Showing posts with label trump money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trump money. Show all posts

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Thinking About Melania - Updated

As I said in the Guessing Game post (read it here,) a woman named Stephanie Winston Wolkoff has written a new book about Melania Trump that comes out this Tuesday, September 1:





This is Talking Points Memo's take on it:

It’s been an eventful week for the Trump clan.

To say nothing of the various antediluvian calamities battering the country, a potential bombshell is headed toward the family in the form of a book written by a former friend of Melania Trump’s, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, due out next week.

Wolkoff isn’t only a friend of Melania’s, but also served as a chief organizer of President Trump’s 2017 inauguration. That event has been facing down federal investigations amid allegations of mass financial mismanagement, and of schemes in which foreign bigwigs were allowed to contribute to the committee in exchange for tickets — a practice banned by federal law.

That’s not to mention an ongoing mystery over why the inaugural raised $107 million — nearly twice as much as the next-most-expensive inauguration bash — but featured far fewer events and productions than any other presidential inauguration in recent memory.

Wolkoff’s book — Melania and Me — has been billed as having an answer to that nagging question of where the $107 million went, while also offering details of Wolkoff’s relationship with Melania. Wolkoff reportedly taped her conversations with the first lady.
(Read the entire article here.)

Now Olivia Nuzzi, writing at NY Mag, has published an excerpt, along with some dish about her conversations with Ms. Wolkoff. The dish first, in Nuzzi's voice:

I'd heard Melania Trump speak before. But I’d never heard her sound like this. I was sitting at the end of the dining-room table in the Park Avenue home of Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who had been the First Lady’s best friend for years and, until a few months earlier, an informal member of her East Wing staff.

A former public-relations executive at Vogue who bears a vague resemblance to Stephanie Seymour, Wolkoff is 49 years old and over six feet tall. She is sweet and friendly and quick with a self-deprecating joke. She is scatterbrained but focused, if that makes any sense at all, like the personification of an “organized mess.” She’d been the producer of the Met Gala and the fashion director of Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week, so it made a certain amount of sense when she was enlisted to help produce Donald Trump’s inauguration — a multiday series of events across Washington, D.C., ending with the swearing-in of the new president. But reports about the inaugural committee’s finances suggested something might be amiss. Wolkoff’s company, WIS Media Partners, received $26 million, according to financial records — the highest amount paid to any single entity. Soon after the disclosure, the New York Times reported that Wolkoff’s White House contract had been terminated following the Trump family’s “displeasure” with how much Wolkoff had made, and the president himself was “enraged” when he learned about another contractor Wolkoff hired for the inaugural planning who billed the committee nearly $4 million.

The coverage of Wolkoff and the money she made left the impression that this was yet another example of Trumpworld grift: a close friend of the First Lady’s, a “party planner,” as she was sometimes dismissively described, emerging from the chaos of a Trump production with millions. Wolkoff was devastated.

By the time we met, in the spring of 2018, Wolkoff had come to believe that she’d been sacrificed to the media by others in the president’s orbit in order to deflect attention from their misdeeds. She believed financial records had been purposefully structured in such a way that she was listed as the inaugural committee’s greatest benefactor when, in fact, she’d kept a careful paper trail that showed she dispersed the bulk of her payment to a series of other vendors she’d hired to put on the events. She believed her life and reputation had been destroyed — that she now looked to the outside world like a scam artist, a glamorous petty criminal. Like one of them, in other words — one of the people of the campaign and inauguration and now the White House who she believed were up to no good.

She thought “they” — powerful forces at the committee, like Rick Gates and Tom Barrack and the members of the Trump family they were working on behalf of — were hiding something. She didn’t know, or didn’t feel comfortable saying what she thought that something might be. She thought that her questions about the spending, and the financial reports, and why things were being done the way they were made her too much of a problem to keep around. She thought she was fired because she wouldn’t go along with the narrative created by people more powerful than she was — people who, she believed, wanted to conceal the truth. When Wolkoff told Melania the White House had “cut her head off” when a spokesperson said her relationship had been “severed,” Melania coldly replied, “Don’t be so dramatic. You weren’t fired.”

She knew only that it didn’t feel right, didn’t sound right, and she believed she’s been selected to bear the brunt of the criticism of the committee’s finances because she was a wealthy society woman with no knowledge of politics — the perfect scapegoat, perfect media villain, and someone unlikely to fight back.

But most of all, Wolkoff had come to believe that she’d been abandoned and betrayed by the woman she thought was her best friend, the woman who was now First Lady of the United States and could not be bothered to intervene on her behalf.

Wolkoff’s home is sleek and pristine, decorated with works of modern art beyond my comprehension. So the mess in the corner was hard to ignore: dozens of stacks of documents, scattered across the table, falling out of binders, heaped on the floor. Tax records, email correspondence between powerful members of the Trump family and entertainment and Trump Organization executives, pages and pages of research, news articles, leads she was trying to follow to figure out what had happened to her own life. I watched in something like awe as Wolkoff sifted through it all, clearing papers out of the way, then frantically reaching for a paper at the bottom of a pile to point out to me a highlighted section of text, then gesturing as if to say, What does it mean? I sure as hell didn’t know either.

When she had begun to suspect something was wrong, she told me, she started collecting as many receipts as she could. She hired lawyers. She became paranoid, communicating exclusively on encrypted apps like Signal. She pulled out her phone and showed me her Signal messages with Melania, punctuated with emoji hearts and laughs and kisses and flowers. Melania uses emoji like my mom: often, without restraint, and in place of words or punctuation. Wolkoff seemed not to be able to understand how a person she thought she knew could turn out to be someone else entirely. She emphasized over and over just how close they were, what good friends they were. But she couldn’t explain what had happened. And then she asked me if I wanted to hear one of their conversations.

Melania’s voice was familiar, but she sounded softer, not quite as guarded and steely as she does in public. She was reassuring Wolkoff that things would be okay, that she didn’t do anything. It was a bit hard to follow, but it sounded like she cared. Like she was trying to be there for a friend. As Wolkoff emphasized what good friends she had been with Melania, she seemed unaware of the betrayal that she was engaging in herself: Do best friends show texts and play recordings of their conversations to reporters? (I wasn’t the only member of the press to make the pilgrimage to her home and to leaf through the documents alongside her, trying to knit the threads together.) But I also understood how Wolkoff had gotten to this point. She was hurt and confused and worried. She had thought, for a period, that she might be killed, though she acknowledged now that was probably not the case. She wanted to salvage her reputation, and she was aware of how little she grasped about the world she had found herself deep inside of because of her friendship with another mom a few blocks away.

Many of the characters in this chapter of Wolkoff’s life — what would become chapters in her new book, Melania & Me, an excerpt of which appears below — became a part of the various federal investigations that defined much of Trump’s first term in office. Wolkoff doesn’t say if or to what degree she participated in those investigations, but certain scenes in the book relate directly to what we know have been areas of interest for law enforcement. But the book isn’t a legal exposé focused on financial questions about the handling of the inauguration. It is much more personal than that. And while the story is built around her friendship, and then falling out, it delivers a vivid account of Melania’s strange relationship with her adult stepchildren — particularly Ivanka, to whom Wolkoff writes Melania referred, with almost joking bitterness, as “Princess.” This account is not written from a distance but from within Melania’s tightest orbit — literally, in that case, inside Melania’s living room. Wolkoff grants legitimacy to years of rumors about a rivalry between Ivanka and Melania, with the First Daughter angling for screen time and power and proximity at her stepmother’s expense. And it isn’t an unflattering portrait of the First Lady, up close as it is. Not completely, anyway. Even as Wolkoff details her Herculean efforts to keep Ivanka from being positioned too close to her father during the swearing-in, Melania comes across as sometimes amused and often annoyed — but never consumed — by any of this.

Perhaps without intending to, Wolkoff also reveals the shocking ignorance with which members of the administration deal with the media —and with each other. In one scene, she writes about her desire for the White House to release a statement to the press detailing her recent health crisis and hospital stay. When White House lawyers respond that it’s not a good idea to send the statement out, Wolkoff sees evidence of a coordinated plan. It doesn’t seem to occur to Wolkoff that it would be highly unusual for any White House to release a statement about the health of an East Wing employee with no public-facing responsibilities. And Wolkoff interprets negative press coverage of Melania and then of herself as evidence of conspiracy, too. But you have to forgive her: Seeing this through Wolkoff’s eyes, it’s easy to get why it probably felt at times like conspirators might be lurking everywhere.

Something you learn, while reporting on Melania, is how small her world is. While her husband keeps in touch with a vast network of friends and frenemies and associates and rivals and informal advisers and people he’s fired and rehired and fired again, the First Lady speaks to few people and trusts fewer. This is part of the reason why, despite performing the traditional tasks of a First Lady that might ordinarily contribute to a warm, feminine image — she visits hospitals, she wraps her arms around sick children — she projects only iciness and impenetrability. We hear from her little, and what we do hear is terse and shallow. We see her rarely, and what we do see is carefully presented, not a hair out of place, her face obscured by dark sunglasses, her mouth pressed into a now-iconic pouted scowl. To humanize a press-shy public figure, you need character witnesses. Sources who can reveal glimpses of a person beneath the artifice. But the size of Melania’s social circle has prevented that. There is her immediate family — by which I mean her teenage son, her parents, and her sister, which can be understood as a wholly separate offshoot of the Trump family — and there is a small group of friends from her life in New York. Survey the media coverage of the First Lady from the last five years, since her husband first entered politics. You will find a few people who actually know her being quoted, talking about the type of person she is. Wolkoff was one of them.

And then she wasn’t.

To her, Melania & Me, the book she’s written about the formation and collapse of her relationship with the First Lady, is an odd but compelling cross of two stories: a female friendship gone awry and a whodunit about some possibly shady behavior surrounding the swearing in of the president of the United States. Wolkoff writes about being let down by one of the most important women in the world — Melania is not who she thought she was during their years of weekly lunches at which they ate salmon and French fries — and a handful of society events a year. She drifts further and further from her connection with Wolkoff, a protracted break of the heart, told through the saga of Wolkoff’s personal health struggles during the first year of the administration. Her own decision to let her friend down receives little scrutiny. And perhaps it won’t — Melania is not exactly a sympathetic figure. As Wolkoff writes, she now knows that “a Trump is a Trump is a Trump.”

The dedication reads, “To Melania.”


And then the excerpt from the book, in Wolkoff's voice:

Fifty-one days before Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States, I met with Melania at Trump Tower, carrying bags and boxes so she could review and sign off on menus, décor, paper stock. I was weighed down by anxiety, too. I was, at that point, probably Melania’s closest friend, and as the longtime planner of the Met Gala I’d found myself, someone who had never voted before 2016, planning the most divisive presidential inauguration in American history. I had spent the day discussing with Melania about how her name should appear on the inauguration program (she wanted to be listed as “First Lady-Elect,” even though, as I reminded her, she had not in fact been elected); negotiating over the location of the Candlelight Dinner and trying to plan 21 other inauguration events (we eventually, mercifully, got it down to 18, total); teleconferencing from Tom Barrack’s office (he was flying to L.A. to meet with Mark Burnett about producing the inauguration) with Mitch Davis, Clive Davis’s son, about trying to book some famous talent (we were hoping to book two or three acts from a list we’d drawn up featuring Aerosmith, Carrie Underwood, Celine Dion, Kelly Clarkson, Kiss, the Killers, Meat Loaf, Mavis Staples, Pat Benatar, and Lynyrd Skynyrd).

“We don’t have any A-list performers locked in, or B-list for that matter,” I said to Melania. “We don’t even have an office to work in! I have at least ten people in and out of my apartment all day. It’s not fair to David and the kids. And can you please tell me why Rick Gates has an all-access badge to Trump Tower?”

“He does?” Melania asked.

“He took us to Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka’s office suite. He knew where the security button was located. We all just walked right in.” In Don Jr.’s office, Rick made himself right at home and sat down in Don’s chair.

“Really,” Melania said, seeing that I was getting upset again. “When Donald comes home, I want you to tell him what’s going on.”

An hour later, he walked into the dining room as chipper as could be. “Hi, baby,” he said to Melania.

She was looking at Pantone colors but flashed him a quick smile. “Hello, Stephanie. How are you?” he asked.

I began to stand and he said, “Stay, sit, sit. Time magazine—I’m on the cover again!” He was the 2016 Person of the Year.

Melania laughed and said, “Oh, Donald. That’s great!” Her tone was coquettish, hyperfeminine, an open invitation for him to keep going.

He said, “I’ve been on the cover a dozen times already.”

I said, “Donald, you’re going to be the president,” implying that his new job was a bigger deal than a magazine cover.

He said, “Yeah, right! Great!” and then continued to describe the Time cover, and the one before, and the one before that. After ten minutes, he said, “Wow, you ladies look like you’re busy! Look at all of this.”

Melania said, “So much to do. We are so busy, but no worries.”

“That’s my girl!”

Melania leaned her shoulder into mine. “Tell him,” she said.

“It’s nothing,” I said, but he wouldn’t let me chicken out and waved for me to speak. I exhaled.

“Honestly, the presidential inaugural committee is a shit show. They are disorganized, incompetent, and can’t produce the material we need. My team’s been working around the clock and we can’t get the answers we need and we’re not really sure who to turn to.”

“What about Tom?” Donald asked. We both knew Tom was spending most of his time fundraising.

“I met Sara Armstrong, the PIC CEO,” I said, “but she’s not really in charge. She’s just there to sign off on budgets.”

“So who is in charge?” he asked.

“I’ve been working primarily with Rick.”

“Rick who?”

From the corner of my eye I could see Melania’s back stiffen. “Rick Gates,” I said.

Donald exclaimed, “Rick?! Rick Gates?! Who’s Rick Gates?!”

Was he serious? “He’s the deputy chairman of the inauguration,” I said.

“Oh, Rick. Rick Gates!” Donald paced himself into a tirade. “That son of a bitch stole $750,000 from me. I’m going to sue him!”

Donald stopped pacing and stood in front of Melania and me, his face scarlet. If I hadn’t known so much about food allergies, I would have thought he was going into anaphylactic shock.

“I’m calling Tom Barrack. I want Rick fired right now! That bastard. He stole my money!”

As Donald exited the dining room, a young man walked inside the apartment carrying a brown-paper bag. Donald asked him, “What are you doing here?”

A bit shaky, the man said, “I’m delivering your turkey sandwich for dinner, sir.”

Donald grabbed the bag and told the kid to sit down. “You’re in charge of the inauguration now,” he said. “Stephanie, fill him in. Tell him what he needs to do.”

I couldn’t tell if Donald was serious about tapping the 25-year-old body man to be the new deputy chairman of the PIC. He looked like he was just out of college.

I introduced myself and he said, “Nice to meet you. I’m John McEntee.” He was petrified.


“Have you ever produced an event before?” I asked. “Run an organization?”

He just shook his head. You could see sweat bubble on his brow. “I don’t understand,” he said. “What just happened?”

When I met Melania Knauss in 2003, we were both 32 years old and walking the hallways of Vogue. I was working; she was visiting. Ahead of their wedding, Donald needed the perfect setting to roll Melania out of relative obscurity, and what better than the city’s biggest, boldest spotlight, where the fashion, entertainment, and media universes collided—the Met Gala. The event was the ultimate setting for the who’s who; not just anybody could make a grand entrance. Melania was no industry power broker, but Donald was. Did he somehow convince Anna to turn Melania into the magazine’s shiny new object?

Before her Vogue makeover, Melania was a very pretty young woman who seemed like she was playing fancy dress-up—more a brunette Marilyn Monroe than a Jackie O. After Melania’s makeover, André Leon Talley’s achievement, she was transcendent, high fashion, editorial worthy. And the more time I spent with Melania, the more I genuinely liked her. Being with her was like having the sister I never had before—but a really confident, perfectly coiffed, ultimate older sister. In her world, nothing was a big deal, and everything was just as it should be. Just being with her made me feel good. She had her shit together! She was all about her family—Donald, Barron, and her parents—and herself. I was attracted to her directness. As for her husband, although it’s hard to imagine now, in 2005, Donald seemed like a harmless egomaniac.

I kept track of the campaign when I could. Melania’s texts kept coming, nearly every day, about the kids and her summer travels. It was almost like her husband wasn’t running for president.

On Election Night, I got to the Hilton at around 10 p.m. Our family friend Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s campaign finance chair, came out to meet us and take us to a private reception. The place was packed with Trump supporters. At first, not all of them really believed he’d win. But as the night wore on, with more and more states turning red, Trump’s seemed inevitable. The excitement level got higher and higher. At 2:30 a.m., Wisconsin went for Trump, pushing him over the line of 270 electoral votes.

Victory had been declared, but there was no sign of the victor. The crowd didn’t seem to know what to do next. I texted Melania, “People are starting to leave! What are you doing?”

She replied, “We’re on the way!”

A few minutes later, the Trump family arrived at the Hilton and took the stage. I was cheering from below, videotaping their entrance and Donald’s acceptance speech, while commenting on a group text with Melania and our mutual friend Rachel Roy.

Rachel, who was watching on CNN, texted, “DT is amazing! MT is so beautiful! Speech very Donald who we all know and love.”

I scoffed at her flattery. (Rachel was a lifelong Democrat.)

“Our work is just beginning. Let’s be the change we want to see in the world. Let’s work for women and children.” Rachel again.

I wrote, “Here we go, girls. We’re going to laugh a lot.” What I thought of as a sign-off.

Rachel kept going: “This shit is crazy. You have always been this role. You have lived it. You got this! Saying a prayer for Donald’s safety!” Melania has always been the role of First Lady? Really? Twenty years ago, she had been a barely-getting-by model in Paris. Thirty years ago, she’d lived in Communist Slovenia. Rachel was a bit overexcited.

I tried to get to the heart of the matter. “We love you. Strong support.”

Melania finally texted back at 4 a.m., “Love you both.”

The next day, Rachel asked when she could meet Melania for a celebration lunch in NYC or D.C. Melania’s answer: “I need to see my schedule,” to which Rachel replied, “Yes, Madame President. No pressure.”

But two days after the election, she invited me to visit her at Trump Tower. She greeted me with her perfect smile. I made a mental note to go see her dentist.

We hugged and kissed. I was giddy. “You’re First Lady! I want to hear everything!” I said. 
She laughed but waved it away as if it were no big deal.

I remember thinking, How do you even begin? The magnitude of her new role was overwhelming, but she seemed unfazed.

We talked about what a future move to D.C. would entail, how busy she was.

“When do you move to Washington?” I asked.

“I’m not doing that yet.”

What? “What do you mean?! You have to!”

“I’m not going to just get up and go.” Brush of the hands, that’s that. Melania had spoken. “I’ll go,” she conceded. “But not until Barron is done with school.”

“How’s Barron taking all this?” I asked.

It seemed like just yesterday Melania had told me that Barron had worn a suit and tie to school. He was dressing “just like his dad.” The other kids laughed at him. Melania had told him, “Don’t listen to any of them. Be strong.”

She said Barron was fine. “I just have so much to do,” she said. “Big move!”

“Think of all of the amazing things you’ll be able to do,” I said.

“So busy,” she said.

“Who’s helping you?” I asked.

“It’s being arranged,” she explained. “I’ll have someone.”

“You’ll only have one person?” I asked. “How many does Ivanka have?”

“Who?” Melania said. “You mean Princess?!” We both bellied over with laughter.

It was Donald’s inauguration, not Ivanka’s. But no one was brave enough to tell her that. Melania was not thrilled about Ivanka’s steering the schedule and would not allow it. Neither was she happy to hear that Ivanka insisted on walking in the Pennsylvania Avenue parade with her children.

Ivanka texted me a photo of Barack Obama’s swearing-in, his hand on the Bible, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha standing to his left. She wrote, “FYI regarding the swearing in. It is nice to have family with him for this special moment.”

Instead, Melania and I launched Operation Block Ivanka to keep her face out of that iconic “special moment.” To plan this, I needed to know exactly where the family would be seated and the camera angles. One of the WIS executives sent me notes from the walk-through. He had been prohibited from taking pictures; instead, he’d drawn a sketch to give me a decent overview of the Trump section and where the chairs would be positioned in a semicircle around the dais. We knew where the cameras would be located because the platforms were already in place. Using his sketch, we were able to figure out whose face would be visible when Donald and Melania sat in their seats, and then when the family stood with Chief Justice John Roberts for Donald to take the oath of office. If Ivanka was not on the aisle, her face would be hidden while she was seated. For the standing part, we put Barron between Donald and Melania and made sure that Don Jr. stood next to Melania, not Ivanka.

We were all exhausted and stressed out. Yes, Operation Block Ivanka was petty. Melania was in on this mission. But in our minds, Ivanka shouldn’t have made herself the center of attention in her father’s inauguration.

This sentiment was confirmed when Ivanka wrote to Rick yet again about the family portrait. “It would be really helpful to me if we could do the earlier time,” she said. “Do you think that you can make that happen? Looping in Stephanie.”

Loop me out, please. Melania said, “No, we cannot make it happen.”

Later that day, I received an email from her office. “I notice that Ivanka’s car is not part of the family motorcade. Is there any way to add that?” It. Never. Ended.

On Inauguration Day, my family arrived at the Capitol by 11 a.m., and I was informed my tickets were for the standing area only. Forget about sitting on the riser; we didn’t have a seat anywhere. It was a massive “Fuck you very much.”

Fortunately, as David, the kids, and I were heading toward the spectator area, I ran into a Trump insider named Frank Mermoud. He said, “Where are you going, Stephanie?”

“Our tickets are for way back there,” I said.

“Come over here.” He brought us to a VIP area about 300 feet away from the stage that had seats but not much of a view, unfortunately, but still way better than nothing.

Later, when Melania asked, “How were your seats?” I told her we didn’t have seats. Her response was, “We were told the same by many of our guests.” If the shoe had been on the other foot, I would have been apoplectic.

Rachel Roy was watching on TV from her hotel room in Washington. She texted a photo she’d taken of the screen showing Melania’s head completely blocking Ivanka’s. “Happy MT blocked IT!” 😂😂😂

I started laughing so hard, David thought something was wrong with me.

Media reports that the East Wing was a dark, lonely, sad, cobwebbed place started popping up in the press. We suspected Ivanka immediately. According to Vicky Ward’s book Kushner, Inc., Ivanka said during the transition that the First Lady’s office would become, under Daddy’s administration, the “Trump Family Office.” In late January, when only Lindsay and I occupied Melania’s space, Lindsay got an alert that members of Jared’s staff were coming to the East Wing to look over our offices. The West Wing wasn’t big enough for the Kushners. They wanted the East Wing as well.

I called Melania to tell her what was going on, and she said, “This is ridiculous! You have to do something!”

I dug into my bag; pulled out my red Sharpie and yellow Post-it notes; scribbled “conference room,” “chief of staff,” “deputy of advance,” etc., on them; and slapped them on the office doors.

By putting our mark on each office, Jared’s people couldn’t very well say, “Well, if no one’s using it … we’ll take it.”

I blocked those offices with my body. Although I didn’t yet have a contract to serve as Melania’s adviser, I was pretty sure “linebacker” would not be in my job description.

Later, as the transition wore on, it felt like they wanted to keep the East Wing offices empty, as if the budget and vetting process was being used like a weapon to prevent Melania from filling them. They seemed to enjoy disenfranchising the East Wing so they could totally control Melania. Ivanka was relentless and was determined to be the First Daughter Lady and to usurp office space out from under Melania; she wanted to be the only visible female Trump on the premises, and she was actively using her influence with Katie Walsh, Reince Priebus, and Hope Hicks to thwart our efforts.

Ivanka wasn’t playing by the rules, but she never, ever, got in trouble. On January 24, Suzie Mills, Ivanka’s assistant at the Trump Organization, sent an email to her entire mailing list that said, “Hi Everyone, Hope you all are well. On behalf of Ivanka Trump, I will like to share her new email address. Effective immediately Ivanka will no longer be using her Trump Organization email address.” The new email used a family domain. Not a government one. Can you say “private server”?

Ivanka was asking her work contacts at the White House to write to her at her private email — the exact offense the Trumps had lambasted Hillary Clinton for during the general election. Would anyone chant “Lock her up!” about Ivanka’s private server? Doubtful. The email thing was hypocritical, to say the least. But the Trumps made their own rules.

For me, the juiciest part about all this is the machinations of Princess Ivanka, aka First Daughter Lady. Why does she never, ever get in trouble? Perhaps because of this: 




Wolkoff's book is the first in a series of four insider "tell alls" that will be spilling various beans about Donald and the people who surround him over the next few weeks:

September 1: Melania and Me, by Stephanie Winston Wolkoff
September 8: Disloyal, by Michael Cohen
September 15: Rage, by Bob Woodward
September 22: Battlegrounds, The Fight to Defend The Free World, by H.R. McMaster

How long before soon-to-be-former White House advisor Kellyanne Conway has a book contract? I'd say you can measure it in seconds.

As I said in a previous "Books about Donald" post, All this in an election year? Poor Donald.

And one more thing. There's a film too:



Update #2 on Friday afternoon. Writing at Vanity Fair, Emily Jane Fox dishes more dish about the Melania book:

What has struck me most about these books [about the Trump family] is not what salacious stories they have to share, though the stories are delicious and damning as advertised. It’s that some of the people closest to the Trumps have felt so jilted by them, so burned, so wrung out, that they’re willing to spill their guts about their own family or closest friends. The only reason these books exist is because the Trumps created a climate of backbiting and mistrust that subsumed everyone around them—a climate in which things like recording run-of-the-mill conversations to cover their hides or protect themselves from criminal investigations became the norm. For three different sets of reasons, Mary Trump, Cohen, and Wolkoff had the same knee-jerk response. They felt like it was the only way. And an even wilder notion: they were right.

That simple fact is more revealing than any leaked anecdote in any of these stories. Wolkoff’s book, Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship With the First Lady, out September 1, is the height of this revelation, the ceiling of the floor. Ultimately, it’s an illuminating story of the dissolution of a female friendship, with drama both high and low, slights overt and subtle, and visceral pain. It just so happens that the two friends are the first lady of the United States and the Vogue alum with event-producing bonafides who helped plan the presidential inauguration and joined the East Wing staff before their relationship came publicly unglued in the midst of questions over inaugural spending and security clearances in the White House. In February of 2019, I reported on the fallout—that the White House tried to throw Wolkoff under the bus by making it appear that she had taken millions of dollars from the inaugural funds to line her own gilded pockets. This portrayal fit right into the grifter narrative so many in Trumpworld had perpetuated by actually grifting that most people believed it without hesitation. The truth, as Wolkoff lays out, was that there wasn’t a grift on her part, and she was told privately that her firing from the White House had nothing to do with inaugural spending, despite reports to the contrary. Melania did nothing to defend her at the time, and after more than a year of feeling like there was something amiss with the way the inaugural funds were spent and the events were planned, Wolkoff started to protect herself. Since then, she has participated in investigations into inaugural spending.

Wolkoff, who’s around a stunning six feet tall and who looks like Melania’s sister, or first cousin, or at least a client of her hairstylist, saved everything. And there was plenty to hold onto because they had all communicated so much, through Signal messages and texts, emails, contracts, phone calls. Her Park Avenue apartment started to look like the set of Criminal Minds. She wanted to get to the bottom of what had happened and why her reputation had been sullied and her name dragged through the mud, all because the woman she thought was one of her closest friends had turned her back on her. If humiliation was the wound, the betrayal was the salt, and the way Wolkoff wanted to wash it all away was with proof.

That proof, as it appears in the book, is part of what sets Melania and Me apart from other Trump books. It is fair game to doubt the veracity of some of the more out-there tales spun in other accounts from this era. But it is hard to disbelieve Wolkoff’s, because the conversations quoted appear to be from direct phone calls or meetings, emails or encrypted messages (at one point in the book, Wolkoff writes that Melania, ever private and paranoid, asked her to delete their texts because what they discussed was their business).

What makes it all the more marked is that Melania has been so unknowable for so long, quiet and coiffed and largely out of view. This is the first real look at what’s under her hood, backed up with receipts. And what’s there, according to the book, is much more callous and uglier than it has appeared.

Take a conversation between Wolkoff and Melania about that infamous green jacket with “I really don’t care, do u?” scribbled across the back when the first lady toured a detention center holding children who had been separated from their parents at the U.S. border. Melania shrugged off the public firestorm around the sartorial choice—a common theme throughout the book. “I’m driving liberals crazy,” she told Wolkoff, according to the book. “You know what? They deserve it.” She added that people “connect stuff to my clothes” and that she wears what she wears “because I like it.” Fired up about the media, she continued:

“They all went crazy about the zero-tolerance policy at the border. But they don’t know what’s going on. The kids I met were brought in by coyotes, the bad people who are trafficking, and that’s why the kids were put in shelters. They’re not with their parents, and it’s sad. But the patrols told me the kids say, ‘Wow, I get a bed? I will have a cabinet for my clothes?’ It’s more than they have in their own country where they sleep on the floor. They are taking care nicely there.” She added, “Did Michelle Obama go to the border? She never did. Show me the pictures!”

In these passages she sounds far more like her husband than anyone has given her credit for. Other choices chronicled by Wolkoff carry a distinctive Trumpian flair. According to the book, Melania told Wolkoff that she would not move to D.C. until the shower and toilet in the White House residence had been replaced. She painted her office and closet bright pink, and she added a glam room to the residence in which she could have her hair and makeup done. She would pay no mind to wearing American designers, as Michelle Obama had. If Melania had her sights set on wearing Karl Lagerfeld, she wore Karl Lagerfeld. If she wanted to wear stilettos to visit a hurricane-ravaged town, she wore stilettos. If she wanted to be referred to on a Christmas card as “First Lady-Elect,” even though no other first-lady-to-be had used the term because, as Wolkoff reminded her, it is not an elected position, she did it anyway. “Melania,” she writes, “Did. Not. Care.” Melania doesn’t dish much on her marriage in the book because, as Wolkoff writes, “Any intimate question about her marriage was deflected by her seamlessly turning the chat back to what was going on with my husband, my kids, and my career, about which she was endlessly fascinated.” The same went for questions about her husband’s alleged affairs or payments made to women in the run-up to the election. She’d brush off his “grab ‘em by the pussy” tape or settlements to Stormy Daniels with, “It’s politics.” Over the years, according to the book, when Wolkoff would express her concern, Melania would matter-of-factly respond, “I know who I married.”

Melania was more overt about her relationship with her stepdaughter, Ivanka Trump, or “Princess,” as Melania jokingly referred to her, according to the book. During the inauguration, Wolkoff writes that she and Melania launched “Operation Block Ivanka,” making sure that she was seated out of frame in the photos of President Trump being sworn in. Melania, she writes, did not want Ivanka to attend the wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, so Wolkoff left it off of her schedule, until Ivanka texted her to ask why it wasn’t there.

Once they were in the White House, Wolkoff writes that Ivanka and her staff wrote to her and Melania about cohosting several events that were traditionally hosted by just the first lady. “Are you kidding me?” Melania asked Wolkoff about Ivanka’s request to collaborate for International Women’s Day. “Seriously? I’m not co-hosting.” For the annual luncheon held for the governors’ spouses that Ivanka wanted in on, Melania said, “We need to let her know that I know this is a First Lady event done every year…OMG. They just want to take credit for it.” After hearing that Ivanka had worn a KaufmanFranco dress for an event, Melania said, “Forget it.” According to Wolkoff, “If Ivanka was dressed by a designer, Melania would cross them off her list.” At one point, Melania apparently warned Wolkoff in a text: “You know how they are snakes.”

This iciness appeared to play out on the national stage on the final night of the Republican National Convention Thursday evening—an unintentional bit of native advertising ahead of the book’s release next week. A video of Ivanka breezing past her stepmother without much acknowledgment and making a beeline for her father went viral. In it, Melania’s face appears to sour almost immediately after Ivanka walks past.

Over the past four years, much has been made of Melania videos like this one: tiny, viral snippets of frowns at her husband’s major appearances and moments in which she appears to swat his hand away, often shared with the hashtag #FreeMelania. The same had, for a time, been true with Ivanka, when many believed that she would be a “moderating influence” on her father in the White House. So many people assumed that no sane woman could see Trump and his administration for what it was and still prop it up, and then projected this belief onto the women closest to him. Wolkoff’s book helps detail that this is not the case. These women were never saviors trying to break free. Melania is not cloistered away, above the muck. She is rolling around in it. As Wolkoff writes at the close of her book, making sense of why she decided to write it, “[Melania] told me in her way that she was not part of the solution, she was part of the problem. Not speaking up, and not fighting, against the problem, is being part of the problem, and I learned that the hard way.”

“I’m still here,” she added. “The woman I once considered my close friend is gone.”
(Read the entire article here.) 

This is the video of Ivanka walking past Melania and yes, it is glorious: 



Update #3 on September 3:





I admit that when Melania plagiarized Michelle Obama's convention speech in 2016, I wondered how it could have happened, or to be blunt, who was the idiot who did something so stupid? Explanations at the time were all over the place and didn't make sense. Now, a new clue. Did Princess Ivanka mess with her stepmother's speech to make her look bad? It wouldn't surprise me.

Monday, August 17, 2020

Divorce Donald?





#DivorceTrump is currently trending on Twitter. Why? Because of this: (watch Donald's right hand)




My guess? 17 seconds past noon on January 20, Eastern time, Melania is gone: "Screw it. I'm done. I've had it."

Time to cash in the (newly enhanced) prenup? Absolutely.





Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Send Money?

Donald's campaign continues to bamboozle its donors with requests for money:

Image


Image


Donald's campaign brought in a ton of money in July, so these desperate entreaties must work, but wow, to me they're so ridiculous I would have said they were parodies.

Friday, July 24, 2020

The Top 1% - Update

I'm going to keep posting these as I see them; see the first post here.




 Update on Wednesday, August 5. Another one:

Image


The sender is newly promoted campaign manager Bill Stepien. It's hard to read so I typed out the content:


CONFIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY: PLEASE DON'T SHARE  

Friend,

I'll get right to it.

November 3rd is coming at us fast and I'm prepared to do whatever it takes to secure another victory for President Trump.

The president said that you're one of his strongest allies. I always trust what he thinks, so I only have one question for you: are you ready to flight alongside me and CRUSH Joe Biden on Election Day?

I know you're up for the challenge. You've been a strong supporter of the President since the very beginning, which is why I need you to take the Official 2020 Campaign Strategy Survey. 

This survey is strictly confidential and is meant for your eyes only. If should go without saying, but please do NOT forward this to anyone. [end]


When I see these missives I always wonder why they're insisting on secrecy. Given that the message probably went to literally millions of people, the campaign can't possibly believe that no one will forward it. I got it from David Corn, of Mother Jones, who posted it on Twitter. Not exactly confidential. 

Is it possible this is some kind of reverse psychology? Trying to trick recipients into sharing it? No way to know. And wouldn't you love to know what's on the Official 2020 Campaign Strategy Survey?  



Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Just A Little Corruption Across The Pond

From the New York Times, this is the story in its entirety:

LONDON — The American ambassador to Britain, Robert Wood Johnson IV, told multiple colleagues in February 2018 that President Trump had asked him to see if the British government could help steer the world-famous and lucrative British Open golf tournament to the Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland, according to three people with knowledge of the episode.

The ambassador’s deputy, Lewis A. Lukens, advised him not to do it, warning that it would be an unethical use of the presidency for private gain, these people said. But Mr. Johnson apparently felt pressured to try. A few weeks later, he raised the idea of Turnberry playing host to the Open with the secretary of state for Scotland, David Mundell.

In a brief interview last week, Mr. Mundell said it was “inappropriate” for him to discuss his dealings with Mr. Johnson and referred to a British government statement that said Mr. Johnson “made no request of Mr. Mundell regarding the British Open or any other sporting event.” The statement did not address whether the ambassador had broached the issue of Turnberry, which Mr. Trump bought in 2014, but none of the next four Opens are scheduled to be played there.

Still, the episode left Mr. Lukens and other diplomats deeply unsettled. Mr. Lukens, who served as the acting ambassador before Mr. Johnson arrived in November 2017, emailed officials at the State Department to tell them what had happened, colleagues said. A few months later, Mr. Johnson forced out Mr. Lukens, a career diplomat who had earlier served as ambassador to Senegal, shortly before his term was to end.

The White House declined to comment on Mr. Trump’s instructions to Mr. Johnson, as did the ambassador and the State Department.

Although Mr. Trump, as president, is exempt from a federal conflict of interest law that makes it a criminal offense to take part in “government matters that will affect your own personal financial interest,” the Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign governments.

Experts on government ethics pointed to one potential violation of the emoluments clause that still may have been triggered by the president’s actions: The British or Scottish governments would most likely have to pay for security at the tournament, an event that would profit Mr. Trump.

It was not the first time the president tried to steer business to one of his properties. Last year, the White House chose the Trump National Doral resort in Miami as the site of a Group of 7 meeting. Mr. Trump backed off after it ignited a political storm, moving the meeting to Camp David before canceling it because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Trump also urged Vice President Mike Pence to stay at his family’s golf resort in Doonbeg, Ireland, last year during a visit, even though the vice president’s official business was on the other side of the country. That trip generated headlines for the golf club, but also controversy. And Mr. Trump has visited his family-owned golf courses more than 275 times since he took office, bringing reporters with him each time, ensuring that the resorts get ample news coverage.

The Trump International Hotel in Washington has done a brisk trade in guests, foreign and domestic, who are in town to lobby the federal government. Turnberry itself drew attention when the Pentagon acknowledged it had been sending troops to the resort while they were on overnight layovers at the nearby Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

But Mr. Trump and his children have struggled for more than a decade to attract professional golf tournaments to the family’s 16 golf courses, knowing those events draw global television audiences and help drive traffic. They own most of the courses outright — as opposed to simply selling the family name, as is the case with several of their hotels and residential towers — and the courses generate about a third of the family’s revenue, with tournaments seen as a crucial way to publicize them.

This has been particularly important for the two Trump resorts in Scotland and one in Ireland, which have been losing money under Mr. Trump’s ownership. Mr. Trump himself was intensely involved in promoting them before he was elected, regularly pushing golf writers and the editors of golf magazines to play with him, often after whisking them to Scotland on his private jet.

The losses at the British resorts have come even after the family made costly investments to build or upgrade their courses, including $150 million at Turnberry. The most recent annual report for Turnberry shows it lost nearly $1 million, on $19 million in sales, in 2018.

But the campaign to recruit tournaments has been complicated by Mr. Trump’s political ascent. Executives who run the Scottish Open, for example, said in 2017 that they would most likely not hold the tournament at the Trump family’s Aberdeen golf resort, even after direct appeals by Mr. Trump.

“Politics aside, Trump would be an ideal venue — but you can’t put politics aside,” Martin Gilbert, the chief executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, which is the lead sponsor of the Scottish Open, told reporters.

As ambassador, Mr. Johnson has had to navigate Mr. Trump’s up-and-down relations with British leaders. The president soured on the prime minister at the time, Theresa May, and berated her on trans-Atlantic phone calls. His relations with Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a like-minded populist, have been warmer, though Mr. Johnson has sometimes steered clear of Mr. Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Britain.

A prominent Republican donor, Mr. Johnson initially supported Jeb Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016, but he later backed Mr. Trump, introducing him to other figures in the party’s money circles. Enlisting Mr. Johnson as an emissary on behalf of his golf course was another way the president was looking for help furthering his financial interests.

Beyond the legal and ethical red flags, asking for such a favor from his host country would put Mr. Johnson in an untenable position as the emissary of the United States.

“It is diplomatic malpractice because once you do that, you put yourself in a compromised position,” said Norman L. Eisen, who served as President Barack Obama’s special counsel for ethics and later as his ambassador to the Czech Republic. “They can always say, ‘Remember that time when you made that suggestion.’ No experienced diplomat would do that.”

For Mr. Johnson, 73, London was a reward fit for the billionaire heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune. Formally known as the Court of St. James’s, the assignment is the plum of the diplomatic corps — one that comes with a palatial residence, Winfield House, and entree to the highest levels of British society.

Like many political appointees, Mr. Johnson had no diplomatic experience before arriving in London. Affable and well connected, he is known mainly for the nickname Woody and his ownership of the New York Jets, a perennially struggling N.F.L. franchise. His transition to leading a large embassy was bumpy.

Mr. Johnson’s throwback style has been criticized as offensive. There have been complaints that he complimented the appearances of female employees during staff meetings, and after interviewing a candidate to replace Mr. Lukens as deputy chief of mission, he asked a colleague whether she was Jewish.

The ambassador, colleagues said, forced out Mr. Lukens after hearing he gave a speech at a British university in which he told a positive anecdote about a visit Mr. Obama had made to Senegal in 2013, when Mr. Lukens was the envoy.

At least some of those complaints were raised with the department’s Office of the Inspector General last fall, when a team of investigators began a routine review of diplomatic operations at the embassy. The findings were submitted in February, and the complaints are expected to be included, according to one of the investigators. It is not clear why the review has not been made public.

Neither the State Department nor the embassy addressed the accusations, but the department said Mr. Johnson had led the embassy “honorably and professionally.” In a statement, it said, “We stand by Ambassador Johnson and look forward to him continuing to ensure our special relationship with the U.K. is strong.”

As for Mr. Trump’s request for help in getting the Open, it is not clear how much sway the British government would have had even if it had responded to Mr. Johnson’s hints. The tournament is run by the R&A, a golf association based at the Royal and Ancient Golf Club in St. Andrews, which is the British counterpart to the United States Golf Association.

A spokesman for the R&A, Mike Woodcock, said a committee selects the site from a pool of 10 courses in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland based on factors like the readiness of the course and public infrastructure.

“We haven’t received any approaches from the British government or the Scottish government about this,” he said.

Thursday, July 16, 2020

The Weekly Trump Patriot 500%-Match - Updated

This is an example of fundraising by the Trump Campaign. In a not-unrelated development, Campaign Manager Brad Parscale has now been demoted, although he will still be in charge of digital outreach.






When David didn't respond, he received this:






And how about this:






I wonder how many voters are actually sending money in response to these solicitations.

Update. This one's from Don Jr.:

Image

Clearly the Trumps don't hold their supporters in very high regard. Is there anyone stupid enough to not understand that they aren't the first person Don Jr. thought of? That this e-mail probably went out to about 5 million people? That if they don't donate tonight they will absolutely get another chance, as in every day until the election?

MeidasTouch calls this "Ponzi scheme meets stalker meets unloved child." Sounds about right.

Update #2:

Image


The Trump Patriot 500% Club
The VIP Guest at the Convention Club
The Official Trump VIP Club
The Trump 100 Club

What's next? The Too Stupid To Know Better Club? Stay tuned.

Update #3. I'm just going to post these as I see them:

Image


The Top 100 Supporters Club

Image



Boat Parades!

Update #4 on Monday morning. This is what you get when you don't donate to the Trump 100 Club:



Image


If I didn't know better, I'd swear this was parody.

Update #5 on Tuesday afternoon. This one's from Don Jr.:

Image

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

The World's Most Dangerous Man

Dahlia Lithwick, writing at Slate.com, reviews Mary Trump's new book. Titled "Mary Trump's Book Shows How Donald Trump Gets Away With It," and subtitled "The problem with a fraud as big as this president is that once you start collaborating with him, it's impossible to get out," this is the article in its entirety: 

Too Much and Never Enough, Mary Trump’s devastating indictment of how the Trump family created, as her subtitle characterizes him, “the world’s most dangerous man,” hits bookstores this week. Its publication coincides with—as she predicted—record-shattering COVID-19 cases, a fragile economy, and a half-formed government plan to open schools this fall at any cost. By now you have doubtless ingested the greatest hits of her family gossip: Donald Trump ogled his own niece in a bathing suit and sought to fill one of his books with hit lists of “ugly” women who had rebuffed him; Donald Trump paid someone to take his SATs; Maryanne Trump Barry, a retired federal appeals court judge, once described her brother as a “clown” with no principles; Donald Trump was a vicious bully even as a child; Freddy Trump—the author’s father—died alone in a hospital while Donald went to a movie. The details are new, and graphic, yes, but very little about it is surprising: The president is a lifelong liar and cheater, propped up by a father who was as relentless in his need for success as Donald Trump was to earn his approval. Check please.

But not quite. What is new and surprising is also that Mary Trump, who has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, has given us a granular portrait of Trump’s profound impairment: She says that her uncle has all nine clinical criteria for narcissism, although she insists that this diagnosis is only the tip of the psychological iceberg—he may also suffer from antisocial personality disorder, sociopathy, and/or dependent personality disorder, along with an undiagnosed learning disability that likely interferes with his ability to process information. I leave it to the mental health experts to determine whether some or all of that is accurate. But what Mary Trump surely adds to the growing canon of the “Trump is unwell” book club is not limited to family gossip or mental health diagnostics: At bottom, Too Much and Never Enough may be the first book that stipulates, in its first pages, that the president is irreparably damaged, and then turns a clinician’s lens on the rest of us, the voters, the enablers, the flatterers, the hangers-on, and the worshippers. It is here that Mary Trump’s book makes perhaps the most enduring contribution to the teetering piles of books that have offered too little too late, even while telling us that which we already knew. Because Mary Trump begins from the assumption that other analysis tends to end with: Donald Trump is lethally dangerous, stunningly incoherent, and pathologically incapable of caring about anyone but himself. So, what Mary Trump wants to know is: What the hell is wrong with everyone around him? As she writes in her prologue, “there’s been very little effort to understand not only why he became what he is but how he’s consistently failed up despite his glaring lack of fitness.”

The book is thus actually styled as an indictment not of Donald Trump but of Trump’s enablers. The epigraph is from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, and it’s emphatically not about Donald John Trump at all: “If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.” Mary Trump blames Fred Trump for Donald Trump’s pathology, although she doesn’t claim that her uncle is a tragic victim of abuse. She blames his family that propped him up (also her family, it should be noted), and then in concentric and expanding circles, the media that failed to scrutinize him, the banks that pretended he was the financial genius he was not, the Republican Party, and the “claque of loyalists” in the White House who continue to lie for him and to him in order to feed his insatiable ego and self-delusion. Even the phrase “too much and never enough” is perhaps deliberately borrowed from the language of addiction, and what Mary Trump describes here is not just her uncle’s addiction to adulation, fame, money, and success, but a nation’s—or some part of a nation’s—unfathomable addiction to him.

The bulk of the book focuses on the tale of Mary and her brother Fritz’s abandonment by the rest of the Trump clan. Her father, Freddy, the scion and namesake, failed to be the storybook heir to her grandfather’s real estate empire, instead collapsing into a tragic black hole of alcoholism, illness, and despair. Donald Trump, Freddy’s younger brother, not only helped push Freddy down but also stepped on his sinking shoulders on his way into the empty, Freddy-shaped space to become his father’s successor. And as Freddy’s parents and three other siblings altered their lives and priorities in order to orbit around Donald, Mary and her brother were eventually written out of the wills, the empire, and the family story, as payback for their father’s perceived weakness and failures. This is all tragic in its own right, but it also makes Mary, who has been let down by the so-called adults in the room almost since her infancy, perfectly positioned to explain and translate what happens to otherwise high-functioning adults—her aunt Maryanne, a competent federal judge; the lawyers and accountants tasked with fulfilling Donald’s whims and hiding his failings; the sycophants and Republicans and evangelical Christians who support his campaign unquestioningly; and the officials who now populate the Senate, the Cabinet, and the Oval Office. All of them appear to be reasonably mentally sound. Yet they all cover for Donald, at the expense of real suffering and genuine human loss, just as the Trump clan ignored Freddy’s disintegration and death. Mary Trump’s childhood trauma has become America’s trauma, and she really wants to know how that came to be. Again.

The section of the book that has garnered the most attention is likely Mary’s claim that Trump cannot be evaluated for pathologies because he is “in the West Wing, essentially institutionalized” and that he has in fact “been institutionalized for most of his adult life. So there is no way to know how he would thrive, or even survive, on his own in the real world.” We are not used to seeing entities like the White House described in this way—a “very expensive and well-guarded padded cell”—as a means of protection for the broken man inside rather than as a platform from which a leader can change the world. And her ultimate point is that even a shattered psyche, buffered from the real world, can still do irreparable damage to it. But the most interesting assessments she offers are reserved for those inside the “institutions,” the people who might have saved us and certainly have not, from the nuclear family, to the Trump businesses, to New York’s bankers and powerful elites, to Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, and Jared Kushner. They all knew and know that the emperor has no clothes, even as they devote their last shreds of dignity to effusive praise of his ermine trim and jaunty crown.

Mary Trump seems to answer the question of why they do this in a section late in the book about Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump. In describing Fred’s growing realizing that his fair-haired boy, Donald, was a fraud, Mary explains that, yes, Fred himself was a master at fattening his wallet with taxpayer funds, committing tax fraud to benefit his children. (Mary admits she was the one who leaked the family tax information to the New York Times in 2018 for its blockbuster story.) But as it became clear that Donald had no real business acumen—as his Atlantic City casinos cratered and his father unlawfully poured secret funds into saving them—Mary realized that Fred also depended on the glittery tabloid success at which Donald excelled. Fred continued to prop up his son’s smoke-and-mirrors empire because, as Mary writes, “Fred had become so invested in the fantasy of Donald’s success that he and Donald were inextricably linked. Facing reality would have required acknowledging his own responsibility, which he would never do. He had gone all in, and although any rational person would have folded, Fred was determined to double down.”

Mary Trump’s words there could just as easily be true for John Kelly, Kellyanne Conway, John Bolton, Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, or Melania Trump. And as Mary Trump is quick to observe, the sheer stuck-ness of his enablers means that Trump never, ever learns his lesson. Being cosseted, lied to, defended, and puffed up means that Donald Trump knows that, “no matter what happens, no matter how much damage he leaves in his wake, he will be OK.” He fails up, in other words, because everyone around him, psychologically normal beings all, ends up so enmeshed with his delusions that they must do anything necessary to protect them. Trump’s superpower isn’t great vision or great leadership but rather that he is so tiny. Taking him on for transactional purposes may seem like not that big a deal at first, but the moment you put him in your pocket, you become his slave. It is impossible to escape his orbit without having to admit a spectacular failure in moral and strategic judgment, which almost no one can stomach. Donald Trump’s emptiness is simply a mirror of the emptiness of everyone who propped him up. It’s that reflection that becomes unendurable. This pattern, as Mary writes, “guaranteed a cascade of increasingly consequential failures that would ultimately render all of us collateral damage.” Nobody, not even Mary, who signed on briefly to ghostwrite one of his books, ends up just a little bit beholden to Donald Trump and that includes his rapturous supporters who still queue up, maskless, to look upon his greatness. As she concludes, his sociopathy “reminds me that Donald isn’t really the problem at all.” That makes hers something other than the 15th book about the fathoms-deep pathologies of Donald Trump: It is the first real reckoning with all those who “caused the darkness.”

Mary Trump is, among other things, a brisk and gifted writer, and she is a fact witness to, and also a victim of, a family that elevated a mediocre and vicious man, at the expense of justice, fairness, and truth. Her real beef is not with her uncle Donald, who has always been exactly as we have long known him to be; that’s why a smattering of new details about his business failures and meanness were never really the point of this book. We’ve read that book before. The perspective of this book is made possible exactly because Mary Trump was one of the first children to be written out of the will, cast out of the family, and denied the support and love that should have been hers, as a result of her father’s perceived failures. It is this—because she was ousted rather than being forced to remove herself—that allows her to see clearly why everyone else stuck around. And what she reveals is a devastating indictment of all the alleged adults who stick around Donald Trump, who came together to fail America, to leave vulnerable populations to fend for themselves, and who continue to lie and spin to pacify his ego. They do it because they can’t admit the payoff is never coming, and to save themselves from the embarrassment of having to admit they were catastrophically wrong.

Sunday, July 12, 2020

Follow The Money - Updated

I've never believed Donald is as rich as he claims to be. I do believe that if the truth about his finances ever comes out, it will be clear that he's a serious criminal and has been for years. Today this thread from Adam Davidson caught my eye:


























I think Donald's money will be getting more attention and not in a good way. Stay tuned.

Update on August 5. More about Donald's monetary adventures in Scotland, from an article at Mother Jones:

In 2006, Donald Trump purchased a 1,400-acre swath of the old Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire, a rambling property situated on Scotland’s rugged and remote northeastern coast. Trump pledged to develop a world-class golf resort replete with luxury villas there, and he vowed to revitalize the region with more than a billion dollars of investment. Though not an obvious location for a glitzy development—the area is mostly known for its offshore oil industry, and it rains more than a third of the year—Aberdeenshire was to be the beachhead of the mogul’s ambitious plan to insert his family name among the storied golf courses of Scotland, the birthplace of the sport, and attain for his brand the kind of old-world prestige that had eluded Trump in the United States.

The development seemed particularly important to Trump, whose mother hailed from the Isle of Lewis, a far-flung island in the Outer Hebrides. And it was unlike anything he had undertaken before. He often licenses his name to projects financed by others. And the self-proclaimed “king of debt” typically takes out large loans to finance the ventures he does bankroll. In this case, Trump’s company proceeded with the development on its own. And it says it paid for everything in cash.

Such was also the case for Turnberry, the historic golf resort, an hour south of Glasgow, that Trump purchased in 2014 for $60 million. His large expenditures in Scotland were notable because they came during a rocky financial stretch for Trump. The year before purchasing the Aberdeenshire estate, he was ousted as CEO of his thrice-bankrupted casino business; in 2008, he defaulted on a large Deutsche Bank loan tied to a development in Chicago.

Like other Trump wagers, his Scottish gamble has so far not worked out. Both resorts are bleeding millions annually. Meanwhile, he and his company have spent years viciously skirmishing with various locals and government agencies that resisted Trump’s plans to build luxury housing on the fringes of the resorts, which the Trump Organization seems to view as vital to profitability.

If business was lackluster before, it’s dismal now that the coronavirus pandemic has all but halted the Scottish golf season, at least as far as international travelers are concerned. To make matters worse, as Trump’s hospitality empire grapples with the fallout of COVID-19, it also faces a series of maturing debts, loans amounting to nearly a half-billion dollars, which need to be paid down or refinanced over the next four years.

Recently, a new—and perhaps bigger—threat to Trump has emerged in Scotland. Scottish lawmakers are pushing to peer into Trump’s finances using an anti-money-­laundering statute typically employed against kleptocrats, oligarchs, and crime kingpins. Their question: Where did the hundreds of millions Trump poured into his Scottish courses actually come from?

Early promotional materials for Aberdeenshire carried what purported to be the Trump clan’s baronial crest—three lions under an armored fist brandishing a spear and surrounded by a flourish of red and white feathers.

It was, no surprise, a fake. Trump had cribbed the coat of arms from Joseph Edward Davies, whose wife had built Mar-a-Lago and who had legitimately been granted the crest in the 1930s. He had made only one minor change, erasing the Davies family motto of “integritas” (integrity) and replacing it with “Trump.” He had used the doctored crest for years to peddle all sorts of products—from ties to beach towels—and it was plastered across his US properties.

But that didn’t fly in Scotland.

For centuries the country has had an office devoted to making sure people do not claim someone else’s family name. And after it determined Trump was indeed displaying a stolen coat of arms, he was barred from using it. The episode foretold Trump’s subsequent misadventures in Scotland, a country particularly resistant to his brand of flimflam.

In Aberdeenshire, Trump initially won over locals with his plans for a sprawling upscale golf community containing multiple courses ringed by tastefully designed homes. He vowed to bring 6,000 jobs to the area. But fierce opposition formed when Trump revealed his plans to build the first course atopenvironmentally sensitive sand dunes. In late 2007, local planners rejected Trump’s proposal, but after Scotland’s then–First Minister Alex Salmond met with Trump, the Scottish government stepped in to overrule the local authorities. Construction proceeded. But when Salmond refused to block a planned offshore wind farm in view of Trump’s course, Trump went ballistic. He wrote Salmond a series of bizarre letters in which he insisted that if Salmond allowed the wind farm, he would destroy any chance of Scottish independence, and “your economy will become a third world wasteland that global investors will avoid.”

At a hearing in 2012, a member of the Scottish Parliament asked Trump, who appeared in person, for evidence that the turbines would damage Scottish tourism.

“Well, first of all, I am the evidence. I’m more of an expert than the people you’d like me to hire…I am considered a world-class expert in tourism,” Trump declared without missing a beat, as the room broke out in laughter and audience members rolled their eyes.

Trump eventually sued the Scottish government but lost so resoundingly that in 2019 he was ordered to pay its legal fees. The wind farm had been completed the previous year.

Meanwhile, Trump became embroiled in petty disputes with his neighbors in Aberdeenshire. At first, these were the type of NIMBY contretemps that are to be expected when a large development is proposed in a small community. But with Trump, whose business credo is “get even with people,” things quickly escalated.

The Menie Estate had been sold off in parcels over the years, requiring him to purchase it piece by piece. But a group of homeowners whose properties formed small enclaves amid the larger estate defied Trump’s entreaties to sell.

David Milne was one of them. In 1992, he purchased a decommissioned coast guard watch station on the property. It was government-owned, Milne says, and “dead cheap.”

“It was an empty, cold industrial building,” Milne recalls, describing how he wandered through the structure, eventu­ally making his way to a tower with a panoramic view of the North Sea. “I came upstairs and got into what is now my office and looked out at the view and it was just a case of, ‘Wow! Yes, I’m having this!’ And the deal was done. I put down my roots and never moved. There’s literally my blood, sweat, and tears in this building in various walls. Heartaches, heartbreaks, success, pain, and triumph. I’m proud of this building, proud of this house.”

Perched on a hillock overlooking what would become the 18th hole, Milne’s home stood dead in the center of Trump’s vision of a pristine golf course for elite jet-setters. “I want to get rid of that house,” Trump declared during a visit to his course in 2010, adding, “We’re trying to build the greatest course in the world. This house is ugly.”

Milne and his wife rejected Trump’s purchase offer, which Milne describes as laughably low. Trump raised his price slightly and attempted to sweeten the deal by offering Milne, who rarely golfs, a lifetime membership at the club and access to its spa. After the Milnes rebuffed that offer, Trump’s lawyer asked local authorities to take their home—and those of others who refused to sell—by compulsory purchase (the UK version of eminent domain). Milne and several other neighbors fought off the attempt. He contends Trump then tried to harass them out of their properties.

Construction work severed Milne’s water and phone lines. Milne says the Trump Organization also encircled his property with trees to block his view, attempted to construct a giant berm hemming him in, and threatened to knock down his garage for allegedly being built over the property line (it wasn’t). Ultimately, Trump’s company erected a fence around the Milnes’ property—then billed the couple for the work.

Milne tossed the bill and has delighted in telling the story ever since—especially since Trump made his famous campaign pledge in 2016 to “build a great, great wall on our southern border” and make Mexico pay for it. The Milnes now fly a Mexican flag (next to the Saltire, the Scottish flag) outside their home, within view of the Trump clubhouse.

Trump’s heated squabbles with Milne and other neighbors had a sideshow quality—bizarre, ham-handed, and often self-defeating—but there was something stranger still about the amounts of cash he has dumped into Aberdeenshire and Turnberry.

He spent nearly $13 million purchasing the land for the Aberdeenshire course, and as much as $50 million developing the property. All, apparently, in cash. According to Trump, after purchasing Turnberry in 2014 for $60 million from a holding company owned by the government of Dubai, he dished out as much as $200 million rehabbing the venerable property.

Neither has ever turned a profit. Turnberry, considered one of the top Scottish courses, has seen its golf business decline. When it opened in 2012, Aberdeenshire was touted as a technically interesting and highly challenging course, but it has struggled to attract crowds. Milne says that over the last few years he’s found it so sleepy it rarely bothers him.

“To be quite honest, it’s not a major issue to me,” he says. “The car park is very rarely more than half full.”

The size of Trump’s wealth is a source of great debate, but two things are fairly well known—the period between 2006 and 2014 included some of his lowest points, financially speaking, and even in the best of times, the amount he splurged in Scotland would be a ton of cash for him to have on hand, let alone spend so freely. And Trump made these Scottish investments amid a $400 million cash spending spree, documented by the Washington Post, in which he also purchased a golf club in Ireland, five courses in the United States, and several pricy homes.

The New Yorker estimated that Trump would have spent half his available cash on the purchase of Turnberry alone, concluding there wasn’t “enough money coming into Trump’s known business to cover the massive outlay he spent” renovating the property.

And the mystery deepens. Martyn McLaughlin, a Glasgow-based reporter for the Scotsman newspaper, discovered that in 2008 Trump approached a Scottish bank asking for a $63 million loan to buy and renovate a historic hotel near Edinburgh, overlooking the final hole of St. Andrews, the most famous golf course in the world. The terms he proposed were so ludicrously favorable to him that bank executives concluded Trump was asking for a “free loan,” and doing business with the developer was “too risky.” Meanwhile, Trump was touting his “very strong” cash position and his representatives were telling the Scottish public that he had more than $1 billion available to spend in their country. (The Trump Organization did not respond to questions from Mother Jones.)

This February, a group of Scottish Parliament members began making the case that Scotland should use an investigative tool under UK law called an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) to scrutinize Trump’s transactions. It can’t be wielded against just anyone; it’s designed to make inquiries into the finances of “politically exposed persons” suspected of money laundering. It has been invoked several times in London; for example, examining how the wife of a jailed ex–Azerbaijani government official had managed to afford a 16 million-pound shopping spree at Harrods.

Patrick Harvie, a Scottish Parliament member and co-leader of Scotland’s Green Party, has led the campaign for a UWO against Trump. “This is not someone who inspires confidence in sound finances and sound business,” he says. “The fact that there are many allegations floating around that the US authorities have investigated, whether it’s in relation to Russia or his political dealings domestically—you don’t have to sniff the air very long to see there’s something that smells.”

Harvie cited a report by Avaaz, a global nonprofit activist group, that has been key to the campaign. It highlights Trump’s assoc­iation with people scrutinized by US law enforcement for illicit financial transactions, including Paul Manafort, his campaign chair who was convicted of tax and bank fraud, and Michael Cohen, who was sent to prison for campaign finance crimes committed on Trump’s behalf.

“Without more information from Mr. Trump, there is reasonable doubt that his income during the time of Turnberry’s purchase and renovation would have been sufficient to cover all of these expenditures,” the report concludes.

McLaughlin puts it in simpler terms. “The abiding mystery is why Mr. Trump and his companies seem to relish in spending exorbitant amounts of money and losing exorbitant amounts of money here,” he says. “Given all the difficulties the Trump Organization has had, why is it so determined to throw more money at it?”

One theory is that Trump hoped to own a course that hosts a “major”—one of the top-tier professional golf tournaments each year. Turnberry used to regularly host the British Open, but it hasn’t since Trump took over. “He desperately wants a major. That was the big idea,” says sports writer Rick Reilly, who has golfed with Trump and in 2019 published the book Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump.

Indeed, the New York Times reported this summer that in 2018 Woody Johnson, a Trump donor who was appointed as US ambassador to the United Kingdom, told several colleagues that the president had asked him to make inquiries with the British government about steering the British Open to Turnberry. According to the Times, Johnson did raise the question with the Scottish secretary of state, against the advice of career diplomats; nothing came of it.

Reilly says Trump ruined any chance of getting the British Open with his racist and sexist conduct. “Of all the people in the world that aren’t going to put up with a fool, it’s the Scots,” he says. “They’re just such a no-nonsense people and they see him for what he is: He’s a big blowhard con man who is trying to tell them what they know isn’t true.”

Trump’s alleged entreaty to his UK ambassador is not the first time his administration has been accused of taking action to boost Turnberry’s lackluster business. Last year, Politico reported that Air Force flight crews stopping for overnight layovers in Scotland were being sent to Turnberry’s hotel—a luxury establishment close to an hour away from the airport—even though cheaper lodging was available nearby. The Air Force, which spent nearly $184,000 at Turnberry, denied any wrongdoing.

If Trump’s Scottish ventures seemed ill-fated before, things are about to get much worse. In 2018, the most recent year for which numbers are available, both courses lost more than $15 million combined. And that was a good year. A golf industry expert familiar with Trump’s operations says he expects that 2020 revenues at Turnberry and Aberdeenshire will be down 80 to 90 percent from 2018.

Gordon Dalgleish, president of PerryGolf, which organizes golf tours for well-heeled clients in the British Isles, says the pandemic has brought Irish and Scottish golf tourism to a standstill. At many of the iconic Scottish courses, including Trump’s, “well north of 50 percent” of the patrons are wealthy Americans. “If you sat in the lobby at Turnberry, you’d hear a lot of American accents,” he says.

Not this year. In May, Scottish authorities allowed golf clubs to reopen, but under strict guidelines: Clubhouses were shuttered, caddies can work for golfers from just two households a day, and players are barred from congregating on the course before, during, or after play. But the far bigger impediment is that, as of July, the United Kingdom required international travelers to quarantine for two weeks. “It’s pretty hard to sell a one-week trip until there’s no quarantine,” Dalgleish notes.

Last fall, local authorities rejected Trump’s initial proposal to build a golf community at Turnberry, but in July, McLaughlin revealed that the Trump Organization had quietly drawn up plans for an even more ambitious expansion—one that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, Aberdeenshire officials have finally approved Trump’s plan to begin building a second course along with luxury homes and “five-star hotel cottages.” The cost, according to Trump, is almost $200 million.

Dubbed the Trump Estate, promotional materials show rows of quaint dwellings crowded along elaborately landscaped lanes. Homes range in price from about $370,000 for a two-bedroom cottage to $1.6 million for a five-bedroom mansion.

But with revenues so low, the money needed to complete the project—let alone a major development at Turnberry—may be hard for the Trumps to come by. McLaughlin also says he doesn’t understand how luxury homes in an out-of-the-way region of Scotland, known for blustery North Sea winds and offshore oil, make sense.

“Quite how they’ll have a viable business scheme out of that, I’m not sure,” he says. “Who pays hundreds of thousands of pounds for a family villa in the northeast of Scotland that’s got the corrosive brand of Trump attached to it?”

Reilly agrees. “Buying a place there would be like flying to Italy to go to an Olive Garden,” he says. “It’s insane. Who would do that?”

McLaughlin says that at an open house for prospective buyers last winter, the interested parties seemed mostly foreign. “Which raises the question, Who is investing? Who is giving money to the president’s company? It’s the most explicit opportunity to put money into the Trump Organization in return for property.”

Of course, if Trump’s finances continue to suffer, he may have to offload the courses before he builds a single villa. “He’ll have to. It’s a matter of when,” says the golf industry expert. “He doesn’t have the cash flow.”

David Milne says he hasn’t heard from the Trumps in years. But one early evening 11 years ago, at the height of the planning battle over Aberdeenshire, Milne says he heard a knock at his door. He opened it to find Donald Trump Jr. and then–Trump Organization executive George Sorial. They had visited before, Milne says. “They quite often showed up and tried to discuss something. Usually they were told to go away. None of them have ever been over the doorstep.”

That evening, they weren’t there for a discussion; just to deliver a message—or, as Milne understood it, a threat. “Remember, whatever you say and whatever you do, we usually get what we want,” Milne recalled being told.

“Not this time,” he responded.
(This is the article in its entirety.)


And what are we to make of this:





Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day.