Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Cassidy Hutchinson: who is the ex-aide testifying in the January 6 hearings?

      by

      Cassidy Hutchinson: who is the ex-aide testifying in the January 6 hearings?The former executive assistant to Mark Meadows will be the first ex-Trump White House employee to testify in person The House January 6 hearings into the attack on the Capitol may not yet have found their John Dean – the White House counsel who turned on President Richard Nixon during Watergate – but in Cassidy Hutchinson they have turned up a surprisingly potent witness.January 6 hearing: former aide to Mark Meadows to reportedly testify – liveRead moreHutchinson was an executive assistant to Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s last chief of staff, and a special assistant to the president for legislative affairs.In taped testimony, she has described Trump’s approval of chants from Capitol rioters about hanging the then vice-president, Mike Pence, and attempts by Republicans in Congress to have Trump issue pardons before leaving office.On Tuesday, she is expected to testify in person – the first former Trump White House employee to do so.According to Hutchinson’s LinkedIn page, she studied political science and American studies at Christopher Newport University, a public school in Virginia. Hutchinson’s page also follows St Andrew’s Episcopal school, in Austin, Texas.While in college, Hutchinson interned at the Trump White House. In October 2018, she told her student newspaper she was “brought to tears when I received the email that I had been selected to participate”, and called the internship “an honor and a tremendous growing experience”.Hutchinson also interned and for two powerful figures on the hard right of a hard-right party: Steve Scalise, the House Republican whip, and the Texas senator Ted Cruz.According to the Washington Post, Hutchinson recently switched lawyers, swapping a former Trump White House ethics lawyer for an attorney with links to Jeff Sessions, the former Alabama senator who became the attorney general Trump fired in 2018.That move, the Post said, indicated a new willingness to cooperate with the January 6 committee.Hutchinson’s former boss, Meadows, first flirted with cooperating with the committee then refused to do so. The committee referred him to the Department of Justice (DoJ), for criminal contempt of Congress. The DoJ declined to pursue charges.In the absence of testimony from Meadows, Hutchinson’s voice has come to the fore in a series of explosive hearings.Earlier this month, Norm Eisen, a former ethics tsar in the Obama White House, told the Post: “Cassidy Hutchinson might turn out to be the next John Dean.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Third panel hearing will show Trump’s pressure on Pence to overturn election

      by

      Third panel hearing will show Trump’s pressure on Pence to overturn electionEx-president leaned on then vice-president to reject certified electors despite being told scheme was unlawful The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack intends to outline at its third hearing on Thursday how Donald Trump corruptly pressured then vice-president Mike Pence to reject the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election and directly contributed to the insurrection.The panel will first examine the genesis of Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence to adopt an unconstitutional and unlawful plan to reject certified electors from certain states at the congressional certification in an attempt to give Trump a second presidential term.The select committee then intends to show how that theory – advanced by external Trump legal adviser John Eastman – was rejected by Pence, his lawyers and the White House counsel’s office, who universally told the former president that the entire scheme was unlawful.Trump’s raising of $250m for fund that ‘did not exist’ suggests possible fraudRead moreBut Trump deliberately ignored his top White House advisers to go down that path, the panel will show. And, the panel contends, in escalating his campaign to obstruct Biden’s certification through the morning of 6 January 2021, Trump contributed to the violence of the Capitol attack.The select committee will additionally show that Trump’s false public remarks about Pence having the power to refuse to count votes for Biden – Pence had no such power – directly put the vice-president’s life in danger as the mob chanted “hang Mike Pence”.Trump’s involvement in the Pence strategy makes the former president liable for the crimes of obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to defraud the United States, the panel has argued. A federal judge has agreed, calling it “a coup in search of a legal theory”.The select committee previewed details on the third hearing on a call with reporters. The panel said the hearing would be led by congressman Pete Aguilar, with witness questioning done by former US attorney John Wood, who was appointed senior investigative counsel by vice-chairperson Liz Cheney.The select committee will hear from Pence’s former counsel Greg Jacob as well as retired former US appellate court judge J Michael Luttig over the course of the hearing, which is expected to last around two hours, according to a source familiar with its planning.The select committee is likely to focus heavily on the role played by Eastman, who as early as 18 November 2020 was writing memos under the guise of the “Trump legal team” and proposing a brazen plan to send Trump slates of electors to Congress for certification.But Eastman’s plan to have Pence see that there were “duelling” slates of electors and therefore refuse to certify either Biden or Trump slates – which would result in Trump’s receiving more electoral college votes – relied on states certifying the Trump slates.On 13 December 2020, the so-called Trump legal team was circulating a “President of the Senate” strategy that referred to Pence taking such action on 6 January 2021, a clear violation of the law governing the certification, according to emails released in court filings.Crucially, however, the state legislatures had still not met by that date to certify an alternate Trump slate of electors, which Eastman showed in emails that he knew needed to happen in order for his delicate scheme to have any chance of success.Eastman also undermined the scheme when he admitted in emails on 19 December 2020, released in court filings, that “unless those electors get a certification from their State Legislators”, the Trump slates would be “dead on arrival in Congress”.The emails showed Eastman knew the plan rested on states certifying Trump slates. But when he presented a memo to Pence in January 2021 attesting to the existence of Trump slates – that did not actually exist – he revealed corrupt intent to obstruct proceedings on 6 January 2021, the panel believes.No state legislatures ultimately certified an alternate slate of electors for Trump. The Trump White House appears to have participated in a related scheme to send fake Trump slates to Congress, though those were not introduced at the certification on the day of the attack.But the select committee intends to reveal at the hearing that Pence’s counsel, Jacob, and others including Luttig, all informed the then-vice-president that even if the states had transmitted alternate slates of electors, the plan was unlawful from the start.The Trump White House counsel separately told Trump that Eastman’s plan violated the law, Cassidy Hutchinson, a top former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, has also testified to the panel.Yet Trump and Eastman proceeded with the plan anyway. At the Save America rally on 6 January 2021, Trump told his supporters that he hoped Pence would do the “right thing” and just refuse to certify Biden’s election win, knowing full well by then that it was unlawful.The select committee is likely to show, finally, that Eastman himself knew the strategy was unlawful. In an email he sent to Jacob as the Trump mob stormed the Capitol, he admitted the scheme violated the law, but then he said Pence could surely violate the law a little more.Eastman said in the email that because Biden’s certification had been temporarily interrupted by the Capitol attack, Congress had violated the law governing the process. So Pence should have no problem committing “one more minor violation and adjourn for 10 days”, he said.TopicsJan 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpMike PenceTrump administrationUS elections 2020House of RepresentativesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Fox News’ Sean Hannity pitched Trump on Hunter Biden pardon – report

      by

      Fox News’ Sean Hannity pitched Trump on Hunter Biden pardon – reportDaily Beast says rightwing host saw pardon for Joe Biden’s son as way to ‘smooth things over’ after Capitol attack The Fox News host Sean Hannity tried to sell Donald Trump on a novel way to heal the wounds of his presidency and the deadly Capitol attack: a pardon for Hunter Biden.The bizarre idea was referred to in texts released by the House January 6 committee, which on Thursday held its first primetime televised hearing.‘I’m not afraid of clowns’: Republican defends vote to impeach TrumpRead moreIn one message, Hannity told Kayleigh McEnany, then White House press secretary, Trump “was intrigued by the pardon idea!! (Hunter)”.The Daily Beast said a source familiar with the conversations between Hannity and Trump confirmed that Hannity was referring to Hunter Biden.Joe Biden’s surviving son has become a magnet for Republican attacks over his business affairs and personal life, including a collapsed marriage and struggles with addiction.A laptop he once owned was touted by Trump allies including Hannity as an “October surprise” to blow up the 2020 election. It did not explode but news outlets have since run stories based on information from the computer.Hunter Biden has confirmed that his tax history is under investigation, saying in December 2020: “I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately.”His business dealings in China are reportedly part of the investigation.Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine were at the heart of Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, for soliciting dirt on political rivals in exchange for military aid.Trump was impeached a second time in 2021 for inciting the Capitol riot, a failed attempt to block certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college win.After Trump’s defeat, a Hunter Biden pardon was floated in conservative circles.On 10 December 2020, the editor of the National Interest, a conservative magazine, wrote: “Trump himself might consider pardoning Hunter as well as his own family … as well as officials who worked for him.“The difficulty for Trump has been that any such pardons would not only look self-serving, but also raise questions about trying to foreclose criminal liability since no charges have been leveled against Hunter or Ivanka or Don Jr.“These issues might not be enough to deter him, and Hunter Biden’s predicament would allow Trump to inveigh against the federal justice system more broadly. He could show magnanimity and evenhandedness by pardoning Biden’s scapegrace son.”The source who spoke to the Beast said Hannity pitched the idea on 7 January, the day after the attack on Congress, as a way to help “smooth things over”.‘Biden blood only’: Hunter Biden’s ex-wife describes Secret Service exclusionRead moreBut the source said that like other suggestions, including an end to Trump’s lie about a stolen election and Trump attending Joe Biden’s inauguration, it went nowhere.“It died on the vine,” the Beast quoted the source as saying, adding that though Trump was briefly interested, the pardon was “never seriously considered”.Another source told the Beast Hannity “genuinely wanted some healing”.Fox News, McEnany and Trump did not comment.Trump issued last-minute pardons to aides and allies including Steve Bannon, his former campaign chair and White House strategist who was charged with fraud.Hannity has continued to attack Hunter Biden on his show.TopicsHunter BidenFox NewsUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpJoe BidenTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Rudy Giuliani charged with ethical misconduct over Trump’s big lie

      by

      Rudy Giuliani charged with ethical misconduct over Trump’s big lieThe complaint marks the second time a bar office has taken action against the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has been hit with ethics charges over baseless claims he made about the 2020 presidential election being stolen while serving as an attorney for Donald Trump.Primetime January 6 hearing shows set-piece TV can still pack a punchRead moreThe charges were filed on Friday by the District of Columbia office that polices attorneys for ethical misconduct.The DC office of disciplinary counsel alleges that Giuliani, who is a member of the DC bar, made baseless claims in federal court filings about the results of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania. The charges were filed with the District of Columbia court of appeals board on professional responsibility.A lawyer for Giuliani did not have an immediate comment.The charges come a day after the US House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack had its first primetime hearing in which it outlined evidence that Trump and his allies sought to overturn the 2020 election and incite throngs of his supporters to block Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.Giuliani, a former US attorney in Manhattan and New York City mayor, has been among Trump’s most fervent supporters and repeatedly claimed without evidence that the election had been stolen.The complaint says Giuliani sought an emergency order to prohibit the certification of the presidential election, an order to invalidate ballots cast by certain voters in seven counties, and other orders that would have permitted the state’s assembly to choose its electors and declare Trump the winner in Pennsylvania.The charges say his conduct violated two professional conduct rules in Pennsylvania that bar attorneys from bringing frivolous proceedings without a basis in law or fact and prohibit conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.Charges can lead to the suspension of a license to practice law or disbarment.The charges mark the second time that a bar office has taken action against Giuliani.His New York law license was suspended in June 2021 after a state appeals court found that he made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the election.Apart from having two of his law licenses suspended, Giuliani’s reputation has been stained by his dealings with Ukraine and he is being investigated by Manhattan federal prosecutors over those business ties.He began representing Trump, a fellow Republican and New Yorker, in April 2018 in connection with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that documented Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.Giuliani has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing. His lawyer has said the federal investigation is politically motivated.Reuters contributed reporting.TopicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpUS elections 2020Trump administrationUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panel

      by

      Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelNavarro in custody after indictment on two counts of contempt of Congress after he defied subpoena issued by January 6 committee Peter Navarro, a top former White House adviser to Donald Trump, was taken into custody after being indicted by a federal grand jury on Friday on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.The indictment against Navarro marks the first time that the justice department has pursued charges against a Trump White House official who worked in the administration on January 6 and participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.Navarro is facing one count of contempt of Congress for his refusal to appear at a deposition and a second count for his refusal to turn over documents as demanded by the select committee’s subpoena, the justice department announced in a news release.The former Trump White House adviser, who was involved in the former president’s unlawful scheme to have the then-vice president, Mike Pence, refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election win on January 6, was taken into custody at the airport – he had a pre-planned trip – Navarro told a magistrate judge.Navarro’s indictment comes just weeks after the full House of Representatives voted to hold him in criminal contempt of Congress for entirely defying the select committee’s subpoena, issued in February, demanding documents and testimony in the January 6 inquiry.The indictment is the latest twist in a series of developments surrounding Navarro’s position in the crosshairs of congressional and justice department investigators, who last week served him with a grand jury subpoena demanding his communications with Trump.In an attempt to block the justice department from prosecuting the contempt of Congress referral and to somehow invalidate the grand jury subpoena, Navarro on Tuesday filed a last-ditch, 88-page lawsuit seeking an injunction from a federal judge.It was not clear whether that grand jury subpoena – which also demanded records requested in the select committee subpoena – came as part of the contempt of Congress case, or whether he was being treated as a witness in a separate criminal investigation into the former president.But a potential benefit for the justice department is that through this indictment, it may be able to obtain those communications with Trump, according to a former assistant US attorney who spoke on the condition of anonymity.The status of the lawsuit is currently unclear and it was not clear whether the filing led the justice department to request Navarro’s indictment and arrest warrant will be placed under seal until the warrant was executed on Friday morning in Washington DC.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpUS CongressTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Peter Navarro subpoena suggests DoJ may be investigating Trump

      by

      Peter Navarro subpoena suggests DoJ may be investigating TrumpJustice department seeks former aide’s communications with ex-president and his attorneys Peter Navarro, a top White House adviser to Donald Trump, is being commanded by a federal grand jury subpoena to turn over to the justice department his communications with the former president, the former president’s attorneys and the former president’s representatives.The exact nature of the subpoena – served on 26 May 2022 and first obtained by the Guardian – and whether it means Trump himself is under criminal investigation for January 6 could not be established given the unusually sparse details included on the order.But certain elements appear to suggest that it is related to a new investigation examining potential criminality by the former president and, at the very least, that the justice department is expanding its inquiry for the first time into Trump and his inner circle.The subpoena compelled Navarro to either testify to a grand jury early next month, or produce to prosecutors all documents requested in a separate congressional subpoena issued earlier this year by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.“All documents relating to the subpoena dated February 9, 2022, that you received from the House select committee,” the justice department says in the subpoena, “including but not limited to any communication with former President Trump and/or his counsel or representatives.”The existence of the federal subpoena was revealed in a lawsuit filed by Navarro that sought to declare the congressional subpoena unlawful. It remains entirely possible, given the explicit reference to the select committee, that the grand jury subpoena indicates the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, is building a criminal contempt of Congress charge against Navarro.Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6Read moreThe assistant US attorney listed on the subpoena, Elizabeth Aloi, is also listed as working in the office of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia that handles contempt of Congress cases – though that is not necessarily indicative of the kind of investigation involved.The confounding aspect of this grand jury subpoena, according to three former assistant US attorneys who spoke on the condition of anonymity, is that targets of investigations are rarely subpoenaed. And “process” charges such as contempt do not require subpoenas for documents.But the fact that Trump is specifically named in the subpoena – a reference that the justice department would not have made lightly – and the specific requests for Navarro’s communications with Trump could indicate that this is a criminal investigation examining Trump.The internal US attorney’s office number and the ID number of the grand jury subpoena to Navarro suggests that the investigation is a new line of inquiry for the justice department. Variants of #GJ2022052590979 or USAO #2022R00631 have not surfaced on other subpoenas.At least four separate grand juries are now examining events related to the January 6 Capitol attack.One grand jury was impaneled last year for a contempt charge against Trump’s strategist Steve Bannon. A second is examining organizers of pro-Trump rallies, a third is looking at Trump lawyers in a scheme to falsify slates of electors, and now a fourth concerns Navarro.Navarro was not told when he was served with the grand jury subpoena whether he was a target or a subject of the investigation. If he was a target, that might indicate the subpoena was related to a contempt case. If he was a subject, it could make him part of a wider inquiry.The distinction also raises a third possibility, according to the former assistant US attorneys: he may be a target for a contempt case, and also a subject in a different case – and prosecutors might use the contempt case as leverage to gain cooperation for the other.A spokesman for the justice department and the US attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment.In his lawsuit, Navarro is challenging both the validity of the congressional subpoena as well as the federal grand jury subpoena. Navarro argues the federal grand jury subpoena is invalid since it requests materials demanded in the congressional subpoena, which he argues is also invalid.“The US Attorney cannot issue a Grand Jury Subpoena deemed to be lawful and enforceable that is derivative of a fruit of the poisonous tree ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable subpoena issued by the Committee,” Navarro writes in the 88-page filing.Navarro also contends that by demanding his communications with Trump, the justice department is improperly asking him to violate executive privilege – privilege that he says has not been waived by the former president.TopicsTrump administrationDonald TrumpUS politicsBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6

      by

      Trump aide Peter Navarro ordered to testify before grand jury over January 6Former White House adviser reveals federal subpoena, which also calls for documents to be handed over, in court filing Peter Navarro, a top White House adviser to Donald Trump, revealed in a court filing on Monday that he had been ordered to testify before a federal grand jury and produce to prosecutors any records concerning January 6, including communications with the former president.The grand jury subpoena to Navarro, which he said was served by two FBI agents last week, compels him to produce documents to the US attorney for the District of Columbia and could indicate widening justice department action ensnaring senior Trump administration officials.Trump calls Capitol attack an ‘insurrection hoax’ as public hearings set to beginRead moreNavarro’s disclosure about the subpoena came in an 88-page filing that seeks a federal court to declare the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack unlawful, in a desperate move to stop a potential contempt of Congress indictment for defying the panel’s subpoena.The grand jury subpoena appeared to be part of a case to hold Navarro in contempt rather than pertaining to the justice department’s criminal investigation into the Capitol attack, though the exact nature of the justice department subpoena was not immediately clear.But the new filing, reviewed by the Guardian, that Navarro will submit to the US district court for the District of Columbia, is not expected to succeed beyond causing a nuisance and possibly delaying the justice department from moving on a contempt indictment.The filing is seeking the court to rule that the select committee is not properly constituted and therefore illegal, because the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, refused last year to appoint some Republican members put forward by the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.Since the panel supposedly lacks a Republican minority – despite the presence of Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – its subpoenas are unenforceable, the suit argues, and therefore his non-compliance with his subpoena is immaterial and should mean the justice department cannot act on a referral for contempt of Congress.The filing also asks the court to grant an injunction preventing the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, from enforcing a 28 May 2022 grand jury subpoena compelling him to produce documents requested in the select committee subpoena.“Since the subpoena of the Committee is ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable, the US Attorney’s Grand Jury Subpoena is likewise ultra vires, unlawful, and unenforceable and the US Attorney must be enjoined from any actions to enforce this subpoena,” Navarro wrote.The argument that the select committee is not properly constituted has been a common charge levelled by some of Trump’s allies against the congressional investigation into January 6, as they seek to find any way to avoid having to cooperate with the sprawling investigation.But even as Navarro repeats the claim echoed by prominent Republican members of Congress challenging their subpoenas from the panel, he may find his suit an uphill battle given that multiple federal courts have repeatedly rejected that argument as meritless.Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee to the DC district court, most recently ruled this month that the panel was not illegitimate when the Republican National Committee mounted a legal challenge to block a subpoena demanding records from its email vendor, Salesforce.Navarro’s additional argument that Biden could not waive the executive privilege asserted by Trump that precluded him from testifying to the panel is also expected to run into difficulty given the supreme court rejected that reading of the presidential protection.In the opinion that declined to grant Trump an injunction to stop the National Archives turning over White House documents to the inquiry, the supreme court ruled that although Trump had some ability to assert executive privilege, it did not overcome Biden’s waiver.The arguments put forward by Navarro are questionable from a legal standpoint, two former US attorneys told the Guardian, broadly characterizing Navarro’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief as a frivolous suit designed to buy him time.A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment.Navarro was referred to the justice department for criminal contempt of Congress by the full House of Representatives in April after he entirely ignored a subpoena issued to him in February demanding that he produce documents and appear for a deposition.The top White House trade adviser to Trump was deeply involved in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election from the very start, the Guardian has previously reported, deputizing his aides to help produce reports on largely debunked claims of election fraud.Navarro was also in touch with Trump’s legal team led by Rudy Giuliani and operatives working from a Trump “war room” at the Willard hotel in Washington to stop Biden’s election certification from taking place on January 6 – a plan he christened the “Green Bay Sweep”.TopicsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Here’s the Deal review: Kellyanne Conway on Trump – with plenty of alternative facts

      by

      Here’s the Deal review: Kellyanne Conway on Trump – with plenty of alternative facts The former White House counselor’s memoir is tart, readable and thoroughly selective when it comes to inconvenient truthsKellyanne Conway joined Donald Trump’s orbit after Ted Cruz’s presidential bid collapsed and Paul Manafort wore out his welcome. The Trump White House was a snake pit. Like most Trump memoirs, Conway’s book revels in selective recall as well as settling scores. After all, this is the woman who coined the term “alternative facts”.A Sacred Oath review: Mark Esper on Trump, missiles for Mexico and more Read moreConway strafes Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Mark Meadows, Trump’s last chief of staff. Her disdain is unvarnished, her language tart. Her book? Readable.Conway labels Bannon a “leaking dirigible” and an “unpaternal, paternalistic bore of a boor”. She dings his aesthetics and questions his stability. Confronted with the possibility Bannon might receive a presidential pardon, Conway says, she told him Trump didn’t owe him anything.“You were a leaker,” she remembers saying. “You were terrible to [Trump] in the press … You were the only source for at least two books riddled with lies.”He got the pardon anyway.Some who feel Conway’s sting are very close to home. She sticks a knife in her own husband, George, for trashing Trump and embarrassing her. Between the two men, Conway posits that Trump was the one who remained loyal. She may wish to reconsider. Her book has kindled Trump’s wrath.“I may have been the first person Donald Trump trusted in his inner circle who told him that he had come up short this time,” Conway writes, about the 2020 defeat Trump has refused to admit. But Trump denies she said any such thing.“If she had I wouldn’t have dealt with her any longer – she would have been wrong – could go back to her crazy husband,” he “truthed” on Thursday on his own ersatz Twitter, Truth Social.But Trump can’t say he wasn’t warned. The Devil’s Bargain, Joshua Green’s 2016 campaign exposé, captures Conway both badmouthing Trump’s chances and playing the sycophant.In 2019, Cliff Sims, once a junior White House staffer, framed things this way in his memoir, Team of Vipers: “Kellyanne stood in a class of own in terms of her machinations – I had to admire her sheer gall.”In Here’s the Deal, Kellyanne soft-pedals Green but is far less charitable to Sims. She rehashes his departure from the White House, dismisses him as a lightweight and gloats over Trump targeting him with a “brutal” takedown on Twitter.Left unsaid is that Sims played a significant role at the 2020 Republican convention, drafting speeches for two Trump children. And whatever his sins, he came to be re-embraced by senior Trump staff even after he challenged a Trump-induced non-disclosure agreement in court.On a matter of greater importance, Conway lauds Bob Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, the conservative mega-donors who invested in Cambridge Analytica, the now-defunct psychographic profiling company which was linked to Bannon.Rebekah Mercer allegedly provided connective tissue for the January 6 insurrection, via Parler. Conway omits such details. Not surprisingly, she also ignores Bob Mercer’s tax woes. In 2021, with his business partners, Mercer reportedly entered into a $7bn settlement with the IRS.Like many in Trumpworld, Conway hits Facebook for its role in the 2020 election. But she omits the nexus between Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant and Cambridge Analytica, in 2016 and beyond. The two businesses shared more than a passing acquaintance.Cambridge Analytica illegally harvested personal data from Facebook. Conway takes Bannon to task for profiting from his investment in Cambridge Analytica but stays mum about the Mercers’ ownership.In 2016, the Cruz campaign spent more than $5.8m on Cambridge Analytica services. That same year, the unseen hand of the company put it sticky fingers on the scales of Brexit. This past week, the attorney general for the District of Columbia launched a lawsuit against Facebook in connection with the Cambridge Analytica data breach.Here’s the Deal also contains its fair share of semi-veiled ethnic reductionism. Conway writes of how she “made her bones” – a term with mafia origins – in Trump’s 2016 campaign. Elsewhere, she deploys “clever”, “shrewd” and “calculating” to describe Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who is Jewish. At the same time, she shares a desire to keep things “classy”.Some realities cut too close to the bone. Despite acknowledging Trump’s loss in 2020, Conway is silent on his infamous post-election call with Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, in which he sought to overturn Joe Biden’s victory.“The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry,” Trump said. “And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated.”The only thing missing was the president telling Raffensperger he was receiving an offer he couldn’t refuse. Unsurprisingly, Conway has few kind words for Biden. She recounts the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and rightly tags his administration for inflation. But she also blames the president for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and for Iran threatening nuclear breakout.This Will Not Pass review: Trump-Biden blockbuster is dire reading for DemocratsRead moreHello, alternative facts. In February, Trump praised Vladimir Putin as smart and denigrated Nato. These days, Putin is under siege and Nato is the club to join. This somehow escapes Conway’s attention.As for Tehran, Axios reports that senior Israeli military officials now view Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal as having “brought Iran closer to a nuclear weapon and created a worse situation”. An attempt to placate Trump’s base had a cost.Conway remains in the arena. Here’s the Deal doubles as an audition for a campaign slot in 2024. In Trumpworld, few are ever permanently banished. Conway should ask Steve Bannon. He could tell her some things.
      Here’s the Deal is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
      TopicsBooksKellyanne ConwayUS politicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationRepublicansUS elections 2016reviewsReuse this content More