More stories

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    Former Trump official voted in two states’ 2016 presidential primaries

    Former Trump official voted in two states’ 2016 presidential primariesMatt Mowers’ double voting may have violated federal election law, at a time when Black voters have faced harsh penalties for unwitting violations A former Trump administration official now running for Congress in New Hampshire voted twice during the 2016 primary election season, possibly violating federal voting law and leaving him at odds with the Republican party’s intense focus on “election integrity”.Matt Mowers, a leading Republican primary candidate hoping to unseat the Democratic representative Chris Pappas, cast an absentee ballot in New Hampshire’s 2016 presidential primary, voting records show. At the time, Mowers served as the director of former New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s presidential campaign in the pivotal early voting state.Four months later, after Christie’s campaign fizzled, Mowers cast another ballot in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary, using his parents’ address to re-register in his home state, documents the Associated Press obtained through a public records request show.The case comes amid increased scrutiny on racial disparities in punishment for voting crimes. While there is not comprehensive data on those punishments, there have been high-profile cases in recent years where Black people who unknowingly violated voting laws were sentenced to years in prison. Several white defendants who appear to have committed intentional fraud in 2020 received probation.Legal experts say Mowers’ actions could violate a federal law that prohibits “voting more than once” in “any general, special, or primary election”. That includes casting a ballot in separate jurisdictions “for an election to the same candidacy or office”. It also puts Mowers, who was a senior adviser in Donald Trump’s administration and later held a state department post, in an awkward spot at a time when much of his party has embraced the former president’s lies about a stolen 2020 election and has pushed for restrictive new election laws.The issue could have particular resonance in New Hampshire, where Republicans have long advocated for tighter voting rules to prevent short-term residents, namely college students, from participating in its first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Trump claimed falsely that people were bussed in from out of state to vote in New Hampshire in 2016.“What he has done is cast a vote in two different states for the election of a president, which on the face of it looks like he’s violated federal law,” said David Schultz, a professor at the University of Minnesota law school who specializes in election law. “You get one bite at the voting apple.”Mowers’ campaign declined to make him available for an interview. In a brief statement that did not address the double-voting, campaign spokesperson John Corbett cited Mowers’ work for Trump’s 2016 campaign.“Matt was proud to work for President Trump as the GOP establishment was working to undermine his nomination,” Corbett said. “Matt moved for work and was able to participate in the primary in support of President Trump and serve as a delegate at a critical time for the Republican Party and country.”There is little chance Mowers could face prosecution. The statute of limitations has lapsed, and there is no record of anyone being prosecuted under this specific section of federal election law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks the issue.A separate New Hampshire law prohibits double-voting in two different states, but makes an exception if someone “legitimately moved his or her domicile”.Mowers is just the latest former Trump administration official to draw scrutiny for possibly violating voting laws.Mark Meadows, a former North Carolina congressman who served as Trump’s chief of staff, was registered in two states and listed a mobile home he did not own – and may never have visited – as his legal residence weeks before casting a ballot in the 2020 election. North Carolina state officials are investigating.Not everyone agrees Mowers’ double-voting is a clearcut case of voter fraud. For starters, it’s an undeveloped area of law. Any court would have to contend with complicated issues such as whether a primary could be viewed as a public election or as an event held by a private organization that is administered with government help.“With the right set of facts, it could be construed as a violation, but it’s just not at all obvious to me that it is,” said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law school professor who specializes in election law. “It is a pretty murky question.”Charlie Spies, a longtime Republican election lawyer who contacted the AP at the request of Mowers’ campaign, called the matter “silly”. He said the double-voting was “at worst a gray area” of the law and “not the sort of issue anybody would spend time on”.Three Black voters recently have faced harsh punishment for voting errors.Earlier this year, Pamela Moses, a 44-year-old Black woman in Memphis, was sentenced to six years in prison for trying to register to vote in 2019 while she was still on probation for a felony. A probation officer and the local clerk signed off on a form saying she was eligible to vote. Even though Moses did not sign the form, prosecutors argued she knew she was ineligible. Moses, who says she didn’t know she was ineligible, was granted a new trial in February in part because prosecutors failed to turn over evidence to her defense.In 2018, Crystal Mason, a Black woman in Texas, was sentenced to five years in prison for casting a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. The ballot was rejected because Mason was on probation for a felony offense. Even though Mason said she did not know she was ineligible, and probation officials said they never told her she couldn’t vote, a judge found her guilty of illegally voting anyway. Her case is being appealed.Last year, Hervis Rogers, who is Black, was arrested for voting in a primary in Houston while still serving a felony sentence. He also says he didn’t know he couldn’t vote and is awaiting trial. He could face several years in prison.The New Hampshire congressional primary race has drawn a half-dozen Republican candidates. Among them is former Trump White House assistant press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who has already attacked Mowers for being soft on the issue of “election integrity”.In September, after Mowers said President Joe Biden rightfully won the 2020 election, Leavitt said Mowers “rolled over and sided with Joe Biden and the Democrats by refusing to stand for election integrity”.Mowers’ campaign called her criticism “fake news” at the time.His own campaign website has leaned in on the issue, featuring a section dedicated to “election integrity”. It states that new rules are needed to “provide every American citizen with the certainty that their vote counts”.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS elections 2016newsReuse this content More

  • in

    Hillary Clinton and Democrats settle Steele dossier electoral case for $113,000

    Hillary Clinton and Democrats settle Steele dossier electoral case for $113,000Federal Election Commission had investigated alleged misreporting of expenditure by campaign during 2016 election Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.That is according to documents sent on Tuesday to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which had filed an administrative complaint in 2018 accusing the Democrats of misreporting payments made to a law firm during the 2016 campaign to obscure the spending. Trump sues Hillary Clinton, alleging ‘plot’ to rig 2016 election against himRead moreThe Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.“By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read.The Clinton campaign and DNC had argued that the payments had been described accurately, but agreed, according to the documents, to settle without conceding to avoid further legal costs.The Clinton campaign agreed to a civil penalty of $8,000 and the DNC $105,000, according to a pair of conciliatory agreements that were attached to the letter sent to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation.The documents have not yet been made public and an FEC spokeswoman, Judith Ingram, said the FEC had 30 days after parties are notified about enforcement matters to release them.The Steele dossier was a report compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele and financed by Democrats that included salacious allegations about Trump’s conduct in Russia and allegations about ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.Documents have shown the FBI invested significant resources attempting to corroborate the dossier and relied substantially on it to obtain surveillance warrants targeting the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.But since its publication, core aspects of the dossier have been exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors. A special counsel assigned to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation charged one of Steele’s sources with lying to the FBI and charged a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for Clinton’s campaign with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns about the Russia-based Alfa Bank.Trump, who has railed against the dossier for years, released a statement celebrating the agreement and once again denouncing the dossier as “a Hoax funded by the DNC and the Clinton Campaign”.Graham Wilson, the lawyer representing the campaign and the DNC, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The letter was first reported by the Washington Examiner. TopicsHillary ClintonDemocratsUS elections 2016US politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Insurgency review: how Trump took over the Republican party

    Insurgency review: how Trump took over the Republican party From 2016 to the Capitol riot, Jeremy Peters of the New York Times delivers a meticulously reported and extremely worrying tale of how and why the US came to thisAfter the Iraq war and the Great Recession, public trust in government plummeted while the flashpoints of race, religion and education moved to the fore. Barack Obama’s mantra of hope and change left many unsatisfied, if not seething. On election day 2016, Donald Trump lit a match. But the kindling was already there, decades in the making.Bannon compared Trump escalator ride to Leni Riefenstahl Nazi film, book saysRead moreStaring at the mess is Jeremy Peters of the New York Times, with Insurgency, his first book. A seasoned national political reporter and MSNBC talking head, Peters chronicles how the party of Lincoln and Reagan morphed into Trump’s own fiefdom. He writes with a keen eye and sharp pen. Beyond that, he listens.He captures the grievance of the Republican base, its devotion to the 45th president and its varied voices. He repeatedly delivers quotable quotes, painstakingly sourced. This is highly readable reporting.At the outset, Peters acknowledges Trump’s grasp of human nature, the media and resentment. Messaging and visuals matter to Trump, as does cementing a bond with his crowds. Fittingly, one chapter is titled “Give Them What They Want …”For many, Trump did so. As president, he kept campaign-trail promises. He reshaped the supreme court, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and battled Isis.Most of all, he stuck a barbed middle finger at political correctness. His jagged edges thrilled his core as they elicited revulsion elsewhere – just as he wanted. His persona was Melania’s problem, not theirs.Trump rode into the White House on enmity to immigration, the sleeper issue of our times, over which Democrats continue to stumble. Chants of “build that wall” delivered far more votes than “defund the police”.Trump’s mien mattered too, as Peters notes. He was relatable to working Americans. He knew where wokeness was grating, that what passes as orthodoxy in the halls of academe is not applauded by kitchen table or barstool America.“Trump’s Latino Support Was More Widespread Than Thought, Report Finds,” a Times headline announced. It was Bernie Sanders, not Joe Biden, who led among those voters in the Democratic primaries of 2020. Right now, polls show Trump ahead of Biden in that bloc. Biden’s standing has also slipped among younger Black voters.From Peters’ vantage point, Trump’s description of himself as a “popularist” – an unintended malapropism – comes close to the mark. Trump can size up an audience, meet expectations and receive their adulation. For all concerned, it’s a win-win proposition.Peters gets people on the record. Per usual, Steve Bannon is there on the page, where he rates his former boss among the worst presidents with James Buchanan and Millard Filmore. Those two failed to halt the march to civil war.Bannon also likens Trump’s history-making escalator ride to Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film. “That’s Hitler, Bannon thought”, as Trump descended to a bank of cameras and microphones. Peters memorializes those italicized words as another chapter title.Elsewhere, Bannon posits that for Trump it’s all about himself, and he would be pleased to see a Republican successor fail.“Trump doesn’t give a shit,” Bannon says. “He’s not looking to nurture. He’s fucking Donald Trump, the only guy who could do it.As for Trump, he talks to Peters and his observations are frequently dead-on. Most of all, he internalized that Republican success hinged on the white working-class base, a reality to which most other GOP politicians paid lip service.Offering tax cuts to the rich while plundering entitlements didn’t quite cut it. Sure, race and culture were part of Trump’s equation. But so was preserving social security and Medicare. Voters could not be expected to support candidates who took away things they had earned.The priorities of the Republican donor class did not align with those of the swing voters who seized on Trump. In the heartland, corporations definitely aren’t considered “people” – a lesson Mitt Romney failed to learn in 2012.A country club candidate who looked and sounded like a country club candidate might win the nomination but stood to lose in November. George HW Bush, remember, eked out a single term after eight years as vice-president to Ronald Reagan.Peters relates that Trump pushed back hard when Paul Ryan, the former House speaker and Romney’s running mate, suggested curbing government-funded retirement spending.“You tried that four years ago,” Trump told him. “How’d that work out?”For good measure, Trump snapped: “No thank you.”Insurgency also documents the capitulation of those Republicans who stood ready to take on the mob as it swarmed the Capitol on January 6 but then, hours later, voted against certifying the election.Peters tells of Ronny Jackson, a retired navy rear admiral who was White House physician to Trump and Barack Obama. When the glass started to shatter, Jackson removed his tie – so it would be that much more difficult to strangle him. But Jackson’s loyalty to Trump remained. He voted to discount the results, despite all he saw. Now, Jackson demands Biden’s mental fitness be tested.Trump stokes the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. No matter, in Republican ranks at least. Fidelity to Trump and his false claims are “musts” for the foreseeable future. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, at odds with Trump this week, are at some political risk.Pence refused to defy his legal mandate and reject electoral college results. He sticks by his decision. Of January 6, deemed “legitimate political discourse” by the Republican National Committee, McConnell bluntly says: “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent a peaceful transfer of power.”Peters sees the dark clouds. His book is chilling.
    Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted is published in the US by Crown
    TopicsBooksPolitics booksRepublicansDonald TrumpUS politicsUS elections 2016US elections 2020reviewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Hillary Clinton’s victory speech – and others that were never heard

    Hillary Clinton’s victory speech – and others that were never heard The defeated 2016 candidate has read aloud what she would have said in victory – joining a cast of thwarted speechmakers It was one of the most significant branching points in recent history – and at least one artefact of the way things might have been still exists.On Wednesday the Today show in the US released a video of Hillary Clinton reading the speech she would have given if she had beaten Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Clinton, who is giving a course in “the power of resilience” with the online education company Masterclass, teared up as she read aloud from her speech. She said reading it entailed “facing one of my most public defeats head-on”.To those who viewed the election of Trump as an epoch-defining catastrophe, the excerpt was an agonising glimpse of an alternative future. Clinton said: “Fundamentally, this election challenged us to decide what it means to be an American in the 21st century. And by reaching for unity, decency and what President Lincoln called ‘the better angels of our nature’, we met that challenge.”She reflected on the significance of what her election as the first female US president would have meant. “I’ve met women who were born before women had the right to vote. They’ve been waiting a hundred years for tonight. I’ve met little boys and girls who didn’t understand why a woman has never been president before. Now they know, and the world knows, that in America every boy and every girl can grow up to be whatever they dream – even president of the United States.”Clinton grew emotional as she read a passage about her mother, who died in 2011. She said: “I dream of going up to her, and sitting down next to her, taking her into my arms and saying: ‘Look at me. Listen to me. You will survive. You will have a good family of your own. And three children. And as hard as it might be to imagine, your daughter will grow up and become the president of the United States.”Clinton’s speech, which she said she had never previously read aloud, enters a canon of speeches never given – for reasons that were variously a relief, a disappointment or a matter of ongoing political dispute. Here are some other examples of the genre.‘Whatever terrors lie in wait for us all’: Queen Elizabeth II’s speech for the outbreak of nuclear war, 1983Written by civil servants during one of the most tense periods of the cold war, and released in 2013 under the 30-year rule.“The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth. Now, this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds …“I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father’s [George VI’s] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the second world war]. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.“But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength … As we strive together to fight off this new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be. God bless you all.”‘Epic men of flesh and blood’: Richard Nixon’s ‘in event of moon disaster’ speech, 1969Written by the speechwriter William Safire in case the crew of Apollo 11 were marooned on the surface of the moon, and unearthed in the Nixon archive in 1999. The document directs Nixon to telephone “the widows-to-be” before making the speech and suggests that a clergyman should “adopt the same procedure as a burial at sea, commending their souls to ‘the deepest of the deep’”.“Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace. These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice …“In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.“Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man’s search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts. For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.”‘A nation reborn’: Alex Salmond’s speech for a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014Released by the former SNP leader to a university for research in 2015.“In the early hours of this morning, Scotland voted yes. We are a nation reborn. The community of this realm has spoken. Scotland shall be independent once again. To those who voted no, I extend an immediate hand of friendship …“To our friends and families across these isles waking to our new democracy, we say this: know that, in Scotland, you will always have your closest friend, greatest ally and most steadfast partner …“This morning, I want every person – yes voters, no voters, everyone in this proud and ancient nation – to pause, reflect upon and remember this greatest day in Scotland’s history.“We did this. We made it happen. We believed. We trusted ourselves and trusted each other. A country reborn. A democracy reclaimed. We reach towards the future.”‘We are not waiting to lose before we get our act together’: David Miliband’s speech for the Labour leadership election, 2010Obtained by the Guardian in 2011. Miliband is said to have recited the text to his wife in the back of the car on their drive home from party conference, where his brother Ed had prevailed.“My parents devoted themselves to building a family on unconditional love and support. It was a warm household in which we were encouraged to think for ourselves; to argue; to make up our own minds. Haven’t I learned that in the last few months? …“Only four Labour leaders have ever been elected prime minister. Out of 14. Reflect on that. Many good men … lots of hard work … but only four have led us to victory …“This leadership election, the new members, the new councillors, shows something is stirring. Something inspiring. We are not waiting to lose three times before we get our act together.”‘He’s no longer Alaska’s “first dude”’: Sarah Palin’s victory speech, 2008Written by the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s speechwriter Matthew Scully, and leaked in 2009. Palin also prepared a concession speech for the event of defeat but was stopped from delivering it by the presidential candidate John McCain’s team.“It’s been just 68 days since that afternoon in Dayton, Ohio, when Senator McCain introduced me as his running mate. He is truly the maverick. He took a chance on me. I will always be grateful for that.“It will be the honour of a lifetime to work him as vice-president of the United States. And I pledge to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear conviction, and a servant’s heart …“It’s been quite a journey these past 69 days. We were ready, in defeat, to return to a place and a life we love. And I said to my husband, Todd, that it’s not a step down when he’s no longer Alaska’s ‘first dude’. He will now be the first guy ever to become the ‘second dude’.”‘Our landings have failed’: Dwight Eisenhower’s D-day defeat speech, 1944Handwritten by the Supreme Allied Commander the night before the Normandy invasion and then put in his wallet. Now in the Eisenhower Library.“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.“My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available.“The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.”TopicsHillary ClintonUS elections 2016US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Huma Abedin on Anthony Weiner: ‘He ripped my heart out and stomped on it over and over again’

    Huma AbedinInterviewHuma Abedin on Anthony Weiner: ‘He ripped my heart out and stomped on it over and over again’Hadley FreemanShe was Hillary Clinton’s aide and the wife of a star politician when a sexting scandal sent him to prison, destroyed their marriage – and derailed her boss’s bid to become president. How did she cope?

    Read an extract from her memoir here
    @HadleyFreemanSat 6 Nov 2021 04.00 EDTWalk of shame, huh? I’ll take it,” says Huma Abedin, reading the name of the lipstick on the makeup artist’s table. It is a bright, cool day in Manhattan and we are at a photographer’s studio, where Abedin is having her photo taken for this interview. Having watched her from afar for so long, first as Hillary Clinton’s elegant, silent assistant, then as the mostly silent and increasingly unhappy spouse of the former congressman Anthony Weiner, I had expected her to be quiet, anxious and guarded, but Abedin, 45, is none of those things. Someone so beautiful could come across as imperious, but with her big, open-mouthed laugh and “Oh gosh, you know better than me!” air, she veers closer to goofy. After 25 years of working for Clinton, she has a politician’s knack for making those around her feel comfortable. She leans forward keenly when spoken to, and makes sure to use everyone’s name when talking to them. She tells us, twice, that she ate “so much comfort food over the weekend at the hospital”, where she waited while Bill Clinton was being treated for a urological infection; he was discharged the day before our interview. “Just burgers and fries, burgers and fries. Food is my weakness,” she says rolling her eyes at herself. Everyone is instantly disarmed. But then she picks up that lipstick and at the word “shame” the makeup artist and I look down awkwardly and Abedin becomes – as she has been for so long, she tells me later over lunch – “the elephant in the room again”. “I lived with shame for a very, very long time,” as she puts it.The question Abedin hears most is: why? Why did she stay with Weiner after he accidentally tweeted a photo of his crotch while sexting women online in 2011, leading to his resignation from Congress? Why, when he ran for New York City mayor in 2013, did she assure voters that she had “forgiven him”? And why did she stay with him when it then emerged he was still sending women photos of the contents of his trousers? Why did she only separate from him but not divorce him when, in 2016, he sent a woman a photo of himself aroused while lying in bed next to his and Abedin’s toddler son, Jordan? And why were there official emails between her and Hillary on Weiner’s laptop, thereby prompting the then director of the FBI, James Comey, to announce the fateful reopening of the investigation into Clinton’s emails days before the 2016 election?Well, her new memoir, Both/And: A Life in Many Worlds, makes a good fist of answering most, if not all, of these questions. Having started the book believing that Abedin’s choices were so unrelatable as to be incomprehensible, I finished it feeling as if I probably would have often done the same. This is the first interview she has given about her book: “And I’m glad it’s not a TV one, because that’s really not me, being in front of the camera,” she says. I ask why she decided to write the book at all, given that it would, inevitably, thrust her right back into the bright glare of public scrutiny.“I think if I’d written this book when people wanted me to write it, in the midst of all the heat and intensity, it would have been a much more bitter book. I needed the time. But I feel like I’m somebody who’s been in the public eye on and off for the past 20 years and someone else has been writing my story, and it felt like the right time for me to write it,” she says.In order to understand what she did, Abedin says, as she eats her omelette and chips in a downtown restaurant, you have to understand where she came from. People tend to start with her long relationship with Hillary Clinton, who she has worked for since she was 20 years old, and think that shaped how she handled her own husband’s very public betrayals of her. It’s true that it’s hard not to boggle at the symbolism that she was working at the White House when the president, after initial denials, finally admitted he’d had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. But Abedin loathes this line of thinking. “I know that people want to make this comparison” – between Bill Clinton’s scandal and Weiner’s – “because it seems to the outside world so similar, but to me it wasn’t,” she insists. Instead, she says, to really understand how she, a devout Muslim, was married to an American Jew who ended up in prison for sex offences, you have to go back to her beginnings.Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the daughter of two professors, both India-born Muslims. When she was two, her parents were offered jobs at the university in Jeddah and so the family moved to Saudi Arabia. Her parents raised her to be devout but also modern; she has no problem, she writes, with women who opt to wear the hijab as long as they have “the choice”. When she was 17, her father died from progressive renal failure, which her parents had kept hidden from the children for most of their childhood. I ask what she learned from her father and she says: “To make your own choices, but be thoughtful about them, not rash.”Her mother encouraged her to go to university in the US and she went to George Washington University in Washington DC. She’d spent her summers in the US, so the culture shock wasn’t too great, but because of her faith she doesn’t drink alcohol, which differentiated her from the other American students. There was something else, too: “As was expected of any girl with my background, I would lose my virginity to the man I would marry,” she writes, and that is exactly what she did, waiting until she married Weiner at the age of 33.She applied to be a White House intern while still at college, and was assigned to the first lady’s deputy chief of staff. She was offered a permanent position even before she graduated. “I officially became a member of a lifelong club known as Hillaryland,” she writes. From the moment she arrived, Abedin was in awe of the Clintons, Hillary especially, and it’s an impression that has not waned in the 25 years she has spent working alongside her. She tells me that one of the reasons she wrote her memoir “was to show the world that she’s this incredible person, and I wanted to present her as a human, away from the caricatures”. But it’s hard to see the human when so many of the descriptions of her in the book sound like a press release (“Diplomacy is about meeting the world with open eyes, attuned listening and small gestures of outreach. It was second nature to Hillary Clinton”). This is also how she talks about her in person. The only criticism Abedin allows of Hillary in the book is of her occasionally unfortunate taste in clothes (“the coat that looked like a carpet that HRC thought was colourful and fun”). Meanwhile, her attendance at Donald Trump’s wedding to Melania Knauss (“When the invitation came [Hillary] figured, why not? When someone is getting married, you go”) and even her vote for the war against Iraq (“she was clear about her reservations”), which Abedin advised against, are justified. From very early on, the two women developed a close relationship based on mutual respect, and it’s easy to see why Abedin – a young woman who lost her father and was living far away from her mother – would cleave to the Clintons.“I wasn’t necessarily politically motivated. It felt like [being part of] the cause, and every day you were doing something important,” she says, and that cause was the Clintons.Yet her devotion to the cause occasionally crashes up against historical fact, and in the case of the Clintons in the late 1990s, that means Lewinsky. Abedin does her best to get around this when recalling how rumours of the president’s affair with the intern began. “Given all the manufactured stories that had come before this one – that the Clintons were murderers, thieves – it seemed very likely that this one could be untrue,” she writes.Come on, I say. By the time Lewinsky came along, the president had already been accused of sexual impropriety by Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones (the latter of which he still denies). There must have been some part of Abedin that thought Lewinsky was telling the truth.“No,” she replies before I finish the question.Why not?“For me, as an intern, it seemed not possible. We never saw [the president]! You would turn on the TV and it was Ken Starr this, Ken Starr that, Whitewater this, Whitewater that – but when you turned away from the TV and you looked at your desk, really important work was continuing. Northern Ireland, the Middle East peace process. The other stuff was just distractions on TV. Maybe if I hadn’t been an intern it would have been different, but I knew how it was [in the White House] and it seemed impossible,” she says. Throughout our time together, she never says Lewinsky’s name. I ask how the Clintons feel about Ryan Murphy’s recent dramatisation of the scandal in Impeachment: American Crime Story. “It’s not a conversation that we discussed internally,” she replies crisply.When the Democrats gained seats in the 1998 midterm elections, despite the impeachment, Abedin knew exactly who to credit. “It was Hillary Clinton’s effort, her struggle and her strategising, her broken and open heart that had saved the presidency … Hillary Clinton was the saviour, not the liability,” she writes, channelling her internal Barbara Cartland.As I read this sentence out loud to her, Abedin quotes it along with me. “Her broken heart, yeah,” she says smiling a little.This idea that Hillary had, through forgiveness and loyalty, fixed her husband’s transgression and saved his career seems to echo your later belief that you could fix your husband and rescue his political career, I say to her.“Yes, yes, yes!” she says excitedly, as if she’d never put those ideas together.So did seeing how Hillary handled her husband’s infidelity – silently, stoically – influence how Abedin later dealt with Weiner?“If it did, it was subconscious. I think what really drove me was I was desperately in love with my husband. I think all of the ugliness from the outside, it made us into a bubble. I didn’t know who I could trust, and so much of the conversation was so embarrassing, so we kind of receded into our corner,” she says.The first time Weiner asked Abedin on a date was in 2001. She declined, saying she was busy working for Hillary. So he loudly asked Hillary to give Abedin the night off, and Hillary, to Abedin’s horror, told her to go have fun. She managed to shake off the obnoxious congressman that night, but they bumped into one another frequently at political events. She was the quiet, well-liked aide who hid from the spotlight; he was the brash congressman who yelled about his political causes to any passing camera. And yet, by 2007, they were friendly, and she was falling for him. He was not fazed by her job, which was extremely demanding, given that Hillary was now a senator and also running for the presidency. “Other men would find this whole Clinton world really overwhelming and more than they could handle,” she says. Also, unlike other men, he had no problem with what she describes as her “limitations” – her decision not to have sex until she was married. The man who would soon be routinely described as a sex addict in the media didn’t even kiss her until a year into their relationship. “And he was fine with that,” she says. She’d always assumed she’d marry a Muslim, so he gave up alcohol and pork, and fasted during Ramadan alongside her. When he proposed, in 2009, she accepted. “It was a real journey for me to get to a place where I could allow myself to marry someone outside my faith. But he was my first love, and my greatest soulmate … Then everything exploded. He didn’t just break my heart, he ripped it out and stomped on it over and over again,” she says calmly.The first warning sign came as they were discussing their wedding plans and she handed him his BlackBerry to call his dad. Her eye was caught by an email from a woman. It was “fawning, flirtatious and very familiar”, she writes. He insisted it was “just a fan”. Because he was known for being a straight talker – to a fault – she believed him. But later, she would remember what he said to her right before she saw that email: “I’m broken and I need you to fix me.” Has she ever asked him what he meant?“Often I’ll raise things with Anthony, and I think there’s a lot he doesn’t remember. But I think, in hindsight, it really was a self-realisation that something didn’t feel right, and my guess is that committing to me, committing to being married, exposed those vulnerabilities: ‘Am I good enough to be in a relationship with somebody?’ That’s what a lot of people who have these insecurities feel,” she says.Soon after, they got married and their wedding was officiated by none other than … Bill Clinton. “Every wedding is a wonder,” intoned the man who, just over a decade earlier, had been impeached for lying about infidelity. I tell Abedin that often when she describes Weiner in the book – “charming, charismatic and clearly attractive to lots of women” – it sounds like she could be describing Bill. Was that part of his appeal?“No! Not at all!” she gasps. She was, she says, just deeply in love with him.Only 10 months into their marriage, Weiner texted Abedin to say his Twitter account had been hacked. This, of course, was a lie, and after a few days he had to admit, to his wife and then the public, that the person who had posted a photo of Anthony Weiner’s crotch to Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account was Anthony Weiner. The media cackled. Abedin cringed. Then the New York Times found out she was pregnant and, even though she was still in her first trimester, they printed it, and that’s how the Clintons and most of her friends found out. But she didn’t leave him. It was, Weiner told her, just an online thing, like a computer game, and he was sorry. It’s not like he had sex with someone else, she told herself. Abedin had barely dated at all before Weiner and he was, she writes in the book, her “first and only”. I ask if she thinks this inexperience caused her to be naive about her husband. “I don’t think I was naive – I think I wasn’t rash. Also, because I lost my father when I was young and that was such an important relationship in my life, I thought: ‘Am I going to deprive this child of a father, without giving him another chance?’ I feel I made a very thoughtful decision about it.” He resigned from Congress, they went into therapy, and six months later their son, Jordan, was born.A few months after that, it was Abedin who was in the spotlight when five Republican members of Congress, including former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, wrote a letter saying Abedin should be investigated for possible terrorist “infiltration” of the state department. “Abedin has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organisations,” they wrote. This was complete nonsense: none of Abedin’s family had any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. Looking back now, Abedin sees this episode as a precursor to the heightened Islamaphobia that would soon unfold in the US: “Michele Bachmann was the appetiser for what came next, and I was the experiment.”For so long, Abedin had been, she says, “the token Muslim in American politics”. Hillary trusted her expertise on the Middle East and she often acted as translator on trips to the region. But now American politicians and some foreign ones were questioning her loyalty. Senator John McCain gave a speech to the Senate defending her: “Huma represents what is best about America … I am proud to call her my friend.” More Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and the then House speaker John Boehner, spoke up for her, and the scandal faded. It was a testament to how well liked Abedin was in the American political world, whereas her husband was totally isolated.When Weiner mooted the idea of running for mayor of New York in 2013, Abedin was enthusiastic. He was such a good politician, and what had happened in 2011 had clearly been an aberration, she thought. “I couldn’t imagine Anthony would do anything to risk it all again,” she writes. Abedin, for the first time, made a public statement defending her husband. “I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him,” she said at a press conference to persuade voters. Hillary was horrified and I ask Abedin why. After all, Hillary had stood by her husband after his infidelities. “Hillary has always approached how she tried to help me from the perspective of a friend, and she felt that I didn’t need to do what I did,” she says.I ask if Hillary ever mentioned to Abedin their shared experience of being married to chronically unfaithful husbands.“No. No. I don’t think she – I don’t want to be talking about private conversations with her. But she has this incredible empathy, compassion and problem-solving gene that she can’t shake. There’s no, ‘This is what I did so you should do this.’ No. She didn’t have to. I’d seen what she’d gone through,” she says.Soon after Abedin made her public statement of forgiveness, it emerged Weiner was still sexting. Abedin doesn’t include this detail in the book – and who could blame her – but this time he was doing so under the unforgettable alias “Carlos Danger”. New Yorkers rejected the possibility of Mayor Danger.No one could understand why she stayed – not even the Clintons, although they never said so explicitly. But no one in her family was divorced, and she just couldn’t picture it for herself. She told Weiner in 2014 that she wanted a separation, but they still lived together. Outsiders tutted, but he made life easier for her. Abedin was extremely busy working for Clinton, now secretary of state and, imminently, presidential nominee. He was happy to stay home and look after their son while Abedin travelled the country. Anyone who has been married with kids will know that, for pragmatic purposes, you sometimes tolerate more than you should.A month after Hillary was named the Democratic nominee in the 2016 election, Weiner called Abedin. He told her the New York Post was publishing a picture of him and Jordan. She assumed it would be a paparazzi photo of the two of them in the park. It wasn’t. It was a photo taken by Weiner showing himself aroused and in bed, and next to him lay their sleeping toddler son, and he had sent it to a woman on the internet. Abedin threw him out of their apartment and publicly announced their separation. Strangers called Child Services saying they were concerned for Jordan’s safety, so now, while going through a very public scandal, and a separation, and helping to helm an especially fevered presidential campaign, she was also being investigated by Child Services. Just one of those things would drive most people to a nervous breakdown. How on earth did she not collapse?“God,” she replies. “My faith has carried me through this life and, when I was at my lowest moments, that’s where I went. I think the average American doesn’t know about Islam, but, no question, that is where I find my balance.”Things were about to get even worse for Abedin. A few weeks later, it was alleged that Weiner had been sexting a 15-year-old girl – a federal offence. “Each time I thought Anthony had reached a new nadir, he shocked me by going even lower,” Abedin writes.Maybe he was testing you to see how much you could take, I say.“I think the isolation and the shunning from society made him retreat more into these spaces and, as a result, it felt as though whatever it was Anthony was dealing with, it was not being treated properly and we both had to get to the bottom,” she says. He went into rehab and that was when doctors first told her that Weiner had an “addiction”. Does she think he’s a sex addict?“There are certain questions for him to answer, not me. What I do know is that somebody who intentionally loses everything and falls into the same pattern again, that’s not behaviour you can control,” she says.It’s an addict’s behaviour, but maybe not to sex, I say. Maybe he was addicted to self-destruction, or even public shame. She nods emphatically.Because Weiner’s alleged victim was underage, the FBI seized his laptop. When they found emails on it from Abedin to Hillary containing classified information, Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Hillary’s emails and whether she used a private server for official communications. The election was less than two weeks away. Abedin’s two worlds – her Clinton world and her tattered marriage – had collided in the most spectacular fashion. Within days, Comey cleared Clinton, but the damage had been done.Abedin says she’s put all her anger behind her, but she still sounds pretty angry when talking about Comey. “Do I believe [the reopened investigation] was the singular factor in her loss? No. Do I believe it was a factor? Yes, I do,” she says. The first thing she heard after Clinton gave her concession speech on 9 November was reporters shouting, “Do you blame yourself, Huma?” She says she still has no idea why her emails were on her ex-husband’s computer. I ask how she felt when President Trump thanked Comey after winning the election. After a long pause she says: “I’m not sure I have a word you can print.”Almost exactly a year after that, Weiner was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Before he was incarcerated, the two of them attempted to file for divorce, but because of the enormous media interest, Abedin reluctantly withdrew the petition. (They are currently finalising details of their divorce.) She had expected to spend that year working as chief of staff to the first female president; instead, she was shuttling her son to prison for visits with his father in a country that was enacting a so-called Muslim ban, and she still laughs at the dystopian absurdity of it. Were she and Hillary bitter after the election?“Bitterness is not the word, but I was angry. There was also a lot of ‘I told you so’ [to the public and media]. Like, ‘I told you this Muslim ban was going to happen!’”How to tell when a political sex scandal matters – a simple guideRead moreJordan is now nine and I ask if he has his father’s all-too-recognisable surname; she says he does. How has she explained that photo of him lying in bed next to his father?“That’s a conversation that, when he’s at an age when it’s appropriate, we’re going to have. He knows there are moments when there are [photographers] around and he’s had to deal with the gaggles,” she says. The first thing Jordan asked her when she told him she had written a book was: “Does that mean those men are coming back?”After Weiner was released, and registered as a sex offender, he got an apartment in the same building as Abedin, to make things easier for Jordan. This remains the status quo. In 2019, after he told Abedin he was dating again, she did the one thing she had always resisted: she looked through his old phone. It turned out that, after 2013, while they were still married, he hadn’t just been sexting women – he’d been having sex with them, sometimes in their family home. With a therapist, they then went through a disclosure process, in which he told her everything. Knowing the truth at last helped her to shake off the anger, the shame and the resentment, and to move on. These days she says they are “more than civil to each other” but when I ask what he’s doing now for a job, her voice hardens: “You’d have to ask him. I assume he’s doing stuff.” (According to a New Yorker interview in December 2020, he’s running a company that makes “countertops out of concrete and crushed Heineken bottles”.) Abedin, meanwhile, is still working for Hillary. “She’s doing a show for Apple TV, she and her daughter have set up a production company, and there’s all these amazing projects,” she says brightly. It was always about the cause. I ask her if she’s seeing anyone and she goes all fluttery: “Oh my goodness. This is a question I was not prepared for. No, I’m not seeing anyone. I don’t really go on dates. That’s kind of sad, now that I think of it. But if you have any leads, I’ll take them.”What is she looking for in a partner?She thinks for a moment: “Somebody not in politics, don’t you think?” TopicsHuma AbedinHillary ClintonAnthony WeinerDemocratsUS politicsUS elections 2016featuresReuse this content More

  • in

    Are the Democrats doomed in 2022? Politics Weekly Extra

    Analyst David Shor and Jonathan Freedland look at the data and the polls and discuss why the Democrats should be worried – and what they need to do to improve their chances of winning the next presidential election

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

    When Joe Biden became the 46th US president in 2020 many Democrats were celebrating, but one – the data analyst David Shor – was nervous. After crunching the numbers and looking at the extensive data, David believes that if the Democrats continue as they are, the party is going to lose the next presidential election. The 30-year-old prodigy is one of the most in demand data analysts in the US – to such an extent that Politico has written an article about him entitled “The cult of Shor”. So what data has he seen to cause him such alarm? And what should the Democrats be doing to get back on track? David Shor talks problem and remedy with Jonathan Freedland. Archive: Freedom News TV Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

  • in

    Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House

    Vladimir PutinKremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White HouseExclusive: Documents suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in US democracy
    Support independent Guardian journalism Luke Harding, Julian Borger and Dan SabbaghThu 15 Jul 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 15 Jul 2021 16.12 EDTVladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature.By this point Trump was the frontrunner in the Republican party’s nomination race. A report prepared by Putin’s expert department recommended Moscow use “all possible force” to ensure a Trump victory.Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin.The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.The Kremlin responded dismissively. Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the idea that Russian leaders had met and agreed to support Trump in at the meeting in early 2016 was “a great pulp fiction” when contacted by the Guardian on Thursday morning.The report – “No 32-04 vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.The paper refers to “certain events” that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow. Security council members are invited to find details in appendix five, at paragraph five, the document states. It is unclear what the appendix contains.“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.This would help bring about Russia’s favoured “theoretical political scenario”. A Trump win “will definitely lead to the destabilisation of the US’s sociopolitical system” and see hidden discontent burst into the open, it predicts.The Kremlin summitThere is no doubt that the meeting in January 2016 took place – and that it was convened inside the Kremlin.An official photo of the occasion shows Putin at the head of the table, seated beneath a Russian Federation flag and a two-headed golden eagle. Russia’s then prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, attended, together with the veteran foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.Also present were Sergei Shoigu, the defence minister in charge of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency; Mikhail Fradkov, the then chief of Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service; and Alexander Bortnikov, the boss of the FSB spy agency.Nikolai Patrushev, the FSB’s former director, attended too as security council secretary.According to a press release, the discussion covered the economy and Moldova.The document seen by the Guardian suggests the security council’s real, covert purpose was to discuss the confidential proposals drawn up by the president’s analytical service in response to US sanctions against Moscow.The author appears to be Vladimir Symonenko, the senior official in charge of the Kremlin’s expert department – which provides Putin with analytical material and reports, some of them based on foreign intelligence.The papers indicate that on 14 January 2016 Symonenko circulated a three-page executive summary of his team’s conclusions and recommendations.In a signed order two days later, Putin instructed the then chief of his foreign policy directorate, Alexander Manzhosin, to convene a closed briefing of the national security council.Its purpose was to further study the document, the order says. Manzhosin was given a deadline of five days to make arrangements.What was said inside the second-floor Kremlin senate building room is unknown. But the president and his intelligence officials appear to have signed off on a multi-agency plan to interfere in US democracy, framed in terms of justified self-defence.Various measures are cited that the Kremlin might adopt in response to what it sees as hostile acts from Washington. The paper lays out several American weaknesses. These include a “deepening political gulf between left and right”, the US’s “media-information” space, and an anti-establishment mood under President Barack Obama.The paper does not name Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 rival. It does suggest employing media resources to undermine leading US political figures.There are paragraphs on how Russia might insert “media viruses” into American public life, which could become self-sustaining and self-replicating. These would alter mass consciousness, especially in certain groups, it says.After the meeting, according to a separate leaked document, Putin issued a decree setting up a new and secret interdepartmental commission. Its urgent task was to realise the goals set out in the “special part” of document No 32-04 vd.Members of the new working body were stated to include Shoigu, Fradkov and Bortnikov. Shoigu was named commission chair. The decree – ukaz in Russian – said the group should take practical steps against the US as soon as possible. These were justified on national security grounds and in accordance with a 2010 federal law, 390-FZ, which allows the council to formulate state policy on security matters.According to the document, each spy agency was given a role. The defence minister was instructed to coordinate the work of subdivisions and services. Shoigu was also responsible for collecting and systematising necessary information and for “preparing measures to act on the information environment of the object” – a command, it seems, to hack sensitive American cyber-targets identified by the SVR.The SVR was told to gather additional information to support the commission’s activities. The FSB was assigned counter-intelligence. Putin approved the apparent document, dated 22 January 2016, which his chancellery stamped.The measures were effective immediately on Putin’s signature, the decree says. The spy chiefs were given just over a week to come back with concrete ideas, to be submitted by 1 February.Written in bureaucratic language, the papers appear to offer an unprecedented glimpse into the usually hidden world of Russian government decision-making.Putin has repeatedly denied accusations of interfering in western democracy. The documents seem to contradict this claim. They suggest the president, his spy officers and senior ministers were all intimately involved in one of the most important and audacious espionage operations of the 21st century: a plot to help put the “mentally unstable” Trump in the White House.The papers appear to set out a route map for what actually happened in 2016.A matter of weeks after the security council meeting, GRU hackers raided the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and subsequently released thousands of private emails in an attempt to hurt Clinton’s election campaign.The report seen by the Guardian features details redolent of Russian intelligence work, diplomatic sources say. The thumbnail sketch of Trump’s personality is characteristic of Kremlin spy agency analysis, which places great emphasis on building up a profile of individuals using both real and cod psychology.Moscow would gain most from a Republican victory, the paper states. This could lead to a “social explosion” that would in turn weaken the US president, it says. There were international benefits from a Trump win, it stresses. Putin would be able in clandestine fashion to dominate any US-Russia bilateral talks, to deconstruct the White House’s negotiating position, and to pursue bold foreign policy initiatives on Russia’s behalf, it says.Other parts of the multi-page report deal with non-Trump themes. It says sanctions imposed by the US after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea have contributed to domestic tensions. The Kremlin should seek alternative ways of attracting liquidity into the Russian economy, it concludes.The document recommends the reorientation of trade and hydrocarbon exports towards China. Moscow’s focus should be to influence the US and its satellite countries, it says, so they drop sanctions altogether or soften them.‘Spell-binding’ documentsAndrei Soldatov, an expert on Russia’s spy agencies and author of The Red Web, said the leaked material “reflects reality”. “It’s consistent with the procedures of the security services and the security council,” he said. “Decisions are always made like that, with advisers providing information to the president and a chain of command.”He added: “The Kremlin micromanages most of these operations. Putin has made it clear to his spies since at least 2015 that nothing can be done independently from him. There is no room for independent action.” Putin decided to release stolen DNC emails following a security council meeting in April 2016, Soldatov said, citing his own sources.Sir Andrew Wood, the UK’s former ambassador in Moscow and an associate fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, described the documents as “spell-binding”. “They reflect the sort of discussion and recommendations you would expect. There is a complete misunderstanding of the US and China. They are written for a person [Putin] who can’t believe he got anything wrong.”Wood added: “There is no sense Russia might have made a mistake by invading Ukraine. The report is fully in line with the sort of thing I would expect in 2016, and even more so now. There is a good deal of paranoia. They believe the US is responsible for everything. This view is deeply dug into the soul of Russia’s leaders.”Trump did not initially respond to a request for comment.Later, Liz Harrington, his spokesperson, issued a statement on his behalf.“This is disgusting. It’s fake news, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA was fake news. It’s just the Radical Left crazies doing whatever they can to demean everybody on the right.“It’s fiction, and nobody was tougher on Russia than me, including on the pipeline, and sanctions. At the same time we got along with Russia. Russia respected us, China respected us, Iran respected us, North Korea respected us.“And the world was a much safer place than it is now with mentally unstable leadership.” TopicsVladimir PutinDonald TrumpRussiaUS elections 2016EspionageUS politicsEuropenewsReuse this content More