Living the electric dream.

EcoWatch

January 5, 2018

Living the electric dream. Read more: ecowatch.com/volvo-electric-cars

via World Economic Forum

Living the electric dream. Read more: ecowatch.com/volvo-electric-carsvia World Economic Forum

Posted by EcoWatch on Friday, January 5, 2018

Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President

New York Magazine

Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President

One year ago: the plan to lose, and the administration’s shocked first days.

By Michael Wolff, Illustrations by Jeffrey Smith         January 3, 2018 

Election Night: It “looked as if he had seen a ghost.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Twenty-five million?” prodded Bannon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Who’s that?” asked Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In fact,” said Bannon, “I could use your help here.” He then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“He’s totally onboard.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump holed up in his White House bedroom in February 2017. Illustration: Jeffrey Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kushner, going concave, retreated from the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jared offered to marry Joe and Mika. “Why would they want you,” Trump said, “when I could marry them?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“If my shirt is on the floor, it’s because I want it on the floor,” Trump told the housekeeping staff.

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

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

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

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

The call went on for 26 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOW HE GOT THE STORY

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

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

*Excerpted from Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff (Henry Holt and Co., January 9, 2018). This article appears in the January 8, 2018, issue of New York Magazine. Subscribe Now!

*This article has been updated to include more information from Wolff’s book about the nature of Trump’s conversation with the Mercers.

Related

2018 Will Be a Fight to Save Democracy From Trump

Meet the anti-Trump candidate running to become the United States’ first Native American Governor

Mic

Meet the anti-Trump candidate running to become the United States’ first Native American Governor

By A.P. Joyce      January 3, 2018

Meet the anti-Trump candidate running to become the United States’ first Native American governorPaulette Jordan, candidate for Democratic nominee for the governor of Idaho. Paulette Jordan

In a year when the rights of indigenous people have been under assault, from Standing Rock to the president’s Twitter feed, a largely unknown politician is pushing back by launching a campaign to become the country’s first Native American governor.

Paulette Jordan, a 37-year-old Idaho state representative and member of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, is running as a progressive Democrat to try and become state governor.

“We’re blessed with land. We’re blessed with the goodness of what the land gives back to us, and what makes us prosperous and so I think we as leaders can enhance that — enhance the image of Idaho and all these ways,” Jordan said in an interview. “I want people to trust and believe that I can make this difference.”

Jordan was born and raised in north Idaho and has ancestry from several local tribes. A former member of the Couer d’Alene tribe’s council who comes from a line of tribal chiefs dating back to her great-grandfather, Jordan sees her heritage and time in tribal leadership as a key piece of her identity — and it plays heavily into her politics.

“I was the youngest person on that council,” Jordan said. “To be able to be in a room with these elders, listening to their needs and their perspectives, their stories and their values — that’s something you don’t ever want to take for granted.”

Among her most emphasized political priorities is her commitment to environmental protection and conservation, which she says comes directly from her family’s commitments to stewardship of the earth and protecting it at all costs.

“My grandfather said, ‘never forget your contract with Mother Earth. You always have that contract with Mother Earth as indigenous people,” Jordan said. “And that is to protect her at all costs. That means to keep our air clean. To keep our water clean. Protect our land and ensure she’s always respected. If we grow, we harvest, and we take the gifts that she gives us, but we don’t ever try to hurt her.”

Jordan said in an interview that she also feels a strong personal connection to one of the biggest political issues in Western state politics right now: the conservation of federal lands and national monument sites that the Trump administration is determined to sell off.

Recently, President Donald Trump went against the wishes of locals in the conservative state of Utah and drastically reduced the size of federally protected Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to open them up for oil and gas drilling.

“We have this president who decides to open up [monument sites] for oil and gas extractions to basically to ravage the land in every way possible for the benefit of the corporations,” she said. “Now that, to me, is not only unlawful but goes back to being a detriment to the people.”

The will to protect federal lands from privatization has typically been bipartisan in western states. In Montana’s special election in May, both Democratic candidate Rob Quist and Republican candidate Greg Gianforte came out strongly in favor of keeping federal public land public. But private industry has lobbied the Trump administration to oppose popular sentiment on the issue.

“The truth is, in fact, that we’ve created hundreds of thousands more jobs through clean energy developments than we have through fossil fuel developments,” Jordan said. “The president is choosing to lie to the general public for these reasons, for his own sake to take from the public. Take from the people. And that is wrong.”

Paulette Jordan, candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of IdahoPaulette Jordan, candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of Idaho Paulette Jordan

Jordan’s environmentalism is bolstered by her lifestyle as a sportswoman and devotee of Idaho’s rural outdoor culture.

“I grew up riding bareback, horseback riding and grew up in the country,” Jordan said. “I’m from a farming family on my mother’s side and on my father’s side it was a very strong, lengthy ranching heritage.”

Before Jordan can mount a Democratic campaign for governor, she’ll face a competitive primary in the state against Boise businessman A.J. Balukoff — who previously ran for governor in 2014 but lost to incumbent Republican Governor Butch Otter, who is retiring and will not seek re-election in 2018.

Balukoff, who donated to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns in both 2008 and 2012, is running as a pro-business moderate candidate to win over swing voters in the conservative state.

Progressive organizers in the state, however, claim that the grassroots energy in the state is firmly behind Jordan’s candidacy.

Stephanie Rohrbaugh-Ayers, a local organizer with the north Idaho and Eastern Washington chapter of the group Indivisible, said in an interview that she and other progressives in the area have been energized by Jordan’s candidacy.

“I’m really excited about it,” Rohrbaugh-Ayers said. “[Balukoff] is not really progressive.”

Luke Mayville, co-founder of the group Reclaim Idaho, which launched a campaign to expand Medicaid in the state, thinks that Jordan’s campaign has the potential to rally an energized electorate, and win the kind of unlikely victory that helped propel Republicans to power in several blue states in the 2010 midterm elections.

“There are groups all over the state that popped up after the presidential election,” Mayville said. “And a lot of those groups are eager to participate proactively in elections because for years they’ve been working mainly against something — namely to block awful legislation — and now they see these elections as a chance to work for something.”

Jordan, who describes herself as “very progressive,” says that, if elected, she will move immediately to expand Medicaid in her state. Idaho’s Republican governor Butch Otter and the state legislature have resisted this move for years. She also believes that the Democratic party needs to “remodel itself to be more progressive” in order to engage future generations.

While Jordan’s political leanings are to the left of a traditional Idaho candidate, she does hold several positions that are not typical of progressive candidates nationwide. She says that she is personally “pro-life,” but supports a woman’s right to choose.

“I was raised by a Catholic and I’m very spiritual,” she says. “So when I say pro-life I don’t want to over-politicize it. It just means that I’m respectful of all life,” Jordan said.

She also claims to enthusiastically support the rights of lawful gun owners in her state. These beliefs put her among a new crop of self-identified “progressives” in red states who adopt populist positions on issues like health care, but take more moderate or conservative stances on issues like abortion and gun control.

Even with her carefully moderated stances on issues like abortion and gun rights, Jordan is set to face an uphill battle running as a progressive in Idaho, a state which hasn’t elected a Democrat for governor since 1990, and which Trump won by more than 30 points in 2016.

But after Doug Jones’ historic win of Alabama’s senate seat, Democrats are newly emboldened to go after statewide elections in deeply red jurisdictions.

Jane Kleeb, a board member of the progressive group Our Revolution and Democratic party chair of Nebraska, says she believes 2018 could be the year for a new kind of populist Democrat to win in conservative territory.

“What I’m seeing on the ground in Nebraska and other red states and rural communities is a clear stance from voters saying they want their politicians to actually be in that job because they want to help people,” she said in an interview.

“I think there’s this task for Democrats in red states to essentially communicate to voters that the Democrats are the ones on the ‘helping people’ train — that we believe in expanding pre-K, making child care more affordable to families and having a path to Medicaid expansion — that’s where I think this could be a different type of year.”

Should Jordan win her primary, she will likely face off against Republican Rep. Raul Labrador, who announced in May that he’ll be stepping down from his congressional seat next year to run for governor. Labrador, a member of the House’s staunchly conservative Freedom Caucus, has the lowest approval ratings of any member of the state’s congressional delegation. Labrador’s reputation with his state’s Republican Party is also less than sterling after he endorsed a challenger running against Idaho’s popular incumbent Republican governor in 2014.

“Our president lacks humanity. He lacks respect. He lacks honor.”

Jordan, meanwhile, is focused on emphasizing Labrador’s ties to big business and corporate interests.

“He listens to corporations. And that’s where he goes wrong,” she said. “Because there are even right-wing conservatives I know, who are my neighbors and dear friends of mine, who don’t value Big Pharma or don’t value Big Agriculture. They don’t value corporations who are trying to run their lives.”

The influence of agricultural lobbyists is of particular concern to many progressives in Idaho. A 2014 ag-industry-backed law made it illegal for journalists and animal rights activists to film the working conditions and animal treatment in factory farms across the state, which advocates say hampers their ability to expose industry abuses.

Jordan says she plans to distinguish herself to voters by emphasizing her independence from corporate influence.

An election face off between Jordan and Labrador would also be a significant step for a state with a history of harboring racist hate groups. Idaho was once home to one of the country’s most infamous white supremacist movements, the Aryan Nations. In 1998, members of the Aryan Nations brutally attacked a Native American family, shooting out the tires on their vehicle, running them off the road and threatening to kill them. After the incident, the family sued the Aryan Nations in a case that forced the white supremacist group to abandon their Idaho compound.

Twenty years later, Idaho remains one of a few states in the country that is overwhelmingly white, while the country as a whole becomes more diverse. Were Jordan to face off against Labrador, who is Puerto Rican, Idaho would not only have it’s first Native American candidate for governor, but would have one of the only statewide races in the country where both major party candidates are people of color.

The importance of representation in the Trump years isn’t lost on Jordan.

“Our president lacks humanity. He lacks respect. He lacks honor,” she said. In November, Trump offended multiple tribal leaders by referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” at a ceremony honoring the Navajo Code Talkers.

“For him to disrespect World War II veterans and to be the only president to have done so in the White House is disrespectful of the White House,” Jordan said. “For him to bring in a U.S. senator, as he does, and try to slight the indigenous people of this land who have stood up for freedom and for this land for generations. I think that’s the travesty. And that’s what people should be thinking about.”

Should she win the Democratic primary, Jordan’s candidacy could be seen as a direct challenge to Trump’s anti-Native American rhetoric and xenophobic policies.

“I always think that, in the end, what it comes down to is fighting for your community and fighting for what’s right,” Jordan said. “And if you want to do more, you have to move up.”

By A.P. Joyce. I cover politics and policy.

Born in the U.S.A. and working in the fields — what gives?

Los Angeles Times

Born in the U.S.A. and working in the fields — what gives?

Diego Romo, left, and Jose Lopez put boxes of cantaloupe on pallets on a trailer in the fields of Del Bosque Farms in Los Banos, Calif. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Cindy Carcamo, Reporter

Nicholas Andrew Flores swatted at the flies orbiting his sweat-drenched face as he picked alongside a crew of immigrants through a cantaloupe field in California’s Central Valley.

The 21-year-old didn’t speak Spanish, but he understood the essential words the foreman barked out: Puro amarillo. And rapido, rapido! Quickly, Flores picked only yellow melons and flung them onto a moving platform.

It was hard and repetitive work, and there were days under the searing sun that Flores regretted not going to a four-year college. But he liked that to get the job he just had to “show up.” And at $12 an hour, it paid better than slinging fast food.

(Los Angeles Times)

For Joe Del Bosque of Del Bosque Farms in the San Joaquin Valley, American-born pickers like Flores, though rare, are always welcome.

For generations, rural Mexico has been the primary source of hired farm labor in the U.S. According to a federal survey, nine out of 10 agricultural workers in places like California are foreign-born, and more than half are in the U.S. illegally.

But farm labor from Mexico has been on the decline in California. And under the Trump administration, many in the agricultural industry worry that deportations — and the fear of them — could further cut the supply of workers.

But try as they have to entice workers with better salaries and benefits, companies have found it impossible to attract enough U.S.-born workers to make up for a shortage from south of the border.

Del Bosque said he’ll hire anyone who shows up ready to work. But that rarely means someone born in the U.S.

“Americans will say, ‘You can’t pay me enough to do this kind of work,’” Del Bosque said. “They won’t do it. They’ll look for something easier.”

A cantaloupe picking and packing crew in the fields of Del Bosque Farms in Los Banos. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

For some immigrants working the fields, people like Flores are a puzzle — their sweating next to them represents a kind of squandering of an American birthright.

“It’s hard to be here under the sun. It’s a waste of time and their talents in the fields,” said Norma Felix, 58, a Mexican picker for almost three decades. “They don’t take advantage of their privilege and benefit of being born here. They could easily work in an office.”

Most don’t last long, she said.

“There is always one or two who show up every season,” Felix said. “They show up for three or four days and turn around and leave.”

Agriculture’s reliance on immigrant labor, especially in the American West, goes back to the late 1800s, after the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad, said J. Edward Taylor, a UC Davis rural economist.

“The domestic farm workforce was simply not big enough to support the growth of labor-intensive fruit and vegetable crops,” he said.

With the notable exception of the Dust Bowl years in the 1930s — when American migrant workers from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas moved out west after a severe drought devastated their livelihoods — there was never a time when mostly U.S.-born farm-workers picked in California, Taylor said.

But those workers eventually moved on to nonfarm jobs.

Now, Mexico is undergoing some of the same changes the U.S. did around the middle of the 20th century, Taylor said, with “employment shifting from farms to industry and services.”

According to Taylor’s research, the number of farm-workers coming out of rural Mexico is decreasing by an estimated 150,000 a year. That means U.S. and Mexican farmers will have to increasingly compete for a dwindling pool of labor.

Some advocates of restricting immigration see greater farm mechanization and the importation of fruits and vegetables as ways to reduce the reliance on labor from illegal immigration.

“If we tighten immigration rules, there are going to be fewer farm jobs, but they will be better-paid. They will be more stable and consistent with more regular jobs,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. “That should be the goal. Huge increases in individual productivity so where you now need 200 farm-workers working seasonally, a farmer would be able to employ 10 people year-round, full-time.”

Taylor said there’s reason to believe that technology would take over before pay increased enough to attract U.S.-born employees to the fields in large numbers.

“We would develop new picking machines, including robotic harvesters, and use them out in the fields instead of paying wages that could possibly be high enough to induce some U.S.-born farm-workers out into the fields,” he said.

Erick Roman waits for boxes of cantaloupe to fill so he can move them through a labeler at Del Bosque Farms in Los Banos. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

In California, farm wages increased 13% from 2010 to 2015, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Some farmers have resorted to giving field laborers benefits such as 401(k) plans, health insurance and even subsidized housing.

But they’ve still struggled to recruit enough workers.

At Del Bosque Farms, about 300 workers pick during the cantaloupe season. Some of the U.S.-born laborers who show up could not get jobs in industries like fast food or retail because of criminal convictions. Others felt college was out of reach and they needed quick money.

Diego Romo, a 24-year-old American, said he grew up watching his father work the cantaloupe fields. The Los Banos resident has worked every season at Del Bosque Farms since he was 17.

When he’s not in the fields, he’s at a local college, studying to become a corrections officer. He harvests cantaloupe to help out his parents and to pay for his textbooks, he said.

On a recent autumn afternoon, he stacked cardboard boxes full of cantaloupe into pallets. His father, Rodrigo, worked on the same crew. He put the boxes together on a moving platform — an easier job for older workers.

He did not like that his son worked in the fields.

“I want you to study hard and not work out there … like I do every year,” he told him in Spanish. “You need to better yourself.”

Diego Romo said he’s aware how unusual workers like him are. Those who show up usually end up being overcome by the heat or the sheer repetitive diligence required to do the work.

Diego Romo waits for full boxes of cantaloupe to load onto pallets at Del Bosque Farms. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

He takes pride in having lasted so long. But there are days when he regrets having not done better in high school. Perhaps he could have done well enough to get a full ride into college. Now Romo nags his 15-year-old brother, sounding like his father: “Study hard and better yourself. You see how we have to work every year — sunrise to sunset.”

Ignacio Leon, a 21-year-old from Los Banos, was on his second day on the job at Del Bosque Farms. He was happy for the work because he needed to make enough to pay off a traffic ticket so he can start his career in truck driving, he said.

Leon was born in the U.S. and graduated high school, but said he got into trouble with the law.

“I do feel like I did mess up big-time. I do regret it,” he said. “Also, not going to college. In high school, I got too lazy.”

He told a cash-strapped friend of his to join him in the fields. The friend rejected the offer, Leon said, preferring to stay home and play video games at his parent’s house.

The cantaloupe harvest was still weeks away from ending. But a few days after starting a job that he described to his friend as “easy money, bro,” Leon stopped showing up to work.

Erick Roman takes his morning break at Del Bosque Farms in Los Banos. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Cities across America are already getting 100% of their energy from renewables, and saving big money in the process.

EcoWatch
January 4, 2018

From Vermont, to Kansas, to Colorado, cities across America are already getting 100% of their energy from renewables, and saving big money in the process. Is your hometown on board?

Read more: ecowatch.com/100-renewable-energy-by-2050

via Years of Living Dangerously & Climate Reality #WeCanSolveThis#YEARSproject

From Vermont, to Kansas, to Colorado, cities across America are already getting 100% of their energy from renewables, and saving big money in the process. Is your hometown on board? Read more: ecowatch.com/100-renewable-energy-by-2050via Years of Living Dangerously & Climate Reality #WeCanSolveThis #YEARSproject

Posted by EcoWatch on Thursday, January 4, 2018

Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Can’t Read Well, Former Employees Say

Newsweek

Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Can’t Read Well, Former Employees Say

Zola Ray      January 3, 2018

President Donald Trump doesn’t do much reading, Michael Wolff reported in his book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, which was adapted for New York Magazine on Wednesday.

According to former deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh, Trump’s ability to carry out his plans seemed questionable, hindered largely by a lack of skills—including reading comprehension.

“Here, arguably, was the central issue of the Trump presidency, informing every aspect of Trumpian policy and leadership: He didn’t process information in any conventional sense,” Wolff wrote. “He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-­literate.”

Trending: China and North Korea: Chinese Ships Using Foreign Flags to Illegally Sell Oil to Rogue State, Report Claims

1_3_Donald_Trump_Tax_ReformPresident Trump presents a tax reform bill after signing it in the Oval Office. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

When asked during the presidential campaign if he’d read any presidents’ biographies, Trump said “I never have. I’m always busy doing a lot. Now I’m more busy, I guess, than ever before,” The Washington Post reported in July 2016.

In interviews, Trump stated that he doesn’t feel the need to read much. His reason was that he can make decisions correctly “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability,” The Washington Post reported.

Don’t miss: Will Chocolate Become Extinct Due to Climate Change? Here Are the Foods We Might Lose

Jared Kushner, senior adviser to Trump, also is reportedly not much of a reader. Kyle Pope, a former employee for the New York Observer during Kushner’s time as publisher there, reported that Kushner wasn’t interested in reading his own paper, nor did he read other publications frequently, Newsweek reported in October. Pope revealed this in a tell-all piece written for the Columbia Journalism Review, of which he is currently the publisher and editor-in-chief.

1_3_Trump_KushnerPresident Donald Trump and senior adviser Jared Kushner speak at a White House Hanukkah Reception in December 2017. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

“I never knew him to discuss a book, a play, or anything else that was in the Observer’s cultural wheelhouse,” Pope wrote.

Most popular: Muslims Will Replace Jews as America’s Second-Largest Religious Group By 2040, Study Shows

Last month, Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked Michael Anton, a national security spokesman, whether Trump had read the entire 55 pages of a national security strategy document that had recently been given to him. Anton responded that he was unsure, The Hill reported.

“I can’t say that he’s read every line and every word. He certainly had the document… and has been briefed on it,” he said.

This was a little more than a month after Trump said that he doesn’t get much time to watch television because he is “reading documents,” as reported by Newsweek in November.

More from Newsweek

Welcome to 2018! Donald Trump Is Worse Than Ever!

The Nation

Welcome to 2018! Donald Trump Is Worse Than Ever!

Unfortunately, The New York Times doesn’t seem to be entirely on top of that story.

Trump in the White HouseDonald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on November 28, 2017. (AP Photo / Susan Walsh)

By Joan Walsh     January 2, 2018

On the first workday of 2018, Donald Trump proved that he’d made no New Year’s resolutions to sober up politically. He’s going to be the exact same maniac he was in 2017, on Twitter at least. CNN posted a dizzying Hollywood Squares matrix of Trump’s nine morning tweets. In just a few minutes, he attacked his own “Deep State Justice Department,” called for Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin to go to “jail,” again mocked North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as “Rocket Man,” savaged the “Failing New York Times,” and took credit for the fact that 2017 saw zero fatalities in domestic air crashes. There have been zero fatalities in domestic air crashes since 2009. (Thanks, Obama!)

Trump is incorrigible and still, predictably, dangerous. Over the long holiday weekend, angry progressives vented some of their fear and outrage over that at the very same New York Times Trump attacked, singling out three articles that made it look like the nation’s most important paper is bending backward to meet the president on his own terms, truth be damned. You can trace a connection between Trump’s ever-accelerating craziness and abuse and the Times’ growing trouble with its progressive readers. If you cared enough to do so, that is.

First came Michael S. Schmidt’s “impromptu” interview with the president at his Mar-a-Lago resort, also known as his faux-opulent Florida grift. It turned out Schmidt was lunching there with right-wing Trump pal Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax, and Ruddy told reporters that he helped broker the sit-down. It’s fair to call the Trump-Schmidt meeting impromptu as long as Ruddy’s role in making it happen was disclosed, but the Times was sketchy about that. Schmidt described squatting at the president’s side in a catcher’s position for 30 minutes, until his thighs began to ache. That might explain why so many balls got past him.

Trump made impossible and/or incoherent claims about taxes (“I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest CPA.”), something he called “chainlike immigration,” health care, and his relationship with China’s leaders, who he claimed “treated me better than anybody’s ever been treated in the history of China.” Schmidt challenged none of it, even telling Trump his China nonsense “makes a lot of sense” and agreeing that indicted campaign manager Paul Manafort worked for Trump “for a very short period of time.”

As social media went up in flames over the lies, grandiosity, and delusion that was evident (and unchallenged) in Schmidt’s piece, Times staffers circled the wagons around Schmidt, insisting he’d done a service in just letting Trump ramble on. (This Times-writer pushback has become an increasingly troubling practice at the Times in the Trump era. Defending colleagues is laudable; circling the wagons, and insulting your critics, is not.) The Washington Postquickly found that Trump told 24 lies in 30 minutes. Not only did the Times fail to fact-check the piece when it ran; a later fact-check counted only 10 lies.

Next up was Peter Baker’s “For Trump, A Year of Reinventing the Presidency.” The piece itself wasn’t horrible, although parts of it seemed a retread of something Baker co-wrote last month with Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush, which concluded that Trump “had yet to bend the presidency to his will” but was “at least wrestling it to a draw.” Both pieces interviewed an impressive range of sources and reported shocking facts, but overall took a soothing tone that served to normalize Trump’s dangerous assaults on presidential norms.

What lit up social media was the extraordinary tweet the Times used to herald Baker’s new piece…. NYT: President Trump has brought a reality-show accessibility to a once-aloof presidency, invigorating voters who felt alienated by the establishment 

President Trump has cast aside the mythology of a magisterial presidency removed from the people in favor of a reality-show accessibility that strikes a chord in parts of the country alienated by the establishment.For Trump, a Year of Reinventing the Presidency. In ways that were once unimaginable, President Trump has discarded the conventions and norms established by his predecessors. Will that change the institution permanently?    nytimes.com

To hail the president’s “accessibility” on the very day that wealthy friends, cabinet members, and access-seekers paid $750 to attend his Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve party was tone-deaf at best. (Tickets cost $600 for dues-paying club members; last year they paid $525 while their guests paid $575. The club also doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 last year.) The tweet also seemed to borrow right-wing framing of President Obama as “aloof”—widely and correctly read as either a synonym for “outsider” or “uppity.” The best Twitter retorts featured former Obama photographer Pete Souza’s shots of the first black president playing with children and comforting the family members of mass-shooting victims.

Finally, on Monday the normally excellent economics reporters Binyamin Applebaum and Jim Tankersley endorsed Trump’s claim that business is booming thanks to him, in a piece headlined “The Trump Effect: Business, Anticipating Less Regulation, Loosens Purse Strings.” The piece reported that “across the business community, there is a perception that years of increased environmental, financial and other regulatory oversight by the Obama administration dampened investment and job creation—and that Mr. Trump’s more hands-off approach has unleashed the ‘animal spirits’ of companies that had hoarded cash after the recession of 2008.”

It’s possible that without the Times, there would be no need for the Times to examine the “missed” story of the Trump victory, because there would have been no victory in the first place.

Progressive economists pounced quickly, showing that the 6.2 percent annual investment growth the piece cited was not terribly impressive—under Obama, investment grew by 11.4 percent between the first quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012, and by 9.1 percent between the third quarter of 2013 and the third quarter of 2014; it had also averaged 8.9 percent over the eight years of the Clinton administration. And most of it could reasonably be attributed to rising energy prices spurring greater investment in that sector. Once economist Dean Baker subtracted investment in the mining and oil sectors of the economy, the growth rate only sat at 3.3 percent.

Why are these Times pieces particularly troubling, when the paper still produces great reporting? All seem part of an effort to normalize not only the president, but his most outlandish claims—even, in the last case, to supply “evidence” that those claims about the economy are correct. As progressive economist Jared Bernstein notes in that piece, there is certainly a connection between business-community “confidence” in a political climate and its willingness to invest. But linking that “purse-string opening” to the age-old project of lifting hard-won regulations that make Americans safer, without more evidence, is unwise and lamentable.

Maybe more disturbing, the paper appears newly insulated from criticism, since it dispatched its last public editor and did away with the position altogether. Its political reporters are now renowned, and not in a good way, for brooking little or no criticism on social media. Most important, the paper has yet to formally account for the role it may have played in electing Trump.

Instead, executive editor Dean Baquet has been quoted saying his paper and others “absolutely” missed the story of the white working-class voters who drove Trump’s victory, especially in swing states. In fact, there’s increasing evidence that Russian meddling could have driven those victories, along with James Comey’s unprecedented and policy-violating last-minute intervention. The Times famously minimized the former—Baquet was ripped about it by his own (former) public editor—and hyped the latter. It’s possible that without the Times, there would be no need for the Times to examine the “missed” story of the Trump victory, because there would have been no victory in the first place. If Baquet feels bad about not charting the story of Trump’s ascent, he should remember one thing: He will certainly feel worse if his paper misreports the story of the president’s unprecedented abuse of power and his caping for plutocrats, and the nation’s resulting decline.

Joan Walsh, The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent, is the author of What’s the Matter With White People? Finding Our Way in the Next America.

Pennsylvania stops construction of Energy Transfer Partners pipeline for ‘egregious’ violations

ThinkProgress

Pennsylvania stops construction of Energy Transfer Partners pipeline for ‘egregious’ violations

Suspension of pipeline construction was the only option, DEP says.

Private homes surround construction right-of-way for Energy Transfer Partners subsidiary Sunoco’s Mariner East pipeline on October 5, 2017 in Marchwood, PA. Credit: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

By Mark Hand     January 3, 2018

Pennsylvania is known for a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to energy regulatory policy. Officials warmly welcomed companies that wanted to drill wells into the Marcellus Shale, for instance, even before health and environmental experts had a chance to examine the potential impacts of fracking across the state.

Pennsylvania lawmakers and regulators also created an industry-friendly regulatory environment for pipeline developers. Officials were forced to jettison that approach on Wednesday, however, when they ordered Energy Transfer Partners subsidiary Sunoco Pipeline LP to immediately cease construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline due to “egregious and willful violations” of safety and environmental laws.

Controversy had plagued the Mariner East 2 project every step of the way, from numerous construction mishaps, spills, and violations to hiring a private security firm to conduct surveillance of landowners opposed to the pipeline crossing their land. Energy Transfer Partners’ other projects, most notably the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, have drawn similar scrutiny from regulators and pipeline opponents.

Landowners challenge pipeline developer, saying taking property is unconstitutional

Attorneys contend federal regulators have ‘run wild’ in granting eminent domain.

In the order, DEP officials emphasized that Sunoco’s “unlawful conduct” demonstrates “a lack of ability or intention” by the company to comply with the Clean Streams Law, the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, and other conditions in its pipeline construction permit.

From the beginning of the project, local residents along the pipeline route warned that Mariner East 2 would damage their property, cause pollution, and impact private water supplies. “DEP’s decision to suspend the permits required for construction affirms that the concerns raised by these community members were valid, and that the pipeline should never have been approved in the first place,” Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter Director Joanne Kilgour said in a statement Wednesday.

The DEP had given Sunoco plenty of opportunities to clean up its act. But suspension of the pipeline permit was necessary because other enforcement procedures, penalties, or remedies “would not be adequate” to get Sunoco to follow the rules, given the company’s history of noncompliance with the law, the department said.

The pipeline, costing more than $2.5 billion, is designed to carry propane, ethane, and butane some 350 miles from the Marcellus Shale of southwest Pennsylvania to an export terminal at Marcus Hook near Philadelphia. In a controversial decision, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) in 2014 recognized Sunoco and its Mariner Pipeline as a public utility, with the right to use eminent domain to condemn properties of landowners in Pennsylvania.

During the just-announced halt in the construction process, residents and regulators should remain vigilant because Energy Transfer Partners “has worked in secret on unauthorized portions of the project,” Elise Gerhart, whose family owns property through which the pipeline travels, said in a statement in response to the DEP’s order. Gerhart is co-founder of Camp White Pine, a group started to prevent the completion of the Mariner East 2 pipeline.

The criminalization of environmental protest in Trump’s America

Environmental protesters had a successful 2016. Then came the crackdown.

For years, the Gerhart family has been fighting the pipeline project. In September, the family filed a lawsuit against Sunoco, plus a private security firm and more than two dozen state and local police officers, for violating constitutional protections when members of the family and their supporters were arrested on the property owned by the Gerhart family in March 2016.

Energy Transfer Partners had hired TigerSwan, a private security firm, to conduct “surveillance, monitoring, social media engagement, and counter-intelligence” on the Mariner East 2 protesters, as it did with the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota in 2016.

Sunoco violated the conditions of its pipeline permit numerous times but was always allowed to proceed with construction — until now. In September, for example, the DEP said Sunoco violated a court-brokered agreement imposing new restrictions on drilling for the pipeline when it spilled drilling mud into at least three waterways. But the DEP did not tell the company to halt construction.

In October, three environmental groups — Clean Air Council, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and the Mountain Watershed Association — filed a motion for summary judgment with the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board to revoke certain permits for the pipeline on the grounds that the pipeline would violate state law by crossing “exceptional value” wetlands unnecessarily, that Sunoco violated anti-degradation law for those wetlands, and that the DEP issued permits without receiving a storm water management plan from Sunoco.

Also in October, the Pennsylvania PUC halted Sunoco’s plans to build a valve and associated equipment on private land in Chester County on the basis that the construction breached a settlement agreement between West Goshen Township, Pennsylvania, and the company. Work on the rest of the pipeline, however, was allowed to continue.

Ohio sues developer behind Dakota Access Pipeline over pollution issues

Within 10 days of the January 3 order, Sunoco must backfill all areas of pipeline trench excavation, unless it can provide sufficient justification for an extension of time. In the same period, the company also must remove drill bit and other equipment from any unpermitted horizontal directional drilling activities unless it gets DEP approval to leave the equipment in place.

Sunoco’s parent company, Energy Transfer Partners, also put in a dismal environmental performance in 2017. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality issued a violation notice against Energy Transfer Partners in October for dumping petroleum-contaminated water into a wetland during construction of the Rover Pipeline. In November, the state of Ohio filed a lawsuit against Rover Pipeline, operated and majority-owned by Energy Transfer Partners, for allegedly polluting state waterways as it constructed the 713-mile pipeline to transport natural gas from southwest Pennsylvania across Ohio and into Michigan and Ontario, Canada.

Gerhart said the DEP’s order does not hold Energy Transfer Partners accountable for the damage it has already done to private property and the environment during the construction of Mariner East 2. “It does not bring clean water to those who have already lost it. It does not bring justice to those whose rights have been violated, including our environment,” she said. “Now is not the time to sit back and bask in a false sense of relief. It’s a time to push back with everything we have left.”

A Sunoco spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement to The Inquirer, though, the company said it is confident it will soon be allowed to resume work on the project. The company also expressed its “dedication to preserving and protecting the environment in which we conduct our work.”

Coal mining deaths surge in 2017 after hitting record low

USA TODAY

Coal mining deaths surge in 2017 after hitting record low

John Raby, The Associated Press     January 2, 2018  

If Trump Loves Miners, Why Is He Putting Their Lives in Danger?

   (Photo: David Goldman, AP)

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Coal mining deaths surged in the U.S. in 2017, one year after they hit a record low.

The nation’s coal mines recorded 15 deaths last year, including eight in West Virginia. Kentucky had two deaths, and there were one each in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. In 2016 there were eight U.S. coal mine deaths.

West Virginia has led the nation in coal mining deaths in six of the past eight years. That includes 2010, when 29 miners were killed in an explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in southern West Virginia.

In September, President Trump appointed retired coal company executive David Zatezalo as the new chief of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Most of the deaths this year occurred before his appointment. The Wheeling resident retired in 2014 as chairman of Rhino Resources.

Zatezalo was narrowly approved by the Senate in November. His appointment was opposed by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who said he was not convinced Zatezalo was suited to oversee the federal agency that implements and enforces mine safety laws and standards.

Last month the Trump administration brought up for review standards implemented by Barack Obama’s administration that lowered the allowable limits for miners’ exposure to coal dust. MSHA indicated it is reconsidering rules meant to protect underground miners from breathing coal and rock dust — the cause of black lung — and diesel exhaust, which can cause cancer.

Eight coal mining deaths this year involved hauling vehicles and two others involved machinery. None were attributed to an explosion of gas or dust, which was to blame for the Upper Big Branch disaster.

More: Coal miner who survived Sago disaster dies in W.Va.

The number of coal mining fatalities was under 20 for the fourth straight year after reaching exactly 20 in 2011, 2012 and 2013. By comparison, in 1966, the mining industry counted 233 deaths. A century ago there were 2,226.

MSHA has attributed low numbers in previous years to far fewer coal mining jobs and tougher enforcement of mining safety rules. Zatezalo, who said in October that his first priority was preventing people from getting hurt, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment left with MSHA on Tuesday.

There have been 13 fatalities in 2017 in non-coal mines that produce gravel, sand, limestone and mineable metals. There also were 17 such deaths in 2015 and 30 in 2014.

Appalachia has been especially hit hard by the closing of dozens of mines in recent years, but there was a turnaround in production in 2017.

According to the Energy Information Administration’s weekly estimates, U.S. coal production increased 8.9% in the 52 weeks ending Dec. 23, the latest available. Production in West Virginia increased 16%, including 25% in coal-rich southern West Virginia.

Wyoming, the top coal-producing state, saw a 10.7% increase and Pennsylvania had an 11.6% hike.

Rewire Appalachia is building a new training facility to bring even more former coal miners into the clean energy economy. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

There were about 92,000 working miners in the United States in 2011, compared with about 52,000 in 2016, the lowest figure since the Energy Information Administration began collecting data in 1978. The 2017 numbers are not yet available.

More: Coal towns struggle for good mental health care

President Trump lied almost TWO THOUSAND times in his first year as president

NowThis Politics 

January 2, 2018
President Trump lied almost TWO THOUSAND times in his first year as president

Trump Lied HOW MANY Times in His First Year as President?

President Trump lied almost TWO THOUSAND times in his first year as president

Posted by NowThis Politics on Tuesday, January 2, 2018