruption for the sake of it. There is no follow-up, no renewed talks in the pipeline, no international diplomacy, just the usual, multipurpose mumblings from Trump about sealing a good deal. This is no Middle East policy, unless you count as policy the practice of being a fire-starter and appearing to sanction overwhelming Israeli violence. And as we are seeing today, it is those living in the region who will suffer the punishing consequences of his folly.

(Source: The Guardian)

Gaza clashes: 52 Palestinians killed on deadliest day since 2014

At least 52 Palestinians have been killed and 2,400 wounded by Israeli troops, Palestinian officials say, on the deadliest day of violence since the 2014 Gaza war.

Palestinians have been protesting for weeks but deaths soared on the day the US opened its embassy in Jerusalem.

Palestinians see this as clear US backing for Israeli rule over the whole city, whose eastern part they claim.

But US President Donald Trump hailed the move in a video message.

He told the dedication ceremony that it had been a "long time coming", adding: "Israel is a sovereign nation with the right to determine its own capital but for many years we failed to acknowledge the obvious."

The US, he added, remained "committed to facilitating a lasting peace agreement".


What happened at the border?
There have been six weeks of protests at the Gaza border, dubbed the "Great March of Return" and led by Gaza's Islamist rulers Hamas.

Hamas had always said it would step up the protests before Tuesday, when Palestinians hold their annual commemoration of what they call the Nakba or Catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands fled their homes or were displaced following the foundation of the Israeli state on 14 May 1948.

On Monday, the Israeli military said 40,000 Palestinians had taken part in "violent riots" at 13 locations along the Gaza Strip security fence.

Palestinians hurled stones and incendiary devices while the Israeli military used snipers, as black smoke poured from burning tyres.

The health ministry, run by Hamas, said children were among those killed.

The Israeli military said it had killed three people trying to plant explosives near the security fence in Rafah. Aircraft and tanks had also targeted military positions belonging to Hamas in the northern Gaza Strip, it said.


Israel says the protests are aimed at breaching the border and attacking Israeli communities nearby.

There were also violent clashes between Israeli police and protesters who raised Palestinian flags outside the new embassy. Several protesters were detained.

By no means over
Feras Kilani, BBC Arabic, at the protests in Gaza

Tuesday is expected to be a very big demonstration because it is a day known by the Palestinians as the "Catastrophe" that followed the creation of the state of Israel.

Palestinians will go to bury the dozens of people killed on Monday and then they will come again to demonstrate. You can imagine the situation with all this anger, thousands of Palestinians will come here and will try to cross the fence to return to what they see as their land - what they do not see as Israel but as Palestine.

It is expected to be bigger than Monday and more bloody.

What has the reaction been?
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas condemned what he called Israeli "massacres against our people", and declared three days of mourning.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Every nation has the right to defend its borders. Hamas clearly says its intentions are to destroy Israel and sends thousands to break through the border for that end."

A number of Western nations including the UK called for restraint.

  • EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said: "We expect all to act with utmost restraint to avoid further loss of life"
  • Germany said Israel had the right to defend itself but should do so proportionately
  • One of the strongest statements came from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, who condemned the "shocking killing of dozens, injury of hundreds by Israeli live fire"

What has the US opened and who attended?
A small interim embassy will start operating from Monday inside the existing US consulate building in Jerusalem. A larger site will be found later when the rest of the embassy moves from Tel Aviv.


The opening ceremony was brought forward to coincide with the state of Israel's 70th anniversary.

Mr Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, who are both senior White House advisers, joined US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan for the ceremony.

After Ivanka Trump had unveiled the seal of the embassy, Mr Kushner said in his address: "When President Trump makes a promise he keeps it... We have shown the world that the US can be trusted. We stand with our friends and allies."

Mr Kushner also referred to Mr Trump's withdrawal from the "dangerous, flawed and one-sided Iran deal", drawing applause from the guests.

Mr Netanyahu said: "What a glorious day. Remember this moment. This is history. President Trump, by recognising history, you have made history. All of us are deeply grateful."


Mahmoud Abbas condemned the embassy as a "settlement in East Jerusalem", saying that the US was "no longer a mediator in the Middle East".

Arab League chief Ahmed Abul Gheit said it was "shameful to see countries participating with the US and Israel in celebrating the former's embassy move to occupied Jerusalem in a clear and grave violation of international law".

Why is the embassy move so controversial?
The status of Jerusalem goes to the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognised internationally and, according to the 1993 Israel-Palestinian peace accords, the final status of Jerusalem is meant to be discussed in the latter stages of peace talks.


Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since the 1967 Middle East war. It effectively annexed the sector, though this was not recognised by any countries until Mr Trump's declaration in December 2017.

Since 1967, Israel has built a dozen settlements, home to about 200,000 Jews, in East Jerusalem. These are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Various countries once had embassies based in Jerusalem but many moved after Israel passed a law in 1980 formally making Jerusalem its capital.

(Source: BBC)

Thursday, 11 January 2018

Ivanka Trump wants to be the first female US president. Perhaps she already is

Michael Wolff’s explosive book about Donald Trump’s White House exposes the ambition of the First Daughter. But with the power she already has, why bother with a tedious election? asks Arwa Mahdawi in The Guardian. Read on: 

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are quite the adorable pair, aren’t they? Their relationship is truly something to aspire to. While other couples spend their evenings eating dinner and watching TV, Javanka, it would appear, bond over intimate strategy sessions where they draw up detailed plans for world domination. According to Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Ivanka and Jared have their futures all figured out. Wolff writes that the couple have “made an earnest deal” that Ivanka will run for president before Jared. “The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump.”

There has been much guffawing over Ivanka’s apparent political ambitions. Does a woman who sells strappy sandals and Instagrams motivational quotes while dabbling in an unpaid internship in the White House seriously think she deserves the highest office in the world? It’s almost as ludicrous an idea as a reality-TV star with no political experience becoming president! No chance. Republican strategist Rick Wilson told CNN, for example, that Ivanka “is much more likely to be driving a Volvo … to visit her husband in a correctional facility than she is to be president of the United States at some point”.

While I would love to think that Ivanka’s future might consist of Volvos and orange jumpsuits rather than Air Force One and the White House, I’m not so sure that will be the case. Indeed, I think the First Daughter is probably right: if there is going to be a female president of the US anytime soon, it will be Ivanka Trump. One could even argue that Ivanka is already the first female president of America. Since entering the White House in a capacity no one seems to really understand, Ivanka has made herself a fixture on the world stage. She sat in at the G20, for example, discussing African migration with the Chinese, Russian and Turkish presidents, German chancellor and Theresa May. She travelled to India to co-host a Global Entrepreneurship Summit alongside Indian prime minister Narendra Modi. She launched a fund for female entrepreneurs with the World Bank. She is basically a part-time president and now she seems to be vying for the full-time gig.
In Daddy’s footsteps? Ivanka Trump is supposed to have made a deal with her husband to allow her to run for president. Photograph: Markus Schreiber/AP
Ivanka may project a saccharine-sweet image –the doting daughter, nurturing mother, and loving wife – but she has proved herself to be more than a little ruthless when it comes to furthering her ambitions and ensuring that her brand is not tarnished by her father’s actions. Wolff’s book reports that Steve Bannon accused Ivanka, who he nicknamed “the queen of leaks”, of routinely leaking information from the White House to make herself and Jared look good. This would certainly seem to be the case. Every time Trump does something which might hurt his daughter’s reputation among the New York liberals from her social set, reports in the media from mysterious sources suddenly appear, detailing how Ivanka and Jared are valiantly working day and night to make things right. It was widely reported last year, for example, that Javanka were instrumental in stopping Trump from overturning an Obama-era order that protected LGBT rights in the workplace.

The queen of leaks’ reputation control strategy seems to have successfully stopped her brand from sinking. While Ivanka has started to draw a lot more criticism from the liberal media now than she did during Trump’s campaign, she still appears to have bipartisan appeal. A Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted last July found that 44% of US voters view Ivanka favourably. And research published by YouGov late last year found that the perception of the Ivanka Trump clothing line among consumers who vote Democrat has been moving in a continuously positive direction since late spring 2017. As Ivanka’s clothing brand is intertwined with her personal brand, that would suggest her stock among Democrats seems to be going up.

Of course, if Ivanka does run for president, it will likely be on a Republican ticket and she will have to abandon her current pretence at mild progressiveness. Just look at the UK: there is a reason the only two female prime ministers we have had have both been Tories. Electing a woman who is also liberal as leader seems to be far too much for the British establishment to handle.

In the more religious, less tolerant US, it is even more of a challenge. Hillary Clinton may have won the popular vote in 2016, but the levels of misogyny directed against her made it clear that the US establishment still finds it near-impossible to stomach the idea of a female head of state. And certainly not one who is a Democrat.

But perhaps Ivanka will not have to deal with tedious things such as democratic elections, as Clinton did. Perhaps Trump, in his typically innovative manner, will simply change the constitution and appoint Ivanka Empress of America via a 3am tweet. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility. After all, it’s still very early in an already exhausting 2018. Basically, anything could happen.

Michael Wolff's explosive book on Trump: The key revelations

Tell-all offers insider’s view of White House amid infighting, scrutinising the president’s inner circle, his intellect and his hair

Washington DC, the media, a panicked White House and an incredulous American public were rocked on Wednesday morning when the Guardian published the first details of Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

Wolff’s book was much anticipated because he had been granted extensive access to the West Wing and claimed to have conducted about 200 interviews. A summary of some of the key revelations follows.


Campaign
No one in the Trump camp thought he had a chance of beating Hillary Clinton, Wolff writes. The candidate expected to leverage his defeat for wealth, fame and a Trump-branded TV network. Key advisers wanted jobs in television or politics.

In a passage with heavy resonance now, the future national security adviser Michael Flynn is quoted as telling friends that taking $45,000 from the Russians for a speech “would only be a problem if we won”.

Marriage
Melania Trump was among those who thought her husband would not win. On election night she was “in tears – and not of joy”.

The president and his third wife have separate bedrooms (“the first time since the Kennedy White House that a presidential couple had maintained separate rooms”). And on inauguration day, Wolff writes, Trump “was visibly fighting with his wife, who seemed on the verge of tears and would return to New York”.

Wolff also recounts Trump’s alleged technique for seducing married women: quiz their husbands about infidelity, tempt them with “girls coming in from Los Angeles at three o’clock” … and have their wives listen in on speakerphone.

White House
Trump’s bedroom contains three TV screens after he insisted on two more being installed.

“If he was not having his 6.30 dinner with Steve Bannon,” Wolff writes, “then, more to his liking, he was in bed by that time with a cheeseburger, watching his three screens and making phone calls – the phone was his true contact point with the world – to a small group of friends, who charted his rising and falling levels of agitation through the evening and then compared notes with one another.”

Trump had an angry confrontation with the Secret Service: he wanted a lock on the bedroom door, but the agency responsible for security in possibly the most secure building in the world did not.

The president also “­reprimanded the housekeeping staff for picking up his shirt from the floor” and “imposed a set of new rules: Nobody touch anything, especially not his toothbrush. (He had a longtime fear of being poisoned, one reason why he liked to eat at McDonald’s – nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely premade.) Also, he would let housekeeping know when he wanted his sheets done, and he would strip his own bed.”

Hair
 Ivanka Trump discussed her father’s hair with friends, according to the book. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Trump’s much-discussed haircut is mocked in the book – by his daughter.

Ivanka “often described the mechanics behind it to friends”, Wolff writes. “An absolutely clean pate – a contained island after scalp reduction surgery – surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray. The color, she would point out to comical effect, was from a product called Just for Men – the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump’s orange-blond hair color.”

Self-image
In a passage that perhaps points to Trump’s underrated understanding of his unique political appeal, Wolff quotes an unnamed “foreign model” asking him: “What is this ‘white trash’?”

“They’re people just like me,” says Trump, “only they’re poor.”

Intellect
Wolff provides telling details about unsuccessful attempts to brief Trump on policy, domestic or foreign, or even the basics of the US constitution.

“I got as far as the fourth amendment,” says his sometime aide Sam Nunberg, “before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Mental health
Most White House aides and even family members doubt the 71-year-old’s capacity for the job. Trump allegedly did not know, for example, who the former House speaker John Boehner was when he was suggested for chief of staff. Wolff also writes that the president repeats himself constantly, often about what TV anchors have said about him that day.

In an “extracted column” for the Hollywood Reporter this week, Wolff wrote that at a festive season party at Mar-a-Lago, a “heavily made-up” president “failed to recognize a succession of old friends”.

Russia
Bannon was Wolff’s main source on how the White House reacted to Trump’s firing of the FBI director James Comey – which he says was Ivanka and Kushner’s idea – and the appointment of the special counsel Robert Mueller.

Bannon strenuously denies any involvement with Russia-related events but does not spare the rod on others: the meeting at Trump Tower was “treasonous”, “unpatriotic” and “bad shit” and there is “zero” chance Trump did not know of the meeting involving his son Donald Jr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort. The president may have met the Russians himself, Bannon says.

He also suggests that Trump has never understood what trouble he is in over Russia and claims money-laundering charges, such as those denied by Trump’s onetime campaign chairman Manafort, are what will bring the Mueller investigation to its head, probably involving Deutsche Bank and the Kushner property empire.

Wolff quotes the former Fox News chief executive Roger Ailes telling Trump: “You’ve got to get right on Russia. You need to take this seriously, Donald.”

“Jared has this,” Trump replies. “It’s all worked out.”

Republicans
Attempts to control Trump include the former White House press secretary Sean Spicer saying he was “glad to be out of the loop” when family members and close aides met with Trump Air Force One to write a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting with a group of Russians.

Trump’s only party allies are the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, and the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Both wanted key administration roles but were rejected – in Christie’s case by Ivanka Trump, referring to his role in sending Jared Kushner’s father to jail.

Infighting
Trump’s response to Mueller is at the heart of the extensively quoted derision from staff members about the president’s mental state; the president himself is quoted deriding everyone around him, sons – known to White House staff as “Uday and Qusay”, after Saddam Hussein’s offspring – and daughter included.

“There was now a fair amount of back-of-the-classroom giggling about who had called Trump what,” Wolff writes. “For [the treasury secretary] Steve Mnuchin and [the former chief of staff] Reince Priebus he was an ‘idiot’. For [the economic adviser] Gary Cohn, he was ‘dumb as shit’. For [national security adviser] HR McMaster, he was a ‘dope’. The list went on.”

Bannon is ranged against Kushner and Ivanka and in the words of Richard Nixon’s adviser Henry Kissinger: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”

It seems perhaps the most hated entity is “Jarvanka”, AKA Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Wolff also writes that the couple had a much-mocked deal: that “the first woman president … would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump.”

Confidants
Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Trump’s outside advisers express similar derision. Rupert Murdoch reportedly called Trump “a fucking idiot”. Tom Barrack has denied saying Trump is “not only crazy, he’s stupid”. Ailes is depicted as relatively supportive, but he died in May 2017.

Wolff also discusses Trump’s preference for women as close aides, Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway being prominent examples: “He needed special – extra-special – handling. Women, he explained to one friend with something like self–awareness, ­generally got this more precisely than men. In particular, women who self-selected themselves as tolerant of or oblivious to or amused by or steeled against his casual misogyny and constant sexual subtext – which was somehow, incongruously and often jarringly, matched with paternal regard – got this.”

Bannon
Wolff writes that Bannon, his chief source in the book, was solely responsible for Trump’s “American carnage” inaugural speech, which was delivered with the new president’s “golf face”, a scrunched-up expression of boiling rage that experienced handlers know to be wary of.

The explosion of controversy, though, may have imperilled Bannon’s perch at Breitbart News. The billionaire backers Robert and Rebekah Mercer have withdrawn their patronage.

The Guardian
Bannon has told supporters before that they should read this publication to understand how “they” think. Thanks to Wolff, we know now that “though one of the leading English language left-leaning newspapers”, the Guardian is nevertheless the former key adviser’s “favorite paper”.

(Source: The Guardian)

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House review – tell-all burns all

Amid the daily din of Donald Trump’s White House comes Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff’s tell-all, just in time for the first anniversary of the Trump inaugural. Like the “burn book” in the movie Mean Girls, Fire and Fury contains a toxic tale that singes all.

In Wolff’s telling, Trump World is cacophonous and dysfunctional. Trump and those who work for him come across as all too happy to “share”, while loyalty is almost wholly absent from their landscape.

Trump purportedly mocks his own sons’ intellectual shortcomings and derides Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, as a suck-up. Melania Trump, the president’s third wife, cries in sorrow on election night over her husband’s electoral college win. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former senior adviser, pummels Jared and Ivanka, AKA Javanka, for their incredible lightness of being.


As to be expected, Bannon takes no prisoners and speaks with the loudest voice. He brands the now infamous June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower that was attended by a passel of Russians, Don Jr, Kushner and Paul Manafort, Trump’s then campaign manager who is now under indictment, as “treasonous”, “unpatriotic” and “bad shit”.

Bannon also sees special counsel Robert Mueller tightening his noose around the Oval Office. “I’m pretty good at coming up with solutions,” Wolff quotes Bannon as saying. “I came up with a solution for his broken-dick campaign in a day, but I don’t see this. I don’t see a plan for getting through.”

To his credit, Wolff catches the parallels between Bannon and Trump: “If Trump is incapable of sounding like a president, Bannon had matched him; he was incapable of sounding like a presidential aide.”

Trump’s circle of “friends”, family and acquaintances are depicted as no less unsparing in their criticisms of the president. According to Wolff, Rupert Murdoch called Trump “a fucking idiot” after the two men ended a phone call. Given the pending Fox-Disney deal, Murdoch may be wishing Fire and Fury dropped a few months later.

Sean Hannity, Trump’s staunchest ally on television, is audibly disturbed by Trump’s failure to offer condolences to the widow of Roger Ailes, Hannity’s former boss at Fox News. Hannity is caught saying: “What the fuck is wrong with him?”

In a similar vein, Tom Barrack, a 30-year Trump buddy, allegedly observed: “He’s not only crazy … he’s stupid.”

For the record, Barrack – who denied making that statement after the first excerpts of the book were published – chaired Trump’s inaugural, was according to Wolff considered for White House chief of staff, and brought Manafort into the campaign.

Even Javanka piles on. Upset by his father-in-law’s indecision over America’s response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, Kushner complains that the president just doesn’t get it. As for Ivanka, she is reported to have mocked her father’s hair.

Fire and Fury also captures the ethno-religious tensions that have apparently marred Trump’s White House. Wolff quotes Henry Kissinger’s take on the feud between Kushner and Bannon as “a war between the Jews and non-Jews”. Here, Kissinger and Wolff likely overstate. But the backdrop of Pepe the Frog as a constant campaign meme, coupled with David Duke and white nationalist Richard Spencer’s man-crushes on Trump, leave the reader wondering.

Wolff’s access to Trump and his inner circle is evident. At the outset, Wolff writes of how he sat down with Trump in his Beverly Hills home, while Kushner and Trump aides Hope Hicks and Corey Lewandowski milled about. Likewise, the quotes obviously bespeak knowledge and close proximity.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump represented a movement, and that fact deserved greater elucidation by Wolff. Said differently, among Fire and Fury’s shortcomings are its failure to adequately explain how Trump arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and its insufficient appreciation for the bond forged by Trump and his base. In that sense, the book lacks the connective tissue present in Devil’s Bargain, Joshua Green’s take on the Trump campaign and the first few months of the presidency.

Clearly, Fire and Fury has set off a storm that has left its share of casualties. By Wednesday night, Bannon was on a political respirator and his role as keeper of the Trumpist flame was no more.

Steve Bannon listens as Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Cabinet Room of the White House. Photograph: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
In addition to being pummeled by the president, Bannon has reportedly been abandoned by the Mercer Family, his benefactors. Adding insult to injury, Michael Grimm, an ex-congressman convicted of tax evasion, disavowed Bannon’s support for his comeback. Bannon had gone from the leading voice of populism militant to a caricature. As for Trump, he has reminded the Faithful there shall be no others before Him.

The first amendment may also be tested. In addition to sending a cease-and-desist letter to Bannon for allegedly violating a non-disclosure agreement, Trump’s lawyers threw a legal brushback pitch at Wolff and Henry Holt, the book’s publisher. Without citing any particular false content, Team Trump threatened legal action in an attempt to halt publication.

Significantly, Trump’s lawyers did not cite national security as grounds for killing the book in its cradle. Rather, this fight is about honor and intimidation. Henry Holt responded by bringing publication forward to Friday. The book, the publisher claimed, is “an extraordinary contribution to our national discourse”.

Synchronously, Steven Spielberg’s movie, The Post, which portrays the Nixon administration’s unsuccessful attempt to block the Washington Post and the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers, is now in theaters. Ultimately, that episode became viewed as a prelude to Watergate and Richard Nixon’s downfall.

Make no mistake, Wolff’s latest is a must-read. It pulls away whatever curtain still cloaks the Trump White House, leaving those who know Trump best to do the talking.

(Source: The Guardian)

Saturday, 6 January 2018

Donald Trump didn’t want to be President

One year ago: the plan to lose, and the administration’s shocked first days. Michael Wolff gives the inside story of how Donald J. Trump and his inner circle turned their mind-boggling campaign into the most dysfunctional White House ever. Read on: 

On the afternoon of November 8, 2016, Kellyanne Conway settled into her glass office at Trump Tower. Right up until the last weeks of the race, the campaign headquarters had remained a listless place. All that seemed to distinguish it from a corporate back office were a few posters with right-wing slogans.

Conway, the campaign’s manager, was in a remarkably buoyant mood, considering she was about to experience a resounding, if not cataclysmic, defeat. Donald Trump would lose the election — of this she was sure — but he would quite possibly hold the defeat to under six points. That was a substantial victory. As for the looming defeat itself, she shrugged it off: It was Reince Priebus’s fault, not hers.

She had spent a good part of the day calling friends and allies in the political world and blaming Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Now she briefed some of the television producers and anchors whom she had been carefully courting since joining the Trump campaign — and with whom she had been actively interviewing in the last few weeks, hoping to land a permanent on-air job after the election.

Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — ­wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be. Conveniently, the former conviction meant nobody had to deal with the latter issue.

As the campaign came to an end, Trump himself was sanguine. His ultimate goal, after all, had never been to win. “I can be the most famous man in the world,” he had told his aide Sam Nunberg at the outset of the race. His longtime friend Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities.

“This is bigger than I ever dreamed of,” he told Ailes a week before the election. “I don’t think about losing, because it isn’t losing. We’ve totally won.”

From the start, the leitmotif for Trump about his own campaign was how crappy it was, and how everybody involved in it was a loser. In August, when he was trailing Hillary Clinton by more than 12 points, he couldn’t conjure even a far-fetched scenario for achieving an electoral victory. He was baffled when the right-wing billionaire Robert Mercer, a Ted Cruz backer whom Trump barely knew, offered him an infusion of $5 million. When Mercer and his daughter Rebekah presented their plan to take over the campaign and install their lieutenants, Steve Bannon and Conway, Trump didn’t resist. He only expressed vast incomprehension about why anyone would want to do that. “This thing,” he told the Mercers, “is so fucked up.”

Bannon, who became chief executive of Trump’s team in mid-August, called it “the broke-dick campaign.” Almost immediately, he saw that it was hampered by an even deeper structural flaw: The candidate who billed himself as a billionaire — ten times over — refused to invest his own money in it. Bannon told Kushner that, after the first debate in September, they would need another $50 million to cover them until Election Day.

“No way we’ll get 50 million unless we can guarantee him victory,” said a clear-eyed Kushner.

“Twenty-five million?” prodded Bannon.


“If we can say victory is more than likely.”

In the end, the best Trump would do is to loan the campaign $10 million, provided he got it back as soon as they could raise other money. Steve Mnuchin, the campaign’s finance chairman, came to collect the loan with the wire instructions ready to go so Trump couldn’t conveniently forget to send the money.

Most presidential candidates spend their entire careers, if not their lives from adolescence, preparing for the role. They rise up the ladder of elected offices, perfect a public face, and prepare themselves to win and to govern. The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their worldview one whit. Almost everybody on the Trump team, in fact, came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president once he was in office. Michael Flynn, the retired general who served as Trump’s opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. “Well, it would only be a problem if we won,” ­Flynn assured them.

Not only did Trump disregard the potential conflicts of his own business deals and real-estate holdings, he audaciously refused to release his tax returns. Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary. His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the tea-party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable-news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn’t become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning.

Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears — and not of joy.

There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States.

From the moment of victory, the Trump administration became a looking-glass presidency: Every inverse assumption about how to assemble and run a White House was enacted and compounded, many times over. The decisions that Trump and his top advisers made in those first few months — from the slapdash transition to the disarray in the West Wing — set the stage for the chaos and dysfunction that have persisted throughout his first year in office. This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks’s The Producers, where the mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump’s inner circle — that they would lose the election — wound up exposing them for who they really were.

On the Saturday after the election, Trump received a small group of well-­wishers in his triplex apartment in Trump Tower. Even his close friends were still shocked and bewildered, and there was a dazed quality to the gathering. But Trump himself was mostly looking at the clock. Rupert Murdoch, who had promised to pay a call on the president-elect, was running late. When some of the guests made a move to leave, an increasingly agitated Trump assured them that Rupert was on his way. “He’s one of the greats, the last of the greats,” Trump said. “You have to stay to see him.” Not grasping that he was now the most powerful man in the world, Trump was still trying mightily to curry favor with a media mogul who had long disdained him as a charlatan and fool.

Few people who knew Trump had illusions about him. That was his appeal: He was what he was. Twinkle in his eye, larceny in his soul. Everybody in his rich-guy social circle knew about his wide-ranging ignorance. Early in the campaign, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment,” Nunberg recalled, “before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

The day after the election, the bare-bones transition team that had been set up during the campaign hurriedly shifted from Washington to Trump Tower. The building — now the headquarters of a populist revolution —­ suddenly seemed like an alien spaceship on Fifth Avenue. But its otherworldly air helped obscure the fact that few in Trump’s inner circle, with their overnight responsibility for assembling a government, had any relevant experience.

Ailes, a veteran of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations, tried to impress on Trump the need to create a White House structure that could serve and protect him. “You need a son of a bitch as your chief of staff,” he told Trump. “And you need a son of a bitch who knows Washington. You’ll want to be your own son of a bitch, but you don’t know Washington.” Ailes had a suggestion: John Boehner, who had stepped down as Speaker of the House only a year earlier.

“Who’s that?” asked Trump.

As much as the president himself, the chief of staff determines how the Executive branch — which employs 4 million people — will run. The job has been construed as deputy president, or even prime minister. But Trump had no interest in appointing a strong chief of staff with a deep knowledge of Washington. Among his early choices for the job was Kushner — a man with no political experience beyond his role as a calm and flattering body man to Trump during the campaign.

It was Ann Coulter who finally took the president-elect aside. “Nobody is apparently telling you this,” she told him. “But you can’t. You just can’t hire your children.”

Bowing to pressure, Trump floated the idea of giving the job to Steve Bannon, only to have the notion soundly ridiculed. Murdoch told Trump that Bannon would be a dangerous choice. Joe Scarborough, the former congressman and co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, told the president-elect that “Washington will go up in flames” if Bannon became chief of staff.

So Trump turned to Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman, who had became the subject of intense lobbying by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. If congressional leaders were going to have to deal with an alien like Donald Trump, then best they do it with the help of one of their own kind.

Jim Baker, chief of staff for both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and almost everybody’s model for managing the West Wing, advised Priebus not to take the job. Priebus had his own reservations: He had come out of his first long meeting with Trump thinking it had been a disconcertingly weird experience. Trump talked nonstop and constantly repeated himself.

“Here’s the deal,” a close Trump associate told Priebus. “In an hour meeting with him, you’re going to hear 54 minutes of stories, and they’re going to be the same stories over and over again. So you have to have one point to make, and you pepper it in whenever you can.”

But the Priebus appointment, announced in mid-November, put Bannon on a co-equal level to the new chief of staff. Even with the top job, Priebus would be a weak figure, in the traditional mold of most Trump lieutenants over the years. There would be one chief of staff in name — the unimportant one — and ­others like Bannon and Kushner, more important in practice, ensuring both chaos and Trump’s independence.

Election Night: It “looked as if he had seen a ghost.”
Priebus demonstrated no ability to keep Trump from talking to anyone who wanted his ear. The president-elect enjoyed being courted. On December 14, a high-level delegation from Silicon Valley came to Trump Tower to meet him. Later that afternoon, according to a source privy to details of the conversation, Trump called Rupert Murdoch, who asked him how the meeting had gone.

“Oh, great, just great,” said Trump. “These guys really need my help. Obama was not very favorable to them, too much regulation. This is really an opportunity for me to help them.”

“Donald,” said Murdoch, “for eight years these guys had Obama in their pocket. They practically ran the administration. They don’t need your help.”

“Take this H-1B visa issue. They really need these H-1B visas.”

Murdoch suggested that taking a liberal approach to H-1B visas, which open America’s doors to select immigrants, might be hard to square with his promises to build a wall and close the borders. But Trump seemed unconcerned, assuring Murdoch, “We’ll figure it out.”

“What a fucking idiot,” said Murdoch, shrugging, as he got off the phone.

Steve Bannon, suddenly among the world’s most powerful men, was running late. It was the evening of January 3, 2017 — a little more than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration — and Bannon had promised to come to a small dinner arranged by mutual friends in a Greenwich Village townhouse to see Roger Ailes.

Snow was threatening, and for a while the dinner appeared doubtful. But the 76-year-old Ailes, who was as dumbfounded by his old friend Donald Trump’s victory as everyone else, understood that he was passing the right-wing torch to Bannon. Ailes’s Fox News, with its $1.5 billion in annual profits, had dominated Republican politics for two decades. Now Bannon’s Breit­bart News, with its mere $1.5 million in annual profits, was claiming that role. For 30 years, Ailes — until recently the single most powerful person in conservative ­politics — had humored and tolerated Trump, but in the end Bannon and Breitbart had elected him.

At 9:30, having extricated himself from Trump Tower, Bannon finally arrived at the dinner, three hours late. Wearing a disheveled blazer, his signature pairing of two shirts, and military fatigues, the unshaven, overweight 63-year-old immediately dived into an urgent download of information about the world he was about to take over.

“We’re going to flood the zone so we have every Cabinet member for the next seven days through their confirmation hearings,” he said of the business-and-military, 1950s-type Cabinet choices. “Tillerson is two days, Sessions is two days, Mattis is two days …”

Bannon veered from James “Mad Dog” ­Mattis — the retired four-star general whom Trump had nominated as secretary of Defense — to the looming appointment of Michael Flynn as national-security adviser. “He’s fine. He’s not Jim Mattis and he’s not John Kelly … but he’s fine. He just needs the right staff around him.” Still, Bannon averred: “When you take out all the Never Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these wars … it’s not a deep bench.” Bannon said he’d tried to push John Bolton, the famously hawkish diplomat, for the job as national-security adviser. Bolton was an Ailes favorite, too.

“He’s a bomb thrower,” said Ailes. “And a strange little fucker. But you need him. Who else is good on Israel? Flynn is a little nutty on Iran. Tillerson just knows oil.”

“Bolton’s mustache is a problem,” snorted Bannon. “Trump doesn’t think he looks the part. You know Bolton is an acquired taste.”

“Well, he got in trouble because he got in a fight in a hotel one night and chased some woman.”

“If I told Trump that,” Bannon said slyly, “he might have the job.”

Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously. Great numbers of people, he believed, were suddenly receptive to a new message — the world needs borders — and Trump had become the platform for that message.

“Does he get it?” asked Ailes suddenly, looking intently at Bannon. Did Trump get where history had put him?

Bannon took a sip of water. “He gets it,” he said, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. “Or he gets what he gets.”

Pivoting from Trump himself, Bannon plunged on with the Trump agenda. “Day one we’re moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s all-in. Sheldon” — Adelson, the casino billionaire and far-right Israel defender — “is all-in. We know where we’re heading on this … Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza. Let them deal with it. Or sink trying.”

“Where’s Donald on this?” asked Ailes, the clear implication being that Bannon was far out ahead of his benefactor.

“He’s totally onboard.”

“I wouldn’t give Donald too much to think about,” said an amused Ailes.

Bannon snorted. “Too much, too little — doesn’t necessarily change things.”

“What has he gotten himself into with the Russians?” pressed Ailes.

“Mostly,” said Bannon, “he went to Russia and he thought he was going to meet Putin. But Putin couldn’t give a shit about him. So he’s kept trying.”

Again, as though setting the issue of Trump aside — merely a large and peculiar presence to both be thankful for and to have to abide — Bannon, in the role he had conceived for himself, the auteur of the Trump presidency, charged forward. The real enemy, he said, was China. China was the first front in a new Cold War.

“China’s everything. Nothing else matters. We don’t get China right, we don’t get anything right. This whole thing is very simple. China is where Nazi Germany was in 1929 to 1930. The Chinese, like the Germans, are the most rational people in the world, until they’re not. And they’re gonna flip like Germany in the ’30s. You’re going to have a hypernationalist state, and once that happens, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

“Donald might not be Nixon in China,” said Ailes, deadpan.

Bannon smiled. “Bannon in China,” he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation.

“How’s the kid?” asked Ailes, referring to Kushner.

“He’s my partner,” said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message.

“He’s had a lot of lunches with Rupert,” said a dubious Ailes.

“In fact,” said Bannon, “I could use your help here.” He then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Since his ouster from Fox over allegations of sexual harassment, Ailes had become only more bitter toward Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward Establishment moderation. Bannon wanted Ailes to suggest to Trump, a man whose many neuroses included a horror of senility, that Murdoch might be losing it.

“I’ll call him,” said Ailes. “But Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and shits down. I just worry about who’s jerking whose chain.”

Trump holed up in his White House bedroom in February 2017. Illustration: Jeffrey Smith
Trump did not enjoy his own inauguration. He was angry that A-level stars had snubbed the event, disgruntled with the accommodations at Blair House, and visibly fighting with his wife, who seemed on the verge of tears. Throughout the day, he wore what some around him had taken to calling his golf face: angry and pissed off, shoulders hunched, arms swinging, brow furled, lips pursed.

The first senior staffer to enter the White House that day was Bannon. On the inauguration march, he had grabbed 32-year-old Katie Walsh, the newly appointed deputy chief of staff, and together they had peeled off to inspect the now-vacant West Wing. The carpet had been shampooed, but little else had changed. It was a warren of tiny offices in need of paint, the décor something like an admissions office at a public university. Bannon claimed the non­descript office across from the much grander chief of staff’s suite and immediately requisitioned the whiteboards on which he intended to chart the first 100 days of the Trump administration. He also began moving furniture out. The point was to leave no room for anyone to sit. Limit discussion. Limit debate. This was war.

Those who had worked on the campaign noticed the sudden change. Within the first week, Bannon seemed to have put away the camaraderie of Trump Tower and become far more remote, if not unreachable. “What’s up with Steve?” Kushner began to ask. “I don’t understand. We were so close.” Now that Trump had been elected, Bannon was already focused on his next goal: capturing the soul of the Trump White House.

He began by going after his enemies. Few fueled his rancor toward the standard-issue Republican world as much as Rupert ­Murdoch — not least because Murdoch had Trump’s ear. It was one of the key elements of Bannon’s understanding of Trump: The last person the president spoke to ended up with enormous influence. Trump would brag that Murdoch was always calling him; Murdoch, for his part, would complain that he couldn’t get Trump off the phone.

“He doesn’t know anything about American politics, and has no feel for the American people,” Bannon told Trump, always eager to point out that Murdoch wasn’t an American. Yet in one regard, Murdoch’s message was useful to Bannon. Having known every president since Harry ­Truman — as Murdoch took frequent opportunities to point out — the media mogul warned Trump that a president has only six months, max, to set his agenda and make an impact. After that, it was just putting out fires and battling the opposition.

This was the message whose urgency Bannon had been trying to impress on an often distracted Trump, who was already trying to limit his hours in the office and keep to his normal golf habits. Bannon’s strategic view of government was shock and awe. In his head, he carried a set of decisive actions that would not just mark the new administration’s opening days but make it clear that nothing ever again would be the same. He had quietly assembled a list of more than 200 executive orders to issue in the first 100 days. The very first EO, in his view, had to be a crackdown on immigration. After all, it was one of Trump’s core campaign promises. Plus, Bannon knew, it was an issue that made liberals batshit mad.

Bannon could push through his agenda for a simple reason: because nobody in the administration really had a job. Priebus, as chief of staff, had to organize meetings, hire staff, and oversee the individual offices in the Executive-branch departments. But Bannon, Kushner, and Ivanka Trump had no specific responsibilities — they did what they wanted. And for Bannon, the will to get big things done was how big things got done. “Chaos was Steve’s strategy,” said Walsh.

On Friday, January 27 — only his eighth day in office — Trump signed an executive order issuing a sweeping exclusion of many Muslims from the United States. In his mania to seize the day, with almost no one in the federal government having seen it or even been aware of it, Bannon had succeeded in pushing through an executive order that overhauled U.S. immigration policy while bypassing the very agencies and personnel responsible for enforcing it.

The result was an emotional outpouring of horror and indignation from liberal media, terror in immigrant communities, tumultuous protests at major airports, confusion throughout the government, and, in the White House, an inundation of opprobrium from friends and family. What have you done? You have to undo this! You’re finished before you even start! But Bannon was satisfied. He could not have hoped to draw a more vivid line between Trump’s America and that of liberals. Almost the entire White House staff demanded to know: Why did we do this on a Friday, when it would hit the airports hardest and bring out the most protesters?

“Errr … that’s why,” said Bannon. “So the snowflakes would show up at the airports and riot.” That was the way to crush the liberals: Make them crazy and drag them to the left.

On the Sunday after the immigration order was issued, Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe co-host, Mika Brzezinski, arrived for lunch at the White House. Trump proudly showed them into the Oval Office. “So how do you think the first week has gone?” he asked the couple, in a buoyant mood, seeking flattery. When Scarborough ventured his opinion that the immigration order might have been handled better, Trump turned defensive and derisive, plunging into a long monologue about how well things had gone. “I could have invited Hannity!” he told Scarborough.

After Jared and Ivanka joined them for lunch, Trump continued to cast for positive impressions of his first week. Scarborough praised the president for having invited leaders of the steel unions to the White House. At which point Jared interjected that reaching out to unions, a Democratic constituency, was Bannon’s doing, that this was “the Bannon way.”

“Bannon?” said the president, jumping on his son-in-law. “That wasn’t Bannon’s idea. That was my idea. It’s the Trump way, not the Bannon way.”

Kushner, going concave, retreated from the discussion.

Trump, changing the topic, said to Scarborough and Brzezinski, “So what about you guys? What’s going on?” He was referencing their not-so-secret secret relationship. The couple said it was still complicated, but good.

“You guys should just get married,” prodded Trump.

“I can marry you! I’m an internet Unitarian minister,” Kushner, otherwise an Orthodox Jew, said suddenly.

“What?” said the president. “What are you talking about? Why would they want you to marry them when I could marry them? When they could be married by the president! At Mar-a-Lago!”

The First Children couple were having to navigate Trump’s volatile nature just like everyone else in the White House. And they were willing to do it for the same reason as everyone else — in the hope that Trump’s unexpected victory would catapult them into a heretofore unimagined big time. Balancing risk against reward, both Jared and Ivanka decided to accept roles in the West Wing over the advice of almost everyone they knew. It was a joint decision by the couple, and, in some sense, a joint job. Between themselves, the two had made an earnest deal: If sometime in the future the opportunity arose, she’d be the one to run for president. The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump.

Bannon, who had coined the term “Jarvanka” that was now in ever greater use in the White House, was horrified when the couple’s deal was reported to him. “They didn’t say that?” he said. “Stop. Oh, come on. They didn’t actually say that? Please don’t tell me that. Oh my God.”

The truth was, Ivanka and Jared were as much the chief of staff as Priebus or Bannon, all of them reporting directly to the president. The couple had opted for formal jobs in the West Wing, in part because they knew that influencing Trump required you to be all-in. From phone call to phone call — and his day, beyond organized meetings, was almost entirely phone calls — you could lose him. He could not really converse, not in the sense of sharing information, or of a balanced back-and-forth conversation. He neither particularly listened to what was said to him nor particularly considered what he said in response. He demanded you pay him attention, then decided you were weak for groveling. In a sense, he was like an instinctive, pampered, and hugely successful actor. Everybody was either a lackey who did his bidding or a high-ranking film functionary trying to coax out his performance — without making him angry or petulant.

Ivanka maintained a relationship with her father that was in no way conventional. She was a helper not just in his business dealings, but in his marital realignments. If it wasn’t pure opportunism, it was certainly transactional. For Ivanka, it was all business — building the Trump brand, the presidential campaign, and now the White House. She treated her father with a degree of detachment, even irony, going so far as to make fun of his comb-over to others. She often described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate — a contained island after scalp-reduction ­surgery — surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray. The color, she would point out to comical effect, was from a product called Just for Men — the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump’s orange-blond hair color.

Kushner, for his part, had little to no success at trying to restrain his father-in-law. Ever since the transition, Jared had been negotiating to arrange a meeting at the White House with Enrique Peña Nieto, the Mexican president whom Trump had threatened and insulted throughout the campaign. On the Wednesday after the inauguration, a high-level Mexican delegation — the first visit by any foreign leaders to the Trump White House — met with Kushner and Reince Priebus. That afternoon, Kushner triumphantly told his father-in-law that Peña Nieto had signed on to a White House meeting and planning for the visit could go forward.

The next day, on Twitter, Trump blasted Mexico for stealing American jobs. “If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall,” the president declared, “then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.” At which point Peña Nieto did just that, leaving Kushner’s negotiation and statecraft as so much scrap on the floor.

Nothing contributed to the chaos and dysfunction of the White House as much as Trump’s own behavior. The big deal of being president was just not apparent to him. Most victorious candidates, arriving in the White House from ordinary political life, could not help but be reminded of their transformed circumstances by their sudden elevation to a mansion with palacelike servants and security, a plane at constant readiness, and downstairs a retinue of courtiers and advisers. But this wasn’t that different from Trump’s former life in Trump Tower, which was actually more commodious and to his taste than the White House.

Trump, in fact, found the White House to be vexing and even a little scary. He retreated to his own bedroom — the first time since the Kennedy White House that a presidential couple had maintained separate rooms. In the first days, he ordered two television screens in addition to the one already there, and a lock on the door, precipitating a brief standoff with the Secret Service, who insisted they have access to the room. He ­reprimanded the housekeeping staff for picking up his shirt from the floor: “If my shirt is on the floor, it’s because I want it on the floor.” Then he imposed a set of new rules: Nobody touch anything, especially not his toothbrush. (He had a longtime fear of being poisoned, one reason why he liked to eat at McDonald’s — nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely premade.) Also, he would let housekeeping know when he wanted his sheets done, and he would strip his own bed.

If he was not having his 6:30 dinner with Steve Bannon, then, more to his liking, he was in bed by that time with a cheeseburger, watching his three screens and making phone calls — the phone was his true contact point with the world — to a small group of friends, who charted his rising and falling levels of agitation through the evening and then compared notes with one another.

As details of Trump’s personal life leaked out, he became obsessed with identifying the leaker. The source of all the gossip, however, may well have been Trump himself. In his calls throughout the day and at night from his bed, he often spoke to people who had no reason to keep his confidences. He was a river of grievances, which recipients of his calls promptly spread to the ever-attentive media.

On February 6, in one of his seething, self-pitying, and unsolicited phone calls to a casual acquaintance, Trump detailed his bent-out-of-shape feelings about the relentless contempt of the media and the disloyalty of his staff. The initial subject of his ire was the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, whom he called “a nut job.” Gail Collins, who had written a Times column unfavorably comparing Trump to Vice-President Mike Pence, was “a moron.” Then, continuing under the rubric of media he hated, he veered to CNN and the deep disloyalty of its chief, Jeff Zucker.

Zucker, who as the head of entertainment at NBC had commissioned The Apprentice, had been “made by Trump,” Trump said of himself in the third person. He had “personally” gotten Zucker his job at CNN. “Yes, yes, I did,” said the president, launching into a favorite story about how he had once talked Zucker up at a dinner with a high-ranking executive from CNN’s parent company. “I probably shouldn’t have, because Zucker is not that smart,” Trump lamented, “but I like to show I can do that sort of thing.” Then Zucker had returned the favor by airing the “unbelievably disgusting” story about the Russian “dossier” and the “golden shower” — the practice CNN had accused him of being party to in a Moscow hotel suite with assorted prostitutes.

Having dispensed with Zucker, the president of the United States went on to speculate on what was involved with a golden shower. And how this was all just part of a media campaign that would never succeed in driving him from the White House. Because they were sore losers and hated him for winning, they spread total lies, 100 percent made-up things, totally untrue, for instance, the cover that week of Time magazine — which, Trump reminded his listener, he had been on more than anyone in ­history — that showed Steve Bannon, a good guy, saying he was the real president. “How much influence do you think Steve Bannon has over me?” Trump demanded. He repeated the question, then repeated the answer: “Zero! Zero!” And that went for his son-in-law, too, who had a lot to learn.

The media was not only hurting him, he said — he was not looking for any agreement or even any response — but hurting his negotiating capabilities, which hurt the nation. And that went for Saturday Night Live, which might think it was very funny but was actually hurting everybody in the country. And while he understood that SNL was there to be mean to him, they were being very, very mean. It was “fake comedy.” He had reviewed the treatment of all other presidents in the media, and there was nothing like this ever, even of Nixon, who was treated very unfairly. “Kellyanne, who is very fair, has this all documented. You can look at it.”

The point is, he said, that that very day, he had saved $700 million a year in jobs that were going to Mexico, but the media was talking about him wandering around the White House in his bathrobe, which “I don’t have because I’ve never worn a bathrobe. And would never wear one, because I’m not that kind of guy.” And what the media was doing was undermining this very dignified house, and “dignity is so important.” But Murdoch, “who had never called me, never once,” was now calling all the time. So that should tell people something.

The call went on for 26 minutes.

Without a strong chief of staff at the White House, there was no real up-and-down structure in the administration — merely a figure at the top and everyone else scrambling for his attention. It wasn’t task-based so much as response-oriented — whatever captured the boss’s attention focused everybody’s attention. Priebus and Bannon and Kushner were all fighting to be the power behind the Trump throne. And in these crosshairs was Katie Walsh, the deputy chief of staff.

Walsh, who came to the White House from the RNC, represented a certain Republican ideal: clean, brisk, orderly, efficient. A righteous bureaucrat with a permanently grim expression, she was a fine example of the many political professionals in whom competence and organizational skills transcend ideology. To Walsh, it became clear almost immediately that “the three gentlemen running things,” as she came to characterize them, had each found his own way to appeal to the president. Bannon offered a rousing fuck-you show of force; Priebus offered flattery from the congressional leadership; Kushner offered the approval of blue-chip businessmen. Each appeal was exactly what Trump wanted from the presidency, and he didn’t understand why he couldn’t have them all. He wanted to break things, he wanted Congress to give him bills to sign, and he wanted the love and respect of New York machers and socialites.

As soon as the campaign team had stepped into the White House, Walsh saw, it had gone from managing Trump to the expectation of being managed by him. Yet the president, while proposing the most radical departure from governing and policy norms in several generations, had few specific ideas about how to turn his themes and vitriol into policy. And making suggestions to him was deeply complicated. Here, arguably, was the central issue of the Trump presidency, informing every aspect of Trumpian policy and leadership: He didn’t process information in any conventional sense. He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-­literate. He trusted his own expertise ­— no matter how paltry or irrelevant — more than anyone else’s. He was often confident, but he was just as often paralyzed, less a savant than a figure of sputtering and dangerous insecurities, whose instinctive response was to lash out and behave as if his gut, however confused, was in fact in some clear and forceful way telling him what to do. It was, said Walsh, “like trying to figure out what a child wants.”

By the end of the second week following the immigration EO, the three advisers were in open conflict with one another. For Walsh, it was a daily process of managing an impossible task: Almost as soon as she received direction from one of the three men, it would be countermanded by one or another of them.

“I take a conversation at face value and move forward with it,” she said. “I put what was decided on the schedule and bring in comms and build a press plan around it … And then Jared says, ‘Why did you do that?’ And I say, ‘Because we had a meeting three days ago with you and Reince and Steve where you agreed to do this.’ And he says, ‘But that didn’t mean I wanted it on the schedule …’ It almost doesn’t matter what anyone says: Jared will agree, and then it will get sabotaged, and then Jared goes to the president and says, see, that was Reince’s idea or Steve’s idea.”

If Bannon, Priebus, and Kushner were now fighting a daily war with one another, it was exacerbated by the running disinformation campaign about them that was being prosecuted by the president himself. When he got on the phone after dinner, he’d speculate on the flaws and weaknesses of each member of his staff. Bannon was disloyal (not to mention he always looks like shit). Priebus was weak (not to mention he was short — a midget). Kushner was a suck-up. Sean Spicer was stupid (and looks terrible too). Conway was a crybaby. Jared and Ivanka should never have come to Washington.

During that first month, Walsh’s disbelief and even fear about what was happening in the White House moved her to think about quitting. Every day after that became a countdown toward the moment she knew she wouldn’t be able to take it anymore. To Walsh, the proud political pro, the chaos, the rivalries, and the president’s own lack of focus were simply incomprehensible. In early March, not long before she left, she confronted Kushner with a simple request. “Just give me the three things the president wants to focus on,” she demanded. “What are the three priorities of this White House?”

It was the most basic question imaginable — one that any qualified presidential candidate would have answered long before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Six weeks into Trump’s presidency, Kushner was wholly without an answer.

“Yes,” he said to Walsh. “We should probably have that conversation.”

HOW HE GOT THE STORY
This story is adapted from Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, to be published by Henry Holt & Co. on January 9. Wolff, who chronicles the administration from Election Day to this past October, conducted conversations and interviews over a period of 18 months with the president, most members of his senior staff, and many people to whom they in turn spoke. Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Wolff says, he was able to take up “something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing” — an idea encouraged by the president himself. Because no one was in a position to either officially approve or formally deny such access, Wolff became “more a constant interloper than an invited guest.” There were no ground rules placed on his access, and he was required to make no promises about how he would report on what he witnessed.

Since then, he conducted more than 200 interviews. In true Trumpian fashion, the administration’s lack of experience and disdain for political norms made for a hodgepodge of journalistic challenges. Information would be provided off-the-record or on deep background, then casually put on the record. Sources would fail to set any parameters on the use of a conversation, or would provide accounts in confidence, only to subsequently share their views widely. And the president’s own views, private as well as public, were constantly shared by others. The adaptation presented here offers a front-row view of Trump’s presidency, from his improvised transition to his first months in the Oval Office.

*Excerpted from Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff (Henry Holt and Co., January 9, 2018). 

(Source: NYMag)