Donald Trump decries the proverbial Washington swamp. Congress does next to nothing. The band plays on: lobbying remains big business. In 2023, [the industry](https://thehill.com/lobbying/4621934-several-k-street-giants-kick-off-2024-with-record-revenues/) hit a [$4.3bn](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/summary?inflate=N) payday. This year shows [no end in sight to the trend](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/23/progressives-stare-down-primary-challengers/). As the US gallops toward another election, The Wolves of K Street befits the season. [ New Cold Wars review: China, Russia and Biden’s daunting task ](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/21/new-cold-wars-review-david-sanger) [Brody Mullins](https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Brody-Mullins/156463980), a Wall Street Journal investigative reporter and Pulitzer prize winner, and his brother, [Luke Mullins](https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Luke-Mullins/156463997), a contributor at Politico, deliver a graduate seminar on how lobbying emerged and became a behemoth, an adjunct of government itself, taking its collective name from the street north of the White House where many of its biggest earners sit. Smoothly written, meticulously researched, The Wolves of K Street informs and mesmerizes. “This is a book about men – for they were almost exclusively men – who built K Street,” Brody and Luke Mullins write. They have produced a tightly stitched, 600-plus-page tome that begins as a true-crime story. [The suicide of Evan Morris](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-and-fall-of-a-k-street-renegade-1487001918), a lobbyist for big pharma, takes center stage. In the opening scene of the book, at a posh Virginia golf club on a balmy evening in July 2015, Morris, 38, turns a gun on himself. The seemingly almost idyllic backdrop to his death is actually a tableau of excess, complete with $150,000 initiation fees, an abandoned Porsche, an emptied bottle of $1,500 bordeaux and a scenic sunset. Millions of corporate dollars were missing and untaxed. An anonymous letter and an FBI investigation helped ignite Morris’s untimely and violent end. “The allegations would touch off [a years-long case](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-and-fall-of-a-k-street-renegade-1487001918),” the brothers Mullins write. Morris’s wife and estate settled with Genentech, his employer, the Internal Revenue Service and the commonwealth of Virginia. The government never charged anyone with a crime. Death had taken its toll. The Wolves of K Street is about way more than just one man. It is an engrossing lesson in how lunch-bucket sensibilities and the accommodation between big business and the New Deal gave way to neoliberalism, corporate activism and the decline of industrial unions. The Democratic party, to name just one major part of American life, would never be the same again. The Mullins brothers are keenly aware of the social forces that buffet and drive [US politics](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-politics). They recall how Jimmy Carter’s defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 left the party of FDR, Truman and JFK to wonder how it was no longer the political home of working-class America. Democrats wonder to this day. The Wolves of K Street traces how the US reached this point, and lobbying attained its present stature, by following “three lobbying dynasties – one Republican, two Democratic – over the critical period from the 1970s to today, when the modern lobbying industry was created, corporate interests came to power in Washington, and the nature of our economy was fundamentally changed”. The late Tommy Boggs, son of Hale Boggs, once a Democratic House majority leader, stands out as the patriarch and pioneer of Democratic lobbying. His name came to grace Patton, Boggs and Blow, a storied DC law firm now subsumed in Squire Patton Boggs, a sprawling global entity nominally based in Ohio. Evan Morris stood out as Boggs’s “prized pupil” – or apostle. Next came the Republicans: Charlie Black, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and the late Lee Atwater, who would manage the 1988 presidential campaign of George HW Bush. “\[They\] used their links to the Reagan revolution to erect Washington’s signature GOP house of lobbying,” the Mullins write. “Each member of the partnership had his own distinct role.” Together, they bridged the gap between corner offices and the universe of conservative activists. Furthermore, Donald Trump was a client of Black, Manafort and Stone. Stone helped boost Maryanne Trump Barry, the property magnate’s late sister, on to the federal bench. That history is why Manafort and Stone emerged as part of Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016; why the pair were caught in the special counsel’s net when it came time to investigate Russia’s attempts to help Trump; why they received presidential pardons before Trump left office; and why they stand to be back for one more rodeo as Trump runs for the White House again. Tony Podesta, brother of the Democratic White House veteran John Podesta, is the keystone of the third lobbying dynasty examined by Brody and Luke Mullins, an “avant-garde political fixer \[who\] used his experience as a brass-knuckled liberal activist to advance the interests of Wall Street and Silicon Valley”. The paths taken by Manafort and Podesta would eventually entwine. Out of the limelight, Manafort came to represent the interests of Ukraine’s anti-Nato Party of Regions and its head, Viktor Yanukovych. In 2012, seeking to stave off sanctions, Manafort enlisted Podesta to his cause. “I used to call them the dynamic duo,” Rick Gates, Manafort’s [convicted](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/24/wicked-game-review-rick-gates-trump-republicans-russia) acolyte, tells the Mullins brothers. The Wolves of K Street is also newsy, disclosing for the first time Manafort’s attempt to have Yanukovych congratulate Joe Biden in summer 2012. “I am thinking of recommending a call from VY to Biden to congratulate Biden on his \[re-\]nomination” as vice-president to Barack Obama, Manafort emailed Gates, who forwarded the note to Podesta. The brother of Bill Clinton’s chief of staff cum Obama counselor approved. “‘Only downside is \[if\] biden \[sic\] presses him personally on politics of criminal prosecutions of his political’ opponents, Podesta responded. ‘I would say worth the risk.’” The Wolves of K Street ends on a weary note: “No matter what new obstacles have emerged, K Street has always managed to invent new ways to exercise its power over Washington,” the Mullins brothers conclude. “New fortunes to be made, new rules to be broken. New stories to be told.” One might well reach for Ecclesiastes, son of David: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” * _The Wolves of K Street is_ _[published in the US](https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-wolves-of-k-street-the-secret-history-of-how-big-money-took-over-big-government-luke-mullins/20712498?ean=9781982120597)_ _by Simon & Schuster_

Paul Manafort, the longtime Republican strategist and chairman of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign, who had assumed an unpaid role advising party officials on the nominating convention, stepped aside on Saturday after questions arose about his involvement in the convention’s planning process. Mr. Manafort’s move came after The New York Times reported that he had been on the ground in Milwaukee last week for planning meetings for the convention, as well as a [Washington Post story](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/10/paul-manafort-pardon-donald-trump-china/) that said he was involved in work connected to foreign officials and businesses. “As a longtime, staunch supporter of President Trump and given my nearly 50 years experience in managing presidential conventions, I was offering my advice and suggestions to the Trump campaign on the upcoming convention in a volunteer capacity,” Mr. Manafort told The Times, in a statement provided by the Trump campaign. “However, it is clear that the media wants to use me as a distraction to try and harm President Trump and his campaign by recycling old news,” he said. “And I won’t let the media do that. So, I will stick to the sidelines and support President Trump every other way I can” to help defeat President Biden, the statement said. Trump campaign officials declined to comment. Mr. Manafort, who helped stave off efforts to thwart Mr. Trump’s nomination at the 2016 convention, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison for various financial crimes, including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering — unrelated to the 2016 campaign — before being pardoned by Mr. Trump before he left office. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort-republican-convention.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort-republican-convention.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort-republican-convention.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort-republican-convention.html).

Have you all noticed the Republican stars and wannabes showing up at Donald Trump’s trial? Speaker Mike Johnson; Senators J.D. Vance and Rick Scott; Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota; Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton; the professional irritant Vivek Ramaswamy … the G.O.P. is clearly eager to show it is standing by its man. For its part, Team Trump may just be happy to have _some_ respectable, unindicted players on Mr. Trump’s side. OK, [Mr. Paxton](https://apnews.com/article/politics-district-of-columbia-ken-paxton-texas-crime-e3cbc749a3e5ee1f75957df8a77401f4) doesn’t [strictly meet](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-texas-plea-deal-securities-fraud.html) those [criteria](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/texas-bar-ken-paxton-2020-election/#:~:text=A%20disciplinary%20committee%20for%20the%20State%20Bar%20of,four%20battleground%20states%20won%20by%20President%20Joe%20Biden.), but you get my point. A man is known by the company he keeps. And of the many sordid ways Mr. Trump sets himself apart, his crew of henchmen is a doozy. Several have been slouching back into the limelight of late, underscoring just what kind of ethics-’n-integrity we’d get in Trump II. Michael Cohen deserves top billing with his [juicy court appearances](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/13/nyregion/trump-trial-michael-cohen#michael-cohen-trump-trial) this week, as Mr. Trump’s former fixer shared the nitty-gritty of how to keep your boss’s alleged extramarital encounters from blowing up a presidential campaign. But then there’s Steve Bannon, who just suffered another setback in his ongoing legal drama. Rudy Giuliani lost a gig. And Paul Manafort — talk about a blast from the past! — hit a snag while trying to wriggle his way back into the political arena. Revisiting these guys and their antics is like stumbling across a hinky septic tank. You want to get clear of the stench as swiftly as possible. But it is important to stop and smell the sewage. With Mr. Trump having been out of office for a few years, it is all too easy for people to [lapse into nostalgia](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/opinion/biden-trump-poll.html) and forget the degree to which he surrounds himself with grifters, thugs and skeezeballs. This is hardly surprising when you consider Mr. Trump’s own moral fiber, or lack thereof. (Game recognizes game!) But voters used to judge candidates partly by the people they hired and hung around with. Mr. Trump’s ability to escape serious guilt by association, including when the associates are misbehaving explicitly at his behest or to save his backside, is among his most … impressive talents. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F15%2Fopinion%2Fmichael-cohen-donald-trump.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F15%2Fopinion%2Fmichael-cohen-donald-trump.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F15%2Fopinion%2Fmichael-cohen-donald-trump.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F05%2F15%2Fopinion%2Fmichael-cohen-donald-trump.html).

There’s no justifying it, but I have a sneaky soft spot for Michael Cohen, the former lawyer, fixer and – as Fox News is keen to remind us – “ex-con” testifying against Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush-money trial. Coming hard on the heels of Daniels’ [explosive appearance](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/trump-voters-stormy-daniels-testimony-republican-democrat) last week, Cohen’s testimony could have been anticlimactic. Not so! The 57-year-old, navigating a tricky line between languid, affable and sheepish, met tough questioning by Trump’s lawyers with the calmness of a man with nothing to lose and a lot of unfinished business to get through. Cohen, you’ll remember, literally [did time](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/who-is-michael-cohen-former-trump-lawyer-fraud-trial-witness) for those hush-money payments (among other things), so it’s fair to say he might have a few scores to settle. If Cohen’s return to court felt inevitable, it is in line with so many members of Trump’s former inner circle, all of whom, given time, seem to revolve back into view like the fish at Yo! Sushi. Cohen is one of an effective Marvel Universe of characters unleashed by the Trump administration who, eight years after Trump entered the White House, are serious contenders as our era’s lasting, historical villains. Among these Cohen, much like [Anthony Scaramucci](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jul/17/the-guy-stinks-and-hes-a-racist-anthony-scaramucci-on-donald-trump), the banker and Trump’s former press secretary, and – I’ll stick my neck out here – Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former lawyer who is facing his own indictments plus a [$148m defamation judgment](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/15/rudy-giuliani-pay-damages-election-workers-defamation-trial) against him, occupy the role of second-tier villains to main players such as Roger Stone, Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort (also [back in the news](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/politics/trump-manafort-republican-convention.html) this week, four years after being released from prison). As slapstick as they are rogueish, these guys could be extras in Bugsy Malone, or the great American novel Dickens never wrote. And if they are as opportunistic as everyone else in Trump’s world, you have to admit they are highly entertaining. In court this week Cohen, looking like the Fonz and sounding like the former personal injury lawyer from Long Island he is, somehow survived the [defence team’s attempts](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/14/cohen-cross-examination-trump-lawyer-todd) to discredit him, and managed to land a series of blows on his former employer. It should not, in all honesty, have been so. Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to a combination of federal campaign violations he says he undertook on Trump’s behalf and tax evasion crimes all of his own, nonetheless presented in unruffled form a jaw-dropping account of how Trump got him to pay off Stormy Daniels, then covered up the payments. This is the crux of the case, and Cohen, assuming a mild air that somehow made his testimony all the more devastating, didn’t mince words. It reminded me of that bit in A Fish Called Wanda when Jamie Lee Curtis, in the witness box at the Old Bailey, says casually that, yes, she could be absolutely sure of what time her boyfriend had left the house because, “I was saying to myself, ‘It’s five to seven, where could he be going with that sawed-off shotgun?’” The shotgun in this case was a series of repayments allegedly made by Trump to Cohen, which Cohen says the former president was aware were being disguised as a legal retainer. Cohen smoothly shared details of a meeting he had with Trump in the Oval Office in 2017, in which he alleges Trump promised to repay Cohen the $130,000, which Cohen himself had already paid to Stormy Daniels. At later meetings, in the presence of [Allen Weisselberg,](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/10/allen-weisselberg-sentenced-perjury-trump-fraud-trial) the then chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, Cohen maintains Trump was present while the lie about the nature of these payments was cooked up. When asked by a prosecutor to confirm what, in fact, the 11 cheques paid to Cohen by Trump were for, he replied coolly. “The reimbursement to me for the hush-money fee.” The fact that Cohen reviles his former boss, loyalty to whom has cost him everything, should have been his second most undermining characteristic as a witness – after the fact he’s a convicted liar. Somehow, however, things didn’t pan out this way. Trump’s lawyers came at Cohen again and again as a bitter former employee seeking revenge. His vested interest in seeing Trump jailed – the maximum penalty for the charges Trump faces is four years in prison – was, at one unmatchable point in the proceedings, linked to the fact Cohen sells a line of T-shirts featuring an image of Trump behind bars. Nothing in fiction could improve upon this. Perhaps it is just a case of my enemy’s enemy, but watching the drama this week it was hard not to feel some warmth towards Cohen, a type of New York hustler whose entire career is on a par with those pilot fish who survive by nibbling plankton off a whale. Convicted liar though he may be, it’s striking to see him appear so soberingly honest about one thing. Trump’s lawyer, hoping to prove that Cohen is a compromised witness, at one stage read out some remarks Cohen had allegedly made about Trump that included calling him a “boorish cartoon misogynist” and a “Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain”. Lightly, Cohen responded, “Sounds like something I would say.” * Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist

In the opening scene of [Stormy](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/16/stormy-daniels-documentary), the documentary about Stormy Daniels’ life, she says: “I have just been tormented for the last five years or so. And here I am, I’m still here.” Probably the worst of the torment has been from Donald Trump’s supporters, though they’ve never got together to explain what they’re angry about. Is it that Daniels claims she had sex with Trump, in 2006? That she accepted $130,000 to keep quiet about it? Surely, if he’s the richest and most virile man America ever produced, you’d think that was no big deal for him, and nice for her? Instead, as she described on the stand, giving evidence against Trump, the Maga lot have made her life a misery. Death threats layered with lurid threats of sexual violence, enough that she was constantly worried for the safety of her family, have poured in since 2018, when the Wall Street Journal first broke the story. Most likely, they are angered at Daniels’ failure to take Trump seriously. Was it the closely observed descriptions of his penis, in her memoir, or her Make America Horny Again strip club tour? Whatever you make of her, she has never seemed cowed; and in the peculiar cross-hatch of prurience and misogyny through which the hard right sees the world, a porn star is golden while she agrees with you, and contemptible once she doesn’t. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/04/stormy-daniels-never-been-cowed-now-vindicated#EmailSignup-skip-link-3) Sign up to Trump on Trial Stay up to date on all of Donald Trump’s trials. Guardian staff will send weekly updates each Wednesday – as well as bonus editions on major trial days. **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion All that virulent hatred alone would be enough to sink a regular person, but Daniels has also spent the past six years in court, on and off, asking Trump to stop lying about her. She [lost her defamation case](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/11/stormy-daniels-lawsuit-pay-trump-legal-fees), then lost again on appeal, leaving her owing Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. She came out pretty gung-ho on this debt, vowing not to pay it, but that’s not really how courts work. It’s not a game of chicken. And now, finally, she is not just vindicated but at the white-hot centre of Donald Trump’s 34 felony convictions, which is 34 more than any former president in the country’s history. Other former members of his team who have been convicted in court include his campaign chairman (Paul Manafort Jr), his deputy campaign manager (Rick Gates), one of his lawyers (Michael Cohen), his chief strategist (Steve Bannon), several advisers (Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and George Papadopoulos) and his company CFO (Allen Weisselberg). I just couldn’t be more thrilled for Ms Daniels – that she’s one of very few people to cross paths with Trump and not end up with a criminal record. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist _**Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our [letters](https://www.theguardian.com/tone/letters) section, please [click here](mailto:[email protected]?body=Please%20include%20your%20name,%20full%20postal%20address%20and%20phone%20number%20with%20your%20letter%20below.%20Letters%20are%20usually%20published%20with%20the%20author%27s%20name%20and%20city/town/village.%20The%20rest%20of%20the%20information%20is%20for%20verification%20only%20and%20to%20contact%20you%20where%20necessary.).**_

A few years ago, Paul Manafort was a disgraced political operative living in a windowless cell. If Donald Trump wins in November, Mr. Manafort is likely to re-emerge as one of the most powerful people in Washington. Because of Mr. Trump’s transactional nature and singular method of wielding power, as president, he would probably empower a small group of lobbyists who could profit from their access. Though no one elected them, these gatekeepers could exercise sweeping influence over U.S. policy on behalf of corporations and foreign governments, at the expense of regular Americans who can’t afford their services. Rather than drain the swamp, an unleashed President Trump would return the lobbying industry to the smoke-filled rooms of the 1930s, an era unchallenged by the decades of reforms since Watergate. And Mr. Manafort, whose career has been based on lobbying the same people he helped put in office, would be at the center. “A new Trump administration would be a bonanza for Paul,” says Scott Reed, a Republican political strategist who hired Mr. Manafort to work on Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. “Trump is the Manafort model: access at the highest levels for his clients and friends.” A second Trump term, with the likelihood of yes-men and lackeys having more sway than political professionals and civil servants, would all but return Washington to an era when the nation’s laws were negotiated over steak dinners and golf. In the early 1970s, the leaders of a U.S. tool and die company worried about losing a Defense Department contract. They met with the era’s top lobbyist, Tommy Corcoran, who had worked in the White House for President Franklin Roosevelt and later advised Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Corcoran picked up the phone and called a Pentagon contact. After a brief exchange, he hung up. “Your problems are over,” he told his new clients. His $10,000 bill is roughly the equivalent of $75,000 today. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F06%2F20%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-manafort-lobbying.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F06%2F20%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-manafort-lobbying.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F06%2F20%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-manafort-lobbying.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F06%2F20%2Fopinion%2Ftrump-manafort-lobbying.html).

With this month’s revelations that Hunter Biden [directly contacted](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukrainian-company.html) American officials for the benefit of foreign clients in Ukraine and allegedly Romania, and with Mr. Biden facing a new trial next month stemming from charges of tax evasion for the millions he received from foreign sources, the time has come to finally charge him as an unregistered foreign agent. Originally enacted in 1938, the primary regulations targeting foreign lobbyists, known as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), are straightforward, requiring Americans who are paid to push foreign interests to register their work with the federal government. It doesn’t make the practice illegal — lobbying is, thanks to the First Amendment, still a constitutionally protected right — but it does bring transparency to an otherwise opaque world, forcing foreign lobbyists to disclose what they’re doing, who they’re doing it for, and how much they’re being paid in the process. While FARA was unfortunately largely unenforced for decades after it took effect, the law has seen new life in recent years as prosecutors have [finally begun going after](https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases) unregistered foreign agents. We’ve known that myriad foreign companies and foreign oligarchs have targeted Mr. Biden, tossing significant sums at him while his father served as vice president. With each revelation, and with each new foreign client revealed, the president’s detractors have wailed that the younger Mr. Biden violated foreign lobbying laws, which required him to disclose what he was doing abroad — as well as reveal the Americans he’d been targeting on behalf of his foreign benefactors. Mr. Biden’s highly questionable foreign dealings have for years appeared more smoke than fire; there was previously no evidence that he illicitly lobbied any American officials. Compared to figures such as the [former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/opinion/trump-manafort-lobbying.html), who was caught out as an illegal foreign lobbyist (among plenty of other crimes), Mr. Biden’s alleged foreign lobbying misdeeds appeared to fall short of crossing the line into criminality. They may have put a lie to President Biden’s [claimed concerns](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-09-03/danger-banning-foreign-lobbying) about foreign influence campaigns, but they were never worthy of formal charges. With the new details, though, that has changed, giving prosecutors the opening to pursue the president’s son as one of the most prominent foreign lobbyists the United States has ever seen. Take the new reporting on Mr. Biden’s work for the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma. As The [Times reported](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/us/politics/hunter-biden-special-counsel-strategy.html), Mr. Biden, who served as a board member on the firm, “sought assistance” from American officials “for a potentially lucrative energy project,” writing at least one letter to the U.S. ambassador to Italy in 2016 to help aid Burisma — actions that, in other words, appear to be direct lobbying of an American diplomat for the benefit of his foreign firm. Meanwhile, prosecutors [claimed last week](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/us/politics/hunter-biden-special-counsel-strategy.html) that a local Romanian magnate accused of corruption hired Mr. Biden not for any legal expertise, but to convince American officials to work with Romanian authorities to help thwart a criminal investigation into the magnate’s finances. It was, according to a potential witness [cited by the government](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25034281-the-special-counsel-responds-to-hunter-bidens-arguments-about-fara-aug-7-2024), an “attempt to influence U.S. government agencies” — part of a broader pattern of Mr. Biden “perform\[ing\] almost no work in exchange for the millions of dollars he received” from assorted foreign entities. Moreover, prosecutors claim that the Romanian deal was specifically structured to dodge basic foreign lobbying transparency — drafted as a “property management” arrangement, in which Mr. Biden received at least $1 million — all to avoid “political ramifications” for President Biden. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F16%2Fopinion%2Fhunter-biden-foreign-agent.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F16%2Fopinion%2Fhunter-biden-foreign-agent.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F16%2Fopinion%2Fhunter-biden-foreign-agent.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F16%2Fopinion%2Fhunter-biden-foreign-agent.html).

The [Israeli](https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel) government sought legal advice on a US federal law requiring the disclosure of foreign-backed lobbying campaigns, out of concern that mounting enforcement of the law could ensnare American groups working in coordination with the Israeli government, leaked documents reviewed by the Guardian suggest. Emails and legal memos originating from a hack of the Israeli justice ministry show that officials feared that the country’s advocacy efforts in the US could trigger the US law governing foreign agents. The documents show that officials proposed creating a new American nonprofit in order to continue Israel’s activities in the US while avoiding scrutiny under the law. A legal strategy memo dated July 2018 noted that compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (Fara) would damage the reputation of several American groups that receive funding and direction from Israel, and force them to meet onerous transparency requirements. A separate memo noted that donors would not want to fund groups registered under Fara. Fara requires people working on behalf of a foreign government to register as foreign agents with the US justice department. In listing reasons for avoiding Fara, the memo says that the law compels registrants to “flag any piece of ‘propaganda’ that is distributed to two or more parties in the US, with a disclaimer stating that it was delivered by a foreign agent and then submit a copy of the ‘propaganda’ to the US Department of Justice within 48 hours”. To prevent Fara registration, and the stigma and scrutiny associated with it, the legal advisers suggested channeling funds through a third-party American nonprofit. Liat Glazer, then a legal adviser to Israel’s ministry of strategic affairs, writes that even though the nonprofit would not be formally managed from Israel, “we will have means of supervision and management” – for example, through grant-making and “informal coordination mechanisms” including “oral meetings and updates”. The discussions around circumnavigating Fara focused on a “[PR commando unit](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5063599,00.html)” formed by the strategic affairs ministry in 2017 to improve Israel’s image abroad. The group, a private-public partnership, was originally known as “Kela Shlomo” (which translates to “Solomon’s Sling”) before being rebranded as “Concert” in 2018 and “Voices of Israel” in 2021. Its initial mission was to undermine the BDS movement targeting Israel with boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns in protest of its policies towards Palestinians. Over the course of its history, the group has [supported](https://forward.com/israel/453286/us-pro-israel-groups-failed-to-disclose-grants-from-israeli-government/) American nonprofits advocating for anti-BDS laws and [coordinated](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/24/israel-fund-us-university-protest-gaza-antisemitism) campaigns to push back against pro-Palestinian activities on US campuses. The emails and documents were released by Distributed Denial of Secrets, or DDoSecrets, a US-based nonprofit responsible for disseminating a number of high-profile hacks in recent years. The original source for the documents was a group calling itself “Anonymous for Justice”, a self-described “hacktivist collective” that [announced](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-justice-ministry-reviewing-cyber-incident-after-hacktivists-claim-breach-2024-04-05/) in April it had infiltrated Israel’s ministry of justice and retrieved hundreds of gigabytes of data. Amnesty International’s security lab analyzed the data set and “determined the files are consistent with a hack-and-leak attack targeting a series of email accounts”. The group said: “It was not possible to cryptographically verify the authenticity of the emails, as critical email metadata was removed by the hackers during a pre-processing step before release.” It added: “Technical indicators in other files from the leak, including a sampling of PDFs and Microsoft Word documents reviewed by Amnesty International did not show obvious signs of having been tampered with.” Previous [reporting](https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/jul/25/israel-tried-to-frustrate-us-lawsuit-over-pegasus-spyware-leak-suggests) in the Guardian on the hacked archive revealed Israeli government attempts to thwart discovery in a lawsuit brought by WhatsApp against the infamous spyware company NSO Group. Following the leak, Israel imposed a gag order to prevent the documents from being publicized. Earlier this year, the Guardian [exclusively](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/24/israel-fund-us-university-protest-gaza-antisemitism) reported that Voices of Israel was rebooted shortly after the outbreak of the Gaza war following the 7 October terror attacks by Hamas. Amichai Chikli, the Likud minister of diaspora affairs, who oversees the latest iteration of the project, informed the Knesset that the group was set to go “on the offensive” against American students protesting against the [Gaza war](https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war). The heightened concern over Fara around 2018 was sparked in part by a series of enforcement [actions](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/paul-manafort-guilty-plea-highlights-increased-enforcement-foreign-agents-registration-act) against Trump administration officials for unregistered lobbying for foreign interests. The July 2018 Israeli legal memo noted that “in the past, Fara was applied to countries hostile to the US”, such as Russia and Pakistan. Glazer warned that the new atmosphere of enforcement, given the ties between the Israeli prime minister [Benjamin Netanyahu](https://www.theguardian.com/world/benjamin-netanyahu) and [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump), could lead to a formal investigation by the US justice department. In response, the documents show, the Israeli government retained Sandler Reiff, a prominent election and campaign law firm in Washington, to analyze the Fara risks posed by Concert and other Israeli advocacy efforts to shape American policy and opinion. The two primary contacts for the engagement were Joseph E Sandler, the former in-house general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and Joshua I Rosenstein, a widely cited expert on Fara. Another memo from 2018, which summarized a discussion led by then deputy attorney general Dina Zilber, noted increased public attention to Fara due to “the investigation into Donald Trump and officials in his government suspected of operating as ‘foreign agents’ for the Russian government”. The document notes advice from senior Israeli advisors who assert that “donors are not interested in donating to groups registered under Fara”. The memo recommended creating a new American nonprofit which Kela Shlomo/Concert could funnel money through, thereby providing distance between US nonprofits and the Israeli government – though the head of the nonprofit would also serve in Kela Shlomo’s leadership. It also notes potential downsides of creating such an American intermediary: both weaker Israeli government control, and a mechanism that could be interpreted for what it was: an attempt to sidestep Fara. The documents reference concerns on the part of US groups over triggering Fara enforcement, concerns that officials say hindered their ability to conduct advocacy in the US. In 2018, the news outlet the Forward [reported](https://forward.com/news/401876/israeli-ministrys-repeated-efforts-to-fund-american-jewish-groups-rejected/) that several Jewish American organizations had rejected funding from Concert due to concerns over Fara risk. In Glazer’s December 2019 email, she noted that if it became public that Israel sought legal advice on Fara, this could “raise claims that the state of Israel wants to unacceptably interfere in US matters and spark a public debate on a sensitive issue in Israel-US relations”. To avoid the potential public relations fallout, Glazer urged secrecy surrounding the Israeli government’s hiring of Sandler Reiff, the American law firm retained to study the issue. “Exposing the name of the law firm could thwart the entire relationship,” she cautioned, “as I understand it was agreed with them that the engagement with \[Israel\] would not be revealed.” Multiple memos and emails show that Sandler Reiff analyzed Fara-related questions from 2018 through at least 2022. Sandler and Rosenstein did not respond to requests for comment. Brig Gen Sima Vaknin-Gill, a former intelligence officer and former chief military [censor](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/israels-secret-keeper-seeks-censorship-reform-idUSKCN0Q41E2/) for the Israel Defense Forces who was intimately involved in the creation of Kela Shlomo, was copied on many of the emails and named in key documents concerning how to avoid Fara. Vaknin-Gill is now a board member of the Kansas-based nonprofit Combat Antisemitism Movement (Cam). Cam was set up one year after the ministry of strategic affairs, where Vaknin-Gill was director-general, proposed its strategy to mitigate Fara risk by setting up an American nonprofit funded by Concert. Cam has publicly disclosed that it is a partner of Concert and Israel’s ministry of diaspora affairs, but the organization has [refused](https://forward.com/news/467981/dark-money-questionable-partners-behind-new-group-fighting-antisemitism/) requests from journalists to disclose its funders. When reached for comment, Cam stated that it “was not established by, nor is it influenced by, the Israeli government” and emphasized that Cam is “a global interfaith coalition that unites over 850 partner organizations”. “If there is a deliberate effort by Israeli governmental officials to influence American policy and/or public opinion on foreign affairs,” noted Craig Holman, a lobbying expert with Public Citizen, “this would constitute a Fara violation not just by the US agents serving the Israeli government, but also by any person or nonprofit organization in the US who is a knowing participant.” Glazer, the author of one of the Fara memos who helped organize several meetings around the issue, left the government in 2021 and [joined Google](https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/h1xomo9na) as one of the company’s lobbyists in Israel. Glazer did not respond to a request for comment through Google. The secrecy surrounding the ministry of strategic affairs’ US-focused advocacy campaigns was [challenged](https://www.the7eye.org.il/276553) through freedom of information requests by Israeli news outlets, [particularly](https://www.the7eye.org.il/382244) the independent media watchdog Seventh Eye. After years of denied requests, the newsrooms eventually prevailed and obtained a series of Concert-related funding documents from the ministry. The documents showed Kela Shlomo/Concert grants to several American advocacy groups, including Christian Zionist organizations such as Christians United for Israel and the Israel Allies Foundation. The latter was involved in helping to pass anti-BDS state laws penalizing Americans from engaging in certain forms of boycotts targeting the Israeli government. In 2018, the ministry of strategic affairs also [approved](https://cdn.the7eye.org.il/uploads/2017/12/276242-282147.pdf) a $445,000 grant to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (Isgap), which totaled about 80% of the organization’s reported annual budget. The nonprofit initially disputed the precise amount but [conceded](https://forward.com/israel/453339/israel-antisemitism-isgap-think-tank-foreign-funding/) Israeli [government support](https://thecjn.ca/news/ngo-looks-to-combat-anti-semitism-through-academia/) when reached by the Forward. Fara includes an exemption for “academic” projects that do not entail political activity. Last year, Vaknin-Gill, the Israeli intelligence officer involved in the formation of Kela Shlomo/Concert and the discussions about avoiding Fara registration, joined Isgap as its managing director. Isgap has expanded its advocacy role in recent months. The group took credit for influencing the contentious December 2023 congressional hearing with elite college presidents, which preceded Harvard president Claudine Gay’s [resignation](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/02/harvard-president-claudine-gay-resigns). In recent months, Isgap has met with congressional leaders regularly as the group has urged investigations of pro-Palestinian student demonstrators. In an email sent in December 2019, Glazer emphasized the need to find a solution that would alleviate Fara-related concerns on the part of American groups. “There have already been requests by the US Department of Justice made of a number of pro-Israeli entities in the past,” the email says. “The ministry already faces real challenges in operating with groups in the US, and this could hurt the various groups that are willing to work with the ministry or with \[Concert\] and ultimately harm the office’s activities in dealing with the phenomenon of delegitimization and boycotts.”

The US is still not prepared for inevitable Russian attacks on its elections, the former special counsel [Robert Mueller](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/robert-mueller), who investigated Russian interference in 2016 and links between Donald Trump and Moscow, warns in a new book. “It is … evident that Americans have not learned the lessons of Russia’s attack on our democracy in 2016,” Mueller writes in a preface to Interference: The Inside Story of Trump, [Russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia) and the Mueller Investigation by Aaron Zebley, James Quarles and Andrew Goldstein, prosecutors who worked for Mueller from 2017 to 2019. Mueller continues: “As we detailed in our report, the evidence was clear that the Russian government engaged in multiple, systematic attacks designed to undermine our democracy and favor one candidate over the other.” That candidate was Trump, the Republican who beat the Democrat, Hillary Clinton, for the White House. “We were not prepared then,” Mueller writes, “and, despite many efforts of dedicated people across the government, we are not prepared now. This threat deserves the attention of every American. Russia attacked us before and will do so again.” Interference will be [published](https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/untitled-s-s-nf-if-to-be-confirmed-simon-schuster/7709017) in the US next week. The Guardian obtained a copy. Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein tell the story of the Mueller investigation, from its beginnings in May 2017 after Trump [fired the FBI director](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/09/james-comey-fbi-fired-donald-trump), James Comey, to its conclusion in March 2019 with moves by William Barr, Trump’s second attorney general, to [obscure and dismiss](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/24/mueller-report-donald-trump-william-barr) Mueller’s findings. Mueller did not establish collusion between Trump and Moscow but did initiate criminal proceedings against three Russian entities and 34 people, with those convicted including a Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was jailed. Mueller also laid out [10 instances](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-james-comey-north-america-e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8) of possible obstruction of justice by Trump. Though he did not indict Trump, citing justice department policy regarding sitting presidents, Mueller [said](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice) he was not clearing him either. Mueller now says Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein “care deeply about the rule of law and know the importance of making decisions with integrity and humility”, adding: “These qualities matter most when some refuse to play by the rules, and others are urging you to respond in kind.” [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/18/russia-election-interference-robert-mueller#img-2) Photograph: Simon & Schuster The FBI director from 2001 to 2013, Mueller was 72 and widely admired for his rectitude when he was made special counsel. His former prosecutors describe a White House meeting preceding that appointment. In an atmosphere of high tension, Mueller made his entry “via a warren of passages beneath the Eisenhower Executive Office Building”, thereby avoiding the press. Trump, who wanted Mueller to return as FBI director, “did most of the talking” but though he praised Mueller richly, Mueller declined the offer. As the authors write, Trump “would later [claim](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-again-claims-mueller-wanted-to-return-as-fbi-director-an-assertion-mueller-disputes/2019/07/24/bf78e6c2-ae2f-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html) that Bob came to the meeting asking to be FBI director”, and that Trump “turned him down”. “This was false,” the prosecutors write. Soon after the White House interview, the New York Times [reported](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html) memos kept by Comey about Trump’s request to shut down an investigation of Michael Flynn, the national security adviser who [resigned](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/13/michael-flynn-resigns-quits-trump-national-security-adviser-russia) after lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador. Soon after that, Mueller was appointed special counsel. Trump escaped punishment arising from Mueller’s work but did lose the White House in 2020, when he was beaten by Joe Biden. Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein’s book arrives as another election looms, with Trump in a tight race with the vice-president, Kamala Harris, and shortly after US authorities [outlined](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/04/russia-accused-of-trying-to-influence-us-voters-through-online-campaign) how pro-Trump influencers were paid large sums by Russia. On Tuesday, a new threat intelligence report from Microsoft [said](https://apnews.com/article/russia-disinformation-foreign-influence-election-microsoft-7f802f9f4a0efe206fdaad29516b1f7f) Russia was accelerating covert influence efforts against Harris. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/18/russia-election-interference-robert-mueller#EmailSignup-skip-link-15) Sign up to First Thing Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion US presidential elections are often the subject of “October surprises”, late-breaking scandals which can tilt a race. In 2016, October brought both Trump’s [Access Hollywood scandal](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/07/donald-trump-leaked-recording-women), in which he was recorded bragging about sexual assault, and the release by WikiLeaks of Democratic emails [hacked by Russia](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/07/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-paid-wall-street-speeches). In Interference, Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein tell how the Mueller team came to its conclusion that Russia boosted Trump in 2016. They also detail attempts to interview Trump that were blocked by his attorneys, Rudy Giuliani among them. Describing how the former New York mayor betrayed a promise to keep an April 2018 meeting confidential, speaking openly if inaccurately to the press, the authors say Mueller “decided he would never again meet or speak with Giuliani – and he never did. For Bob it was a matter of trust.” More than six years on, Giuliani faces criminal charges arising from his work to overturn Trump’s 2020 defeat, as well as [costly civil proceedings](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/30/georgia-election-workers-giuliani-assets-defamation-case). Trump also faces civil penalties and criminal charges, having been convicted on 34 counts in New York over hush-money payments made before the 2016 election. Though Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein focus on the Russia investigation, in doing so they voice dismay regarding the US supreme court, to which Trump appointed three rightwing justices and which has this year twice cast his criminal cases into doubt. The authors describe how Mueller’s team decided not to subpoena Trump for in-person testimony, given delays one Trump attorney said would result from inevitable “war” on the matter. Looking ahead, the authors consider new supreme court opinions that will shape such face-offs in future. [Fischer v United States](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jun/28/supreme-court-january-6-rioters), the authors say, narrows the scope of the obstruction of justice statute “that was the focus of volume II of our report”. More dramatically, in [Trump v United States](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/16/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-ruling), the court held “that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution when carrying out ‘core’ constitutional functions … and has ‘presumptive’ immunity for all ‘official actions’”. Though the court ruled a president was not immune for “unofficial actions”, Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein warn that it nonetheless “sharply limited the areas of presidential conduct that can be subject to criminal investigation – permitting a president to use his or her power in wholly corrupt ways without the possibility of prosecution”.

 When Olga Belogolova moved to Washington, DC, in 2010, Russian state-owned broadcaster RT was making a big push in the U.S. “I remember going to bars in this town and seeing RT on televisions, just on,” Belogolova, who is now director of the Emerging Technologies Initiative at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, recalls. RT was long known to be government-funded and a source of Russian propaganda. But it claimed to be independent. It hired American journalists, and featured some big names like former CNN host [Larry King](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/business/media/moscow-joins-the-partisan-media-landscape-with-familiar-american-faces.html). The channel’s aesthetic was sleek, modern, and cable news-like. But over the years, as American relations with Russia cooled, skepticism of RT grew. Now, the U.S. government has accused RT and its parent company, Rossiya Segodnya, of going beyond [propaganda](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/06/g-s1-2965/russia-propaganda-deepfakes-sham-websites-social-media-ukraine), as part of the [Kremlin’s efforts](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/04/nx-s1-5100329/us-russia-election-interference-bots-2024) to destabilize democracies and erode international support for Ukraine. “They are engaged in covert influence activities aimed at undermining American elections and democracies, functioning like a de facto arm of Russia's intelligence apparatus,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a press conference this month. That includes a scheme to funnel nearly $10 million to [pro-Trump American influencers](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube), over which the Justice Department recently indicted two RT employees. Responding to Blinken’s accusation, an RT statement joked that the organization has been “broadcasting straight out of the KGB headquarters all this time.” From the war in Georgia to Occupy Wall Street --------------------------------------------- RT originally launched in 2005 as Russia Today, a round-the-clock English language news channel. It had a clear mission: to “reflect the Russian position on the main issues of international politics and inform the wider public about the events and phenomena of Russian life,” according to Nina Jankowicz, who has studied Russian information operations and also co-founded the American Sunlight Project.  The channel’s first big moment came in 2008 during Russia’s war in Georgia. Russia Today presented itself as a counterpoint to coverage on CNN and other international outlets that its editor-in-chief said was biased towards the Georgians. In the following years, the network shortened its name to RT, launched channels in [Arabic and Spanish](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/business/russia-propaganda-spanish-social-media.html), and began broadcasting from Washington, DC, under the name RT America. It also built a big [online presence](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/09/how-the-rt-network-built-a-us-audience.html) on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and its own website. As RT evolved, one constant was its approach as a [provocative alternative](https://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php) to Western media, in a “just asking questions” mode seemingly aimed at younger, left-leaning Americans. It adopted the slogan “Question More” and in 2010 launched a [controversial advertising campaign](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz) with the phrase. [One ad](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/russia-today-courts-viewers-with-controversy) asked whether then President Barack Obama or Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad posed “the greater nuclear threat?” That contrarian approach got RT noticed, including for its coverage of the anti-wealth inequality Occupy Wall Street movement of the early 2010s. But RT’s legitimate reporting was mixed with sensationalism, seizing on stories of grievance and chaos in the U.S. “They also engage in ragebait…in disaster footage and kind of the shock and awe value,” Jankowicz said. Russia has long deflected scrutiny of issues like its own human rights violations by highlighting the U.S.’s own social problems. RT has also trafficked in outright [conspiracism](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jul/30/peter-lavelle/rts-peter-lavelle-says-he-doesnt-allow-conspiracy-/), from the [false claim](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/russian-tv-channel-pushes-patriot-conspiracy-theories) that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the US to [bogus theories](https://web.archive.org/web/20130501141951/http://rt.com/usa/911-attack-job/) about the September 11th attacks. Scrutiny increases as views of Russia soured -------------------------------------------- Jankowicz says RT’s image began to shift when Russia illegally annexed [Crimea](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/12/1080205477/history-ukraine-russia) in 2014. American RT anchor [Liz Wahl quit on air](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/06/286807718/russian-tv-host-quits-over-network-whitewash-of-crimea), saying “I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin.” “The masks were off. It was clear that RT was just shilling for the Russian point of view,” Jankowicz said. [Scrutiny](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/26/560199026/twitter-ends-russian-state-media-advertisements-citing-2016-interference-efforts) of Russian state media [escalated](https://www.npr.org/2017/06/09/532196946/russia-needs-to-counter-mainstream-media-head-of-rt-network-says) with the revelations that the Kremlin sought to [tip the 2016 presidential election](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903512647/senate-report-former-trump-aide-paul-manafort-shared-campaign-info-with-russia) to Donald Trump. U.S. intelligence officials accused RT of being [involved](https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-rt-media/) in election meddling, and RT America was forced to register with the Justice Department as a [foreign agent](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/564045159/rt-america-firm-registers-as-foreign-agent-in-u-s-russia-looks-to-retaliate). In January 2019, [Facebook took down](https://about.fb.com/news/2019/01/removing-cib-from-russia/) hundreds of pages posing as independent European news sites that were actually run by employees of an RT sister brand called Sputnik. A month later, [CNN reported](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/tech/russia-facebook-viral-videos/index.html) that Maffick Media, which made online videos targeting left-leaning millennials, was funded by an RT subsidiary – without any disclosure. The fake news sites in particular were a precursor to what RT is accused of doing today, said Belogolova, who was leading Facebook’s Russia investigations at the time. “It's not a totally novel thing for them to sort of blur the lines between covert and overt,” she said. After the invasion of Ukraine, RT adopts ‘guerrilla’ tactics ------------------------------------------------------------ Then came Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Many US cable companies dropped [RT America](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/12/business/rt-america-russian-tv.html), and the U.S. channel shut down. RT was [banned](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083633239/facebook-and-tiktok-block-russian-state-media-in-europe) across much of Europe, and was blocked globally on [YouTube](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083824030/techs-crackdown-on-russian-propaganda-is-a-geopolitical-high-wire-act), where it had racked up billions of views. So, the network looked for ways to keep pushing [pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine messages](https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159712623/how-russia-is-losing-and-winning-the-information-war-in-ukraine) — without the RT label. Speaking on Russian state television after this month’s Justice Department indictments, RT editor-in-chief [Margarita Simonyan](https://cepa.org/article/onward-putin-soldiers/) said RT started working “underground” using “guerilla operations” in places it lost access, including the U.S.  Simonyan wouldn't say whether the scheme involving several prominent right-wing American influencers is one of these operations. The influencers, who have not been charged, say they didn’t know the money came from Russia. RT has mocked the US government’s allegations. Speaking on Russian TV, Simonyan sarcastically told any listening U.S. officials: “Write down for yourself that all RT employees and, personally, the editor-in-chief obey only orders from the Kremlin. All other orders immediately become toilet paper!” RT’s worldwide footprint ------------------------ The [State Department says](https://www.state.gov/alerting-the-world-to-rts-global-covert-activities/) RT is running these kinds of covert operations around the world, from secretly operating media outlets in Africa and Germany to targeting elections in [Moldova](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/09/1162045645/from-tv-to-telegram-to-tiktok-moldova-is-being-flooded-with-russian-propaganda). US officials allege the Kremlin has even embedded a cyberintelligence unit inside RT. “RT has become a clearinghouse for a set of covert operations, covert influence activities, intelligence operations de facto, in country after country after country,” said James Rubin, head of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which focuses on foreign disinformation and propaganda.  Following the State Department’s announcement, Meta and TikTok banned RT and its affiliates from their apps. But the network still has a big [footprint](https://www.wired.com/story/russia-backed-media-outlets-are-under-fire-in-the-us-but-still-trusted-worldwide/) across Latin America and Africa, where critics say it broadcasts a steady stream of anti-Ukraine, anti-imperialist, anti-Western content. “One of the reasons why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be, given that Russia has invaded Ukraine and violated rule number one of the international system, is because of the broad scope and reach of RT, where propaganda, disinformation, and lies are spread to millions, if not billions, of people around the world,” Rubin said. Belogolova says transparency about what RT is up to is good — and that it’s important for people to know where their information is coming from. But she also warns against overstating the impact of these influence operations. “We're very capable here in the United States and in other countries of coming up with our own very stupid ideas and conspiracy theories,” she said. “And sometimes we don't need the help of the Russians to do that.”

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” said the [Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,](https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl) AKA the Mueller Report. “A Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” Robert Mueller, the special counsel, did not criminally charge Trump but did not give him a clean bill of health, contrary to misleading claims made by Bill Barr, Trump’s attorney general, in a 24 March 2019 letter – AKA the Barr Report. Barr’s bad-faith action angered Mueller and members of his team, among them prosecutors Aaron Zebley, James Quarles and Andrew Goldstein. So much so, the three have now written a book of their time at what was once the central maelstrom of American politics. “The purpose of appointing a special counsel was to shield the investigation from political interference so there would be public confidence in the outcome,” the three men now write in Interference, their look back at their time in the special counsel’s office. “That required the public to see our actual analysis and conclusions, not those of a politically appointed attorney general.” Under the subtitle The Inside Story of Trump, [Russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia), and the Mueller Investigation, Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein shed new light on the decisions not to subpoena or indict Trump, who Mueller nonetheless saw as a “subject” – someone “whose conduct is within the scope of the investigation”. The tenor of Interference is sober, not breathy. Its prose is dry. This is a book by establishmentarian lawyers. Their boss, an ex-US marine and FBI director, earned the sobriquet “Bobby Three-Sticks”, a reference to his name and the three-fingered Boy Scout salute. Justice department protocols barred federal prosecutors from charging an incumbent president, yet doubts lingered. “The department had twice taken the position, in writing, that a sitting president could not be indicted,” the authors acknowledge. But “if the special counsel’s office had evidence proving Trump truly was a Manchurian candidate, a puppet who was being directed by Russia in a way that was an immediate and ongoing threat, then the public interest in an indictment might be so great as to warrant pushing the department to revisit the \[Office of Legal Counsel\] opinion in order to safeguard the nation”. Also, Rod Rosenstein, the Janus-faced deputy attorney general who oversaw Mueller after Jeff Sessions, Trump’s first attorney general, recused himself, reportedly instructed Mueller to limit his investigation to criminal conduct connected with Russia’s election interference. “This is a criminal investigation,” Rosenstein purportedly [told Mueller](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/politics/trump-russia-justice-department.html). “Do your job, and then shut it down.” Examination of Trump’s prior ties to Russia was outside Mueller’s remit. Furthermore, a 2 August 2017 “scope memo” between Rosenstein and the special counsel gave the deputy attorney general the power to veto new lines of investigation, Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein now disclose. We know how the story ends. Trump was not charged. Associates were convicted, only to be pardoned. Roger Stone and Paul Manafort remain in Trumpworld. Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein portray Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, as untrustworthy. By the end, Mueller “decided he would never again meet or speak with Giuliani – and he never did”. Giuliani is now under indictment in Arizona and Georgia, for his role in Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Not everyone who worked for Mueller was thrilled with Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein. Andrew Weissmann, a Mueller deputy, now a New York University law professor and MSNBC commentator, has strafed Zebley for being overly cautious, adhering to a narrow reading of the special counsel’s mandate. In [Where Law Ends](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/where-law-ends-review-robert-mueller-donald-trump-andrew-weissmann): Inside the Mueller Investigation, his 2020 memoir, Weissmann hearkened back to the generals who served Abraham Lincoln, comparing Zebley to the “timorous” George McClellan, reluctant to fight the Confederates, while presenting himself as a hero, an approximation of Philip Sheridan and Ulysses S Grant. In turn, Zebley, Quarles and Goldstein see Weissmann as a zealot. Mueller and Zebley knew him but the decision to bring him on board engendered discussion. “He had a reputation for being unduly harsh with some defendants,” the authors write. In addition, Weissmann was already collecting information on Manafort, “almost as though it had been a hobby”. Maybe “that should have caused us to consider whether he was too interested in the investigation”. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/29/interference-book-review-mueller-report#EmailSignup-skip-link-15) Sign up to Bookmarks Discover new books and learn more about your favourite authors with our expert reviews, interviews and news stories. Literary delights delivered direct to you **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion Later, the authors describe Weissmann’s failed efforts to have the Manhattan district attorney resurrect the federal case against Manafort, after he had received a Trump pardon. As Interference arrives, the US is embroiled in another brutal election. Again, the Kremlin is in the mix. Earlier this month, the justice department [indicted](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-indicted-covertly-funding-and-directing-us-company-published-thousands) two employees of RT, the Russian propaganda machine, as part of “a $10m scheme to create and distribute content to US audiences”. Pro-Trump American lackeys purportedly benefited from such largesse. Trump continues to brag about his relationship with the Russian leader and his ilk. “I know Putin very well,” [he announced](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542) at the September debate. “I have a good relationship.” Also in September, federal prosecutors charged Dimitri and Anastasia Simes in a scheme to evade sanctions and launder money at the behest of Channel One Russia. Dimitri Simes previously led a thinktank with ties to the Kremlin and Trumpworld. His name appeared dozens of times in the Mueller Report, earning a whole subsection, Dimitri Simes and the Center for the National Interest. As he seeks a second presidency, Trump is unhinged and unrestrained. “I am your retribution,” he tells supporters. “I’m being indicted for you.” “We were not prepared then,” Mueller writes in his introduction to Interference, “and, despite many efforts of dedicated people across the government, we are not prepared now. This threat deserves the attention of every American. Russia attacked us before and will do so again.” * _Interference: The Inside Story of Trump, Russia, and the Mueller Investigation is_ _[published in the US](https://bookshop.org/p/books/untitled-s-s-nf-if-to-be-confirmed-simon-schuster/21389318?ean=9781668063743)_ _by HarperCollins_

“But stupidity is not enough,” wrote George Orwell in 1984. The facts must be eliminated. “Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.” Followers must “forget that one has ever believed the contrary”. Memory must be erased. “This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.” The past, like the facts, must be reinvented. “For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed.” Donald Trump keeps saying that if he elected to a second term he will prosecute his political opponents, “the enemies within”. On 22 October he stated, once again, that as president he would use “extreme power … We can’t play games with these people. These are people that are dangerous people _…_ an enemy from within.” At the very moment Trump delivered his remarks highlighting his campaign for a dictatorship, the Atlantic published an [article](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-military-generals-hitler/680327/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) by Jeffrey Goldberg confirming his motive. He reported that Trump, as president, had rebuked the US military command, stating: “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had. People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.” Then, Trump’s former chief of staff, former general John Kelly, stepped from behind the curtain in an [interview](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) with the New York Times. “Certainly,” he said, “the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators – he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.” Kelly added, the Times wrote, that “in his opinion, Mr Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law”. The warning of the generals against Trump’s fascism is unanimous among those who have served most closely with him. The former chairman of the joint chiefs, retired general Mark Milley, told Bob Woodward, in his new book War, that Trump is “fascist to the core”. Trump’s secretary of defense, former general James Mattis, [emailed](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4940720-bob-woodward-james-mattis-donald-trump-war-book/) Woodward to express his agreement with Milley that Trump is “the most dangerous person ever”, and “Let’s make sure we don’t try to downplay the threat, because the threat is high.” It’s Defcon 1. In a case of exquisitely poor timing, two days before the latest revelations of Trump’s despotic intent and his own insistent bellicose demands for absolute power to use against his “enemies”, the Wall Street Journal editorial board [assured](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-fascist-meme-returns-donald-trump-election-voters-5e513359) its readers that Trump doesn’t mean it. There is no reason to take him seriously. In any case “the public isn’t buying this Democratic claim about Trump”. The “fascist meme” is just partisan propaganda. “The answer is that most Americans simply don’t believe the fascist meme, and for good reasons. The first is the evidence of Mr Trump’s first term. Whatever his intentions, the former President was hemmed in by American checks and balances.” Not satisfied with absurdly dismissing Trump’s unapologetic statement, the Wall Street Journal felt compelled to airbrush the present and the past in the Orwellian tradition of “doublethink”. Within 48 hours, however, its dismissal of the supposedly “Democratic claim” about “the fascist meme” was swept away by Kelly. Having discarded Milley’s and Mattis’s earlier statements, the Journal must have figured it could deposit Kelly’s as well in the burn bag for facts in order to be able to embroider its sophistry. But, at least for the moment, creating doublethink is a demanding job. An essential element in the normalization of Trump and his fascism is the erasure of his crimes and transgressions when he was president – his “first term”, as the Journal disingenuously describes it, as though he’s already elected to his second. Conjuring up an air of inevitability is another demoralizing Newspeak tactic. Trump’s threats, when they are not dismissed as mere rhetoric, are too generally reported as if they are something new, that they exist solely in the vacuum of this campaign, and that he has no past. Trump’s history is consigned to the memory hole. [](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/28/we-are-witnessing-the-making-of-a-fascist-president-in-real-time#img-2) John Kelly and Donald Trump in 2018. Photograph: Carlos Barría/Reuters But Trump’s presidency was a rehearsal for fascism. Quite apart from his [record](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/trump-scandals.html?searchResultPosition=2) of kleptocracy, allegedly pervasive corruption and obstructions of justice, pardons of criminal associates and dangling of pardons to insure their silence, contempt for the law, maniacal obsession with Hitler, who “did come good things”, scorn for military service (“suckers” and “losers”), worship of foreign tyrants, congenital lying, paranoid conspiracy mongering, disdain for climate science, willful neglect of public health, ignoring warnings and spreading falsehoods in the [Covid-19 pandemic](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9115435/) resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands, the organization and incitement of the January 6 insurrection, and indifference to the near-assassination of his vice-president by a mob he had unleashed (“So what?”), Trump systematically abused the Department of Justice to investigate, harass and prosecute his “enemies within”. Trump’s current rage is hardly a new threat. In a second term he intends to smash through the constraints that inhibited him in his first. The Just Security website of the New York University School of Law [reports](https://www.justsecurity.org/98703/chronology-trump-justice-department/): “The cascade of election coverage, commentary and speculation about how Donald Trump might use the power of the presidency to retaliate against his perceived political enemies has overlooked important context: Trump has done just that, while he was president.” Just Security distilled “A Dozen Times Trump Pushed to Prosecute His Perceived Enemies”, but there were many more. “The saddest thing is that because I’m the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the justice department,” Trump said on 2 November 2017. “I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.” Trump’s years in office showed him on a learning curve of fascism. He saw democracy as a plot against him that he had to break down. Like a hotel burglar jimmying door locks, through trial and error he discovered how to turn the keys. He pushed and prodded looking for weaknesses and loopholes. He located the places where he encountered resistance. He felt for the limits and how to go beyond them. He found out who would deter him and who would enable him. He calculated the price of everyone. He discovered those whose craven ambition would serve him. He realized that ideology was a tool he could use like a crowbar. He absorbed the lessons of crime and punishment in order to commit greater crimes without punishment. His administration was a school for the making of a fascist. Trump was frustrated that his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself so that he could not kill former FBI director Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign connections to the Russians. The Mueller report stated: “According to Sessions, the President asked him to reverse his recusal so that Sessions could direct the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton … ” After publicly attacking the Justice Department for not investigating “Crooked Hillary”, Trump succeeded in intimidating Sessions into naming a special counsel to investigate the already [debunked](https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/) conspiracy theory that Uranium One, a Canadian company, made a deal with the Russians in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. A grand jury was empaneled, issued subpoenas and prosecutors concluded there was no there there. But it was not until two years later that the case was closed without any charges on 15 January 2021, five days before Trump left office. > I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road Federal judge Reggie Walton Trump blamed the FBI for the investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign. His paranoia morphed into ever widening conspiracy theories about the “deep state”. He fired FBI director James Comey for not exonerating him. He forced the firing of deputy director Andrew McCabe on 16 March 2018, two days before McCabe’s scheduled retirement. The justice department opened an investigation into whether McCabe illegally leaked information about the Clinton email and Clinton Foundation probes. The federal judge overseeing the McCabe case, Reggie Walton, a George W Bush appointee, stated: “I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road … ” The case against McCabe was dropped without charges on 14 February 2020, and his back pay and pension were restored. On 20 May 2018, Trump demanded a justice department investigation into a “deep state” conspiracy theory going all the way up to President Barack Obama, in which Trump stated that “the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes” – “Spygate” .An investigation was opened. But on 11 December 2019, the DOJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, issued a [report](https://oig.justice.gov/node/1100) stating that, contrary to Trump’s assertions, there was “no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any \[confidential human sources\] within the Trump campaign … ” On 23 August 2018, Trump declared that his appointment of Sessions was a terrible mistake. In response, Sessions issued a statement: “While I am attorney general, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” The next day Trump tweeted a long list of his people he designated as enemies whom he demanded Session should investigate. “Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!” On 8 November, he forced Sessions to resign. The new attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, a compliant mid-level rightwing operative from Iowa, was a stand-in until William Barr took over in February 2019. Barr, who had been attorney general under George HW Bush, was advertised as a conservative Republican institutionalist. He knew how to game the system for the gamester in the interest of his own game. The cultural reactionary, on the board of the reactionary Opus Dei organization’s Washington DC front, the Catholic Information Center, believed he was using the depraved Trump in a [crusade](https://www.ncronline.org/news/william-barr-nations-top-lawyer-culture-warrior-catholic) for the restoration of traditional morality. More importantly, Trump was the useful idiot to stock the federal bench with Federalist Society-stamped judges. Leonard Leo, chair of the Federalist Society, served on the Opus Dei group’s board with Barr. Barr was the adult in the room who became Trump’s enabler, enforcer and teacher. On 24 March 2019, Barr issued a [letter](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-key-findings-from-william-barr-summary-letter-to-congress-today-2019-03-24/) pre-empting the release of the full Mueller report so that he could to distort its conclusions and present those distortions as truthful. He wrote that Trump’s campaign had not “conspired or coordinated” with the Russians, that Trump had fully cooperated with the investigation and that Trump had not committed obstruction of justice. He redacted and withheld from the public key sections of the report. “Mueller’s core premise – that the President acts ‘corruptly’ if he attempts to influence a proceeding in which his own conduct is being scrutinized – is untenable,” Barr wrote to justify his cover-up. [](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/28/we-are-witnessing-the-making-of-a-fascist-president-in-real-time#img-3) William Barr speaks at a news conference at the justice department in Washington DC in 2020. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/AP The US House of Representatives held Barr in contempt for withholding the full report. It revealed that Trump had committed 10 indictable obstructions of justice to keep evidence and witnesses from investigators, which neither Barr nor his Biden-appointed successor, Merrick Garland, ever prosecuted. The report identified 272 contacts between Trump agents and Russian operatives, not one of which Trump reported to the FBI. Judge Walton ruled that Barr had “distorted” and been “misleading” about the contents of the report. On 30 September 2020, he [decided](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-finds-doj-violated-federal-law-with-certain-mueller-report-redactions-orders-pages-released-before-election/) Barr had violated federal law and that the redacted sections should be released, which they were, only days before the 2020 election. But Barr was not about to open a prosecution of himself. The bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, released on 18 August 2020, [disclosed](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-intelligence-committee-russian-interference/8cf58e574d235164/full.pdf) literally hundreds of instances of Trump campaign involvement with Russian operations. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, regularly shared “sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy” with a Russian intelligence officer, Konstantin Kilimnik, with whom he had a long relationship on behalf of Russian interests in Ukraine. One of Trump’s obstructions, cited by Mueller, was his dangling of pardons for Manafort, who was convicted of numerous tax and financial frauds, and for Mike Flynn, the former national security adviser convicted for lying to the FBI and not registering as a foreign agent. Trump was enticing them not to testify. Both stonewalled, and both received pardons. After Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime dirty trickster, was convicted of lying to the Congress and obstructing justice about acting as a conduit for Russian intelligence through WikiLeaks on hacked Clinton campaign documents, among other murky things, and sentenced to nine years in prison, Trump expressed [outrage](https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227122206783811585): “The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them.” Barr instantly intervened to reduce the sentence. The four prosecutors on the case [resigned](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/roger-stone-sentencing.html) in protest. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/28/we-are-witnessing-the-making-of-a-fascist-president-in-real-time#EmailSignup-skip-link-28) Sign up to The Stakes — US Election Edition The Guardian guides you through the chaos of a hugely consequential presidential election **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion Trump [tweeted](https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227561237782855680): “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress!” Just before leaving office Trump would commute Stone’s sentence. Meanwhile, as soon as Barr assumed his post he revived the “Spygate” conspiracy theory, declared “spying did occur” and appointed a special prosecutor to investigate what Trump called an “attempted coup” against him. Trump [denounced](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/politics/barr-trump-campaign-spying.html) the Mueller probe as “illegal”: “Everything about it was crooked – every single thing about it. There were dirty cops. These were bad people.” Barr appointed John Durham, the former US attorney for Connecticut, who spent four years trying to prove Trump’s accusation that the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Russian interference was a “hoax,” as Trump claimed. Durham’s chief prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, [quit](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/20/former-prosecutor-resigned-trump-russia-probe-barr-00117255) because she thought he was running a political operation and that Barr had “violated DOJ guidelines”. Durham interviewed nearly 500 witnesses, including Hillary Clinton, to determine “whether the conduct of these individuals or entities \[with ties to the Clinton campaign\] constituted a federal offense and whether admissible evidence would be sufficient to obtain a conviction for such an offense.” Durham’s two high-profile cases, against attorney Michael Sussmann and Russian analyst Igor Danchenko, resulted in embarrassing acquittals. Durham wound up convicting an FBI lawyer for altering an email in his effort to shortcut a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, for which he received probation and community service. Durham ended his snark hunt by criticizing the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference as “seriously flawed”, but without anything of consequence to show. Trump tweeted: “WOW! After extensive research, Special Counsel John Durham concludes the FBI never should have launched the Trump-Russia Probe! In other words, the American Public was scammed … ” For two years, Barr waged a war against Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York, a Republican, who indicted Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen on campaign finance charges for paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels to silence her about a sexual relationship with Trump. Trump clearly appeared in the indictment as Unindicted Co-Conspirator No 1. Barr pressured Berman to reopen the case in order to toss it out. Berman refused. Barr then tried to strong-arm Berman at Trump’s instigation into indicting former secretary of state John Kerry for trying to keep alive the Iran nuclear deal he negotiated during the Obama administration. Berman refused. Barr pushed Berman to indict Greg Craig, Obama’s former legal counsel, on flimsy charges of not registering as a foreign agent, in order to have a prominent Democrat’s scalp. Barr sent a deputy to tell Berman he should prosecute Craig to “even things out” before the election. Again, Berman refused. Barr moved the Craig case to the District of Columbia, where he leveraged an indictment. On 4 September 2019, the jury acquitted Craig in less than five hours. “Throughout my tenure as US attorney,” Berman wrote in a memoir, “Trump’s Justice Department kept demanding that I use my office to aid them politically, and I kept declining – in ways just tactful enough to keep me from being fired. I walked this tightrope for two and a half years. Eventually, the rope snapped.” Berman was conducting a criminal investigation into Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney who had sought to fabricate dirt against Joe Biden in Trump’s blackmailing of Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in exchange for Stinger missiles, which precipitated Trump’s first impeachment. On 19 June 2020, Barr announced Berman was resigning. It was news to him. He refused to go. Then, Trump fired him. > It was all bullshit Former attorney general William Barr, on Trump's claim of a fixed election After Trump lost the election of 2020, Barr was on board with Trump’s claim it was stolen, sending a memo to DOJ prosecutors to investigate “vote tabulation irregularities”. Sixteen assistant US attorneys resigned in protest. Later, Barr acknowledged, of Trump’s assertion that the election was fixed: “It was all bullshit.” On 14 December 2020, Trump attempted to get Barr’s involvement in the fake electors scheme. Barr declined to be ensnared in an obviously illegal act in a losing cause. He saved himself from becoming incriminated and resigned. Trump had already got whatever he wanted from Barr up to the last minute, when Barr’s instinct for personal self-preservation asserted itself. On the eve of 6 January, Barr relinquished the Tom Hagen role for his godfather. Trump was done with the disloyal consigliere. He turned to other helpers. After the January 6 insurrection, Barr [accused](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/barr-trump-committed-betrayal-of-his-office-455812) Trump of a “betrayal of his office”. “All of a sudden, Bill Barr changed. You hadn’t noticed,” Trump remarked. Yet this past April, Barr endorsed Trump for re-election, [explaining](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/politics/barr-vote-for-trump-2024/index.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) that “the threat to freedom and democracy has always been on the left.” Trump [sneered](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4620415-trump-mocks-bill-barr-after-endorsement/): “Wow! Former AG Bill Barr, who let a lot of great people down by not investigating Voter Fraud in our Country, has just Endorsed me for President despite the fact that I called him ‘Weak, Slow Moving, Lethargic, Gutless, and Lazy’. Based on the fact that I greatly appreciate his wholehearted Endorsement, I am removing the word ‘Lethargic’ from my statement. Thank you Bill.” The conservative majority on the US supreme court, three of whose members Trump appointed, rescued him from facing trial for January 6 before the 2024 election. Taking up Trump’s appeal, the court languidly spent months to render an opinion bestowing on him and future presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts”. In its ruling, with a sharp understanding of Trump’s methods, the court stated that a president could order a sham investigation of his political enemies, if he wished, without any restraint or accountability. The [decision](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf) was explicit in granting free license to political prosecutions: “The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” The court has ruled: Trump’s past efforts to stage “sham” show trials of his “enemies” and launch a coup involving the DOJ are above the law. His future dictatorship in which he could exact retribution from his “enemies within,” deploying the DOJ, has received advance approval. The supreme court’s immunity decision justifying Trump despotism, presented by Chief Justice John Roberts, was better explained in the twisted language of an apparatchik from the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984: “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” On 24 October of this month, Trump boasted about the unlimited power that he would possess once he is back in the White House. Speaking to rightwing radio talkshow host Hugh Hewitt, he declared that he would at the start fire the special prosecutor Jack Smith, who has indicted him for his crimes of January 6 and stealing national security secrets. “We got immunity at the supreme court,” Trump said. “It’s so easy. I would fire him within two seconds.” Trump would then have 86,398 seconds left to be a dictator on “day one”.

In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George HW Bush, a sitting Republican president. In 1996, Clinton won re-election over Bob Dole. A former Democratic governor of Arkansas, Clinton had a flair for policy and retail politics. He felt your pain, garnering support from voters without a four-year degree and graduates alike. He played the saxophone, belting out Heartbreak Hotel [on late-night TV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LhgGs4TrYA). Redefining what it meant to be presidential, he [told a studio audience](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFMW5RIwVhU) he preferred briefs to boxers. He oozed charisma – and more. But his legacy remains deeply stained by allegations of predatory conduct and questionable judgment. He is one of three presidents to be impeached – in his case, for lying under oath about his extra-marital relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Before leaving office, to avoid professional discipline, Clinton [surrendered](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/politics/clinton-reaches-deal-to-avoid-indictment-and-to-give-up-law-license.html) his law license. Congress twice impeached [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump). His legal problems range far wider than Clinton’s. Nonetheless, there are echoes. Back in the day, Clinton and Trump golfed together, each a tabloid fixture. Clinton crossed paths with Jeffrey Epstein too. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/24/bill-clinton-memoir#img-2) Citizen: My Life After the White House by Bill Clinton. Photograph: Hutchinson Heinemann [Clinton’s fame outstrips his popularity](https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politics/popularity/public-figures/all). Like an old-time vaudevillian, the 42nd president, now 78, finds it hard to leave the stage. His second memoir, [subtitled My Life After the White House](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/nov/14/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-book), is a stab at image rehabilitation and relevance. Densely written, the 464-page tome is a prolonged stroll down memory lane that never quite reaches a desired destination. It is too much, too little, too late – all at once. Clinton grapples with his past. In January 1998, news broke that the president, then in his 50s, had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a 22-year-old intern. It gave a nascent internet culture – most of it following and shaped by Matt Drudge – plenty to talk about. Newt Gingrich, the soon-to-be disgraced speaker of the House, and Ken Starr, an independent counsel turned modern-day Torquemada, did their best to bring Clinton down. Lindsey Graham, then an eager young congressman, now the senior senator from South Carolina and a key Trump ally, dutifully fanned the flames. Fast forward 30 years. In 2018, Craig Melvin of NBC asked Clinton if he apologized to Lewinsky. Clinton did not take kindly to the question. He now admits the interview “was not my finest hour”. “I live with it all the time,” he writes, reflecting on the affair. “Monica’s done a lot of good and important work over the last few years in her campaign against bullying, earning her well-deserved recognition in the United States and abroad. I wish her nothing but the best.” Lewinsky is probably unimpressed. In 2021, NBC asked her if Clinton owed her an apology. “I don’t need it,” she said. “He should wanna apologize, in the same way that I wanna apologize any chance I get to people that I’ve hurt, and my actions have hurt.” In his new book, Clinton stays silent about other women who accused him of sexual misconduct – Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick – but gingerly rehashes Trump’s Access Hollywood moment and proliferating allegations of groping. As for Epstein, the financier and sex offender who [killed himself](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/10/jeffrey-epstein-dead-prison-report-latest) in jail in New York in 2019, and whose links to Trump are perennially discussed, Clinton pleads ignorance. “I had always thought Epstein was odd but had no inkling of the crimes he was committing,” he writes. “He hurt a lot of people, but I knew nothing about it and by the time he was first arrested in 2005, I had stopped contact with him.” Clinton adds: “I’ve never visited his island.” Clinton does acknowledge two flights, in 2002 and 2003, on Epstein’s plane, luridly known as the “Lolita Express”: “The bottom line is, even though it allowed me to visit the work of my foundation, traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward. I wish I had never met him.” In 2016, Trump beat [Hillary Clinton](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hillary-clinton) for the White House. On the page, Bill Clinton burnishes the memory of his wife’s failed campaigns – though he is ever aware of her shortcomings. He recognizes the meaning of her Democratic primary defeat, by Barack Obama in 2008. Blaming the media, in part, Clinton implicitly acknowledges that Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois, was a better candidate than Hillary, then a former first lady and junior senator from New York. “Obama’s best decision was to start his campaign early with a full 50-state strategy, something Hillary’s campaign had to develop after she strengthened her leadership team in February,” Bill laments. “But she never really caught up.” Said differently, 2008 was a change election. Obama stood atop history. Hillary was in over her head. She was also the status quo. As for 2016, Clinton pins his wife’s loss on James Comey, the FBI director who investigated her private email use; WikiLeaks, which released Democratic emails; and Vladimir Putin, who capitalized on such scandals in order to boost Trump. Elsewhere, Clinton revisits his last-minute pardon of Marc Rich – a [scandal](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/clintons-pardon-of-marc-rich) from the last day of the presidency, 20 January 2001. Denise Rich, the fugitive financier’s ex-wife, donated $450,000 to the Clinton library and wrote to him, seeking a pardon. “I wish Denise hadn’t written to me, for her sake and mine,” Clinton writes. “I knew she had made plenty of money on her own, did not get along with her ex-husband, and didn’t know he would apply for a pardon when she gave money to the library fund.” Again, parallels to Trump are apparent. At the end of his first term, the 45th president gave get-out-of-jail-free cards to cronies and the connected. Charlie Kushner, father of Jared Kushner, was one who benefited. So did Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. A robust pardon pipeline emerged with an ultimate audience of one. Trump will soon wield the pardon power again. On the whole, Bill Clinton’s latest book will be remembered for its omissions. It usually works out that way. * Citizen [is published](https://bookshop.org/p/books/citizen-my-life-after-the-white-house-bill-clinton/21310645?ean=9780525521440) in the US by Knopf

Getty Images Charles Kushner (left) with his son Jared Kushner President-elect Donald Trump announced Saturday that he has selected Charles Kushner as his pick for ambassador to France. Mr Kushner is a real-estate developer and the father of Jared Kushner, husband of his daughter Ivanka Trump. Trump pardoned Mr Kushner during his first term, waving away a federal conviction in 2020. In a post to his social media site Truth Social, Trump said Mr Kushner is "a tremendous business leader, philanthropist, & dealmaker, who will be a strong advocate representing our Country & its interests". The nomination appears to be the first administration position that Trump has formally offered to a relative since his re-election. Alongside many other presidential picks, ambassador appointments must be approved by a majority vote in the US Senate. It's not clear what role Mr Kushner's background might play in a confirmation hearing. The elder Kushner pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax evasion, campaign finance offences and witness tampering and was sentenced to two years in prison in 2005. Among the evidence presented in court, prosecutors said Mr Kushner targeted a brother-in-law who was cooperating with authorities against him. He hired a prostitute to seduce the man, intending to intimidate him by sending video footage to his wife - Mr Kushner's sister. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who ran against Trump in the latest Republican primary, prosecuted the case at the time and called it “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he had seen. Jared Kushner served as an advisor during the first Trump administration, when Trump extended a pardon to Charles Kushner in a batch of announcements that also included pardons for former campaign manager Paul Manafort and ex-adviser Roger Stone. In his announcement post on Saturday, Trump praised Jared Kushner's work and said he looked forward to working with Charles Kushner. "Together, we will strengthen America’s partnership with France, our oldest Ally, & one of our greatest!"

A loving act of mercy by a father who has already known much sorrow? Or a hypocritical political manoeuvre reminiscent of his great foe? Maybe both can be true. Joe Biden’s announcement on Sunday that he had [pardoned his son Hunter](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/01/joe-biden-pardons-hunter), who is facing sentencing in two criminal cases, is likely to have been the product of a Shakespearean struggle between head and heart. On the one hand, Biden is one of the last great institutionalists in Washington. “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making,” he said in an unusually direct and personal [statement](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/joe-biden-hunter-pardon-statement) on Sunday. To undermine the separation of powers goes against every fibre of his political being. On the other hand, Biden is nothing without family. His speeches are peppered with references to his parents. As a senator, he [once took a train](https://www.npr.org/2024/08/19/g-s1-17885/ashley-biden-democratic-national-convention) from Washington to Wilmington, Delaware, so he could blow out the candles on a birthday cake for his eight-year-old daughter, Ashley, at the station, then cross the platform and take the next train back to work. [ Joe Biden issues ‘full and unconditional’ pardon to son Hunter ](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/01/joe-biden-pardons-hunter) Biden was profoundly shaped by the death of his first wife, Neilia [Hunter Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hunter-biden), and 13-month-old daughter Naomi in a car accident and, much later, the death of his son Beau from brain cancer. In that context, Hunter’s status as the first child of a sitting president to face criminal charges will have pained his father in what Ernest Hemingway called “the broken places”. Hunter was convicted this summer of lying about his drug use when he bought a gun. [Joe Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/joebiden) categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters: “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.” Hunter also pleaded guilty in a separate tax evasion trial and was due to be sentenced in both cases later this month. Biden reportedly spent months agonising over what to do. The scales were almost certainly tilted by Donald Trump’s victory in last month’s presidential election. The prospect of leaving Hunter to the tender mercies of Trump’s sure-to-be politicised, retribution-driven justice department was too much to bear. Biden typically takes advice from close family and is likely to have reached the decision after talking it over during what was an intimate Thanksgiving weekend. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong,” the president said in a statement, calling it “a miscarriage of justice”. He added: “There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.” Joe Biden’s defenders will certainly contend that, if Hunter had been an ordinary citizen, the gun case would not have come this far, and his father was simply righting that wrong. Republicans spent years hyping investigations into Hunter that failed to produce a shred of evidence linking his father to corruption. Eric Holder, a former attorney general, [wrote](https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1863389327310692525) on social media that no US attorney “would have charged this case given the underlying facts. After a five-year investigation the facts as discovered only made that clear. Had his name been Joe Smith the resolution would have been – fundamentally and more fairly – a declination. Pardon warranted.” It was also noted that this is hardly the first time pardons have smacked of nepotism. Bill Clinton as president pardoned his half-brother for old cocaine charges, and Trump pardoned the father of Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, for tax evasion and retaliating against a cooperating witness, though in both cases those men had already served their prison terms. Trump also used the dog days of his first presidency to pardon the rogues’ gallery of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. And yet for many Americans there will be something jarring about the double standard of a president pardoning a member of his own family ahead of numerous other worthy cases. Republicans in the House of Representatives naturally pounced with more hyperbole about the “Biden crime family”. But there were also more thoughtful objections. Jared Polis, the Democratic governor of Colorado, wrote on social media: “While as a father I certainly understand President Joe Biden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country. This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.” Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman turned Trump critic, said on the MSNBC network: “Joe Biden repeatedly said he wouldn’t do this so he repeatedly lied. This just furthers cynicism that people have about politics and that cynicism strengthens Trump because Trump can say, ‘I’m not a unique threat. Everybody does this. If I do something for my kid, my son-in-law, whatever, look, Joe Biden does the same thing.’ I get it but this was a selfish move by Biden, which politically only strengthens Trump. It’s just deflating.” The Trump context is impossible to ignore in this moral maze. Next month he will become the first convicted criminal sworn in as president, though three cases against him have all but perished. He is already moving to appoint loyalists to the FBI and justice department. Michelle Obama once advised, when they go low, we go high. On Sunday Joe Biden, 82 and heading for the exit with little to lose, decided to go low. Perhaps it was what any parent would have done.

Good morning. Joe Biden has [granted “a full and unconditional” pardon](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/01/joe-biden-pardons-hunter) to his son Hunter Biden, days before he was due to be sentenced for convictions on federal gun and tax charges, the US president said in a statement released by the White House on Sunday. Biden had repeatedly said he would not use his executive power to pardon his son or commute his sentence – but reversed his position at the weekend, claiming that his son’s prosecution was politically motivated. In his statement, Biden argued that “it is clear that Hunter was treated differently”, adding that the charges in the case “came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election”. * **How did Republicans respond?** Donald Trump called the decision “such an abuse and miscarriage of justice”. Trump, too, has used executive authority to help a relative – [he pardoned Charles Kushner](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/23/donald-trumps-latest-wave-of-pardons-includes-paul-manafort-and-charles-kunsher), the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner in 2020. **Justin Trudeau promises Trump that Canada will step up border surveillance** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-2) Justin Trudeau walks through the lobby of the Delta Hotel in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP Justin Trudeau has [promised Trump that Canada](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/01/trudeau-trump-border-surveillance) will step up its surveillance of its joint border, a senior Canadian official has said. The Canadian prime minister on Friday had dinner with the US president-elect, who has threatened to impose tariffs on Canadian imports unless it stops undocumented people and drugs from reaching the US. The move would severely hurt Canada’s economy, as it sends more than 75% of all of its goods and services exports to the US. The public safety minister, Dominic LeBlanc, who was also at the dinner, said the Canadian government would continue to try to dissuade Trump from imposing tariffs, arguing that the policy would damage both countries’ economies. * **How will Canada secure its border?** LeBlanc said Canada would procure more drones and police helicopters and redeploy personnel. **Iranian-backed militias reportedly enter Syria to back Assad’s army** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-3) Anti-Assad rebels reach the highway near the northern Syrian town of Azaz on Sunday. Photograph: Rami Al Sayed/AFP/Getty Images Iranian-backed militias have [reportedly entered Syria overnight](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/02/middle-east-crisis-live-syria-iran-assad?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-674d61938f0816561c4a050c#block-674d61938f0816561c4a050c) and are moving on northern Syria to bolster Bashar al-Assad’s forces after [Syrian and Russian airstrikes battered the region](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/01/syria-iran-abbas-araghchi-damascas-visit-aleppo-fall-bashar-al-assad) where insurgents have mounted their strongest challenge in years. The surprise offensive has allowed Islamist rebels to wrest control of Aleppo, with insurgents using Russia and Iran’s distraction to their advantage as the wars in Ukraine, Lebanon and Gaza took priority. “These are fresh reinforcements being sent to aid our comrades on the frontlines in the north,” a Syrian army source told Reuters, referring to the Iranian-backed fighters. The forces entered Syria after the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, met Assad for talks in Damascus on Sunday evening in a gesture of support for his regime. * **Who are the rebels?** Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [a group that previously declared allegiance](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/02/who-are-syrian-rebels-hayat-tahrir-al-sham-hts-aleppo) to al-Qaida before breaking ties in 2016. * **How fast did they take Aleppo?** In three days. The attack began on Wednesday, and by Saturday they had forced out government forces. * **Why was Assad’s army so vulnerable?** In part because [its backer, Russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/01/rebels-behind-aleppos-surprise-fall-took-advantage-of-russian-and-iranian-distraction), has shifted its focus and resources to Ukraine. **In other news …** ------------------- [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-4) Demonstrators flee teargas during a rally in Tbilisi against the government’s decision to suspend negotiations on joining the EU. Photograph: Zurab Tsertsvadze/AP * **Protesters rallied in Tbilisi for a fourth consecutive night** **on Sunday** [against the government’s decision](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/01/dozens-hospitalised-in-third-night-of-pro-eu-protests-in-georgia) to pause talks on joining the European Union. * **A bear that attacked a supermarket worker in northern Japan has been killed** [after hiding in the store](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/02/akita-japan-bear-attack-supermarket-captured) for three days. * **Marshall Brickman, Woody Allen’s Oscar-winning co-writer, has died at the age of 85.** [No cause of death](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/dec/02/marshall-brickman-death-dies-aged-85-oscar-winning-writer) was given. **Stat of the day: flights to Greenland to double next year** ------------------------------------------------------------- [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-5) The first direct international flight lands in Nuuk on Thursday. Photograph: Inesa Matuliauskaite/Guide to Greenland Greenland’s first international airport has opened, and more hubs are in the making. The development is sure to drive tourism, with [the number of flights to Greenland expected to almost double](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/greenland-tourism-territory-opens-to-world) in the space of a year, from 55,000 seats between April and August this year to an expected 105,000 seats in that period next year, including a four-hour direct flight from New Jersey. Not everyone is happy, with concerns about its natural landscape being spoiled. **Don’t miss this: are we hardwired to commit ‘deadly sins’?** -------------------------------------------------------------- [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-6) ‘A change in the structure or function of our brains can result in a change in our actions or personalities.’ Photograph: melita/Alamy From gluttony to lust, scientists are increasingly discovering that behaviors long seen as sinful often have a biological cause, writes neurologist Guy Leschziner. With many of the factors that determine who we are present from conception, Leschziner asks whether free will is illusory. “Who should be the arbiter of the lines between the normal and the pathological, the biological and the moral?” Also featuring: [how to learn how much testosterone](https://www.theguardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2024/dec/02/deadly-sins-science-behaviour-physical) you were exposed to in the womb just by looking at your hands. **Climate check: Top UN court to begin hearings on landmark climate** **crisis case** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-7) Countries and organizations will make submissions before the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the legal obligations of countries to fight climate change. Photograph: Vlad Sokhin/World Bank The International Court of Justice on Monday will begin considering [evidence regarding what action countries are legally required](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/02/icj-un-climate-change-case-pacific-nations) to take against the climate crisis and in aid of vulnerable nations. While the findings by the ICJ in the landmark case will be non-binding, the court’s conclusions will be legally and politically significant. **Last Thing: Deadly tiger snake caught after slithering up a driver’s leg on a Melbourne freeway** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/first-thing-biden-issues-full-and-unconditional-pardon-to-son-hunter#img-8) A tiger snake Photograph: Ken Griffiths/Alamy Police in the Australian state of Victoria have carried out one of their more bizarre welfare checks after a woman reported that she had been driving on the freeway when she felt something on her foot and saw a snake “slithering up her leg”. [The unbelievably cool-headed motorist](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2024/dec/02/deadly-tiger-snake-caught-after-slithering-up-a-drivers-leg-on-a-melbourne-freeway-video) managed to ward the snake off and weave through the lanes before jumping out of her vehicle in the slip lane. **Sign up** ----------- Sign up for the US morning briefing First Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If you’re not already signed up, [subscribe now](https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/sep/17/guardian-us-morning-briefing-sign-up-to-stay-informed). **Get in touch** ---------------- If you have any questions or comments about any of our newsletters please email [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden on Sunday, just weeks before he leaves the White House and despite [previously promising not to do so](https://www.vox.com/politics/389206/hunter-biden-pardon-joe-biden-democrats-response). Biden said in a statement announcing the pardon that his son had been “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” and that his political opponents had undertaken an “effort to break Hunter,” suggesting that the Justice Department under a second Trump administration would continue to go after him. Hunter Biden was convicted in two separate federal cases involving handgun and tax-related charges and was awaiting sentencing. The “[full and unconditional pardon](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/)” covers an 11-year period ending on December 1 and is “not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted.” “I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,” Biden said in the statement. Republicans, unsurprisingly, have criticized the decision, but so, too, have some of Biden’s fellow Democrats. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) [called](https://x.com/SenatorBennet/status/1863623197788160041) the pardon a decision to “[put personal interest ahead of duty](https://x.com/SenatorBennet/status/1863623197788160041)” that “further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all,” and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said [it was “a setback”](https://x.com/RepGregLandsman/status/1863591569363804388) for those who want to “believe in public service again.” Here’s what you need to know about Hunter Biden, the president’s pardon powers, and what this precedent could mean for Donald Trump. Hunter Biden, 54, is the president’s only living son and the only family member of a sitting president to be convicted of federal crimes. In June, a Delaware jury [convicted him](https://www.vox.com/politics/354731/hunter-biden-guilty-gun-charges) on three charges related to misrepresenting his illegal drug use on a form he submitted while purchasing a handgun in 2018, when he was addicted to drugs. He had initially struck a plea deal with prosecutors that later fell apart, and instead, they brought the gun charges to trial — a [rare occurrence](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/hunter-biden-gun-charges.html). In September, Biden also pled guilty to nine charges related to underpaying taxes between 2016 and 2019, including filing a false tax return and tax evasion. He would have faced up to 25 years in prison for the gun conviction and 17 years for the tax conviction, though likely would have [only been sentenced for a fraction of that time](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/us/politics/hunter-biden-crimes.html), totaling under five years. Neither case involved longstanding probes into Biden’s business dealings, which Republicans have attempted to link to his father. But it’s possible further charges could have been brought against him had he not been pardoned. Under the Constitution, the president has the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons.” A full pardon reverses a past criminal conviction (or, in Hunter Biden’s case, all of them within a certain span of time, as well as the possibility of facing legal jeopardy for as-of-yet-unprosecuted crimes) and its consequences, including restoring the right to vote, hold office, and sit on a jury, if lost as a consequence of the conviction. Presidents can also grant clemency to those convicted of federal crimes, reducing their sentences while leaving convictions in place. This authority, however, is not limitless. Though the president can grant an unlimited number of pardons, they can only do so for federal criminal offenses, not state crimes or civil liability. There are also [other restrictions](https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-presidential-pardon-power-explained/) on the president’s pardon powers: Federal courts have found that pardons must advance “public welfare”; they cannot be used to infringe on constitutional rights, to obstruct justice, or as bribes; and they must not interfere with the president’s duty to “[take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-1/ALDE_00001160/)” by encouraging future lawbreaking. Presidents have pardoned members of their family before, though it’s relatively uncommon. Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, who [pleaded guilty](https://www.npr.org/2024/12/02/nx-s1-5213251/hunter-biden-presidential-pardon-explained) to drug charges in 1985. Trump pardoned his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, who he [recently appointed as the US ambassador to France](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/30/politics/charles-kushner-france-ambassador-trump/index.html). Trump also pardoned [dozens of people](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/trump-pardon-power-2024-benefit/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f001) shortly before leaving office in his first term who later went on to endorse him or financially support his 2024 campaign, including his former White House chief strategist Steven Bannon, former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his former campaign chair Paul Manafort, and his former political consultant Roger Stone. In 1974, Gerald Ford notably pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal, a decision he attributed to the need to allow the country to move past the scandal. But Biden’s controversial decision to pardon his son may pave the way for future presidents — Trump included — to abuse their pardon powers. Biden’s pardon is incredibly broad, covering over a decade in which his son could have potentially committed crimes that have not even been charged yet, and in that sense, is [unprecedented](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/02/hunter-biden-presidential-pardon-comparisons/). Typically, presidents pardon specific crimes or any crimes related to a particular event. This one amounts to blanket amnesty. Trump has previously claimed he has an “[absolute right](https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-donald-trump-pardon-2028-1994233)” to pardon himself, a statement that has [divided legal scholars](https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-donald-trump-pardon-2028-1994233). It’s unclear if he will test that theory, however; while he has [34 felony convictions](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/11/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531/) to his name for falsifying business records, those lie outside his pardon power in New York state court. He also faces multiple federal criminal investigations, but following Trump’s reelection, Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Justice Department said they would drop cases against him for trying to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has suggested it might side with Trump if he pardons himself. In a ruling earlier this year, it found that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts under their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” Trump has also suggested he would pardon those behind the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. More than [1,000 people](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prosecution-jan-6-capitol-riot-60-minutes/) have been convicted for their involvement, including on charges of seditious conspiracy and assaulting law enforcement officers, and hundreds of cases are still pending. Trump has previously, baselessly, called them “hostages” and said he would be “[inclined to pardon many of them](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-january-6-defendants-first-acts-reelected/).” Past presidents have pardoned insurrectionists before, but not recently. Previous cases include during the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the Philippine-American War at the turn of the 20th century, but in those cases, the pardons were seen as an opportunity to quell further unrest. Potential Trump pardons for January 6 insurrectionists could have the opposite effect; by allowing his supporters to escape consequences for committing politically motivated violence, it could encourage further such violence on his behalf. Some Democrats have raised the possibility of putting guardrails on the president’s pardon power to prevent future abuses in the wake of Biden’s decision. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) [indicated](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5017923-gerry-connolly-hunter-biden-pardon/) Monday that he would support reforms: “At the very least, we’ve got to circumscribe it so that you don’t get to pardon relatives, even if you believe passionately that they’re innocent or their cause is just,” he said on CNN. Other Democrats have [previously suggested](https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4913189-trump-pardon-power-reform/) that not only a president’s family members, but members of their administrations or campaign staff and anyone who commits a crime to further the president’s personal interests should not be eligible for a pardon. Though that might already be beyond the scope of the president’s pardon powers, making that prohibition explicit would help prevent abuse, especially since courts may be reluctant to intervene. However, such reforms would require a constitutional amendment. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress would have to approve it, which seems unlikely at such a moment of political polarization. With nearly two months left in office, Biden may still issue further pardons. It’s traditional for presidents to issue grants of executive clemency before leaving office, and advocates have urged Biden to do so in a number of cases. Perhaps most prominently, Biden still has time to grant clemency to the [40 men currently on federal death row](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/biden-contemplates-federal-commutation-requests), who otherwise would face the [possibility of execution](https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-trump-and-barrs-last-minute-killing-spree) under a second Trump administration. He could also use the power to alleviate the harms of mass incarceration, as [dozens of lawmakers](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25354946-2024-11-20-letter-to-president-biden-on-clemency?responsive=1&title=1) have recently urged him. Specifically, they asked Biden to help “elderly and chronically ill,” “people with unjustified sentencing disparities,” and “women who were punished for defending themselves against their abusers” who are currently in prison, including many who do not pose a public safety threat and who have been separated from their families. [Biden has granted 25 pardons and 132 commutations](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics) of sentences during his time in office, according to Department of Justice data. That puts him behind other recent Democratic presidents, including former President Barack Obama, who issued 212 pardons and 1,715 commutations. However, Obama issued hundreds of clemency actions on his [last day in office](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13731448/obama-pardon-clemency-commutation), and Biden could do the same — on Monday, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre [told reporters](https://x.com/ToluseO/status/1863619155427017125) that more pardons will be forthcoming. You’ve read 1 article in the last month Here at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country. Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change. We rely on readers like you — join us.  Swati Sharma Vox Editor-in-Chief See More: * [Criminal Justice](https://www.vox.com/criminal-justice) * [Donald Trump](https://www.vox.com/donald-trump) * [Joe Biden](https://www.vox.com/joe-biden) * [Policy](https://www.vox.com/policy) * [Politics](https://www.vox.com/politics)

 The topic of presidential pardons is back in the spotlight this week after President Biden announced he signed a "[full and unconditional](https://www.npr.org/2024/12/01/g-s1-36324/president-biden-pardons-son-hunter)" one for his son. Hunter Biden was convicted earlier this year of [federal gun charges](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-5002013/federal-jury-convicts-hunter-biden-on-felony-gun-charges) for lying about his addiction to crack cocaine when he purchased a gun, and separately pleaded guilty to [tax offenses](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100805/hunter-biden-trial-tax-evasion-addiction) for failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes. Sentences in both cases were scheduled to be handed down later this month. The president has said publicly that he would not pardon his son — but reversed that promise in an [announcement on Sunday](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/) in which he called the prosecution unfair and selective. Biden blamed his opponents in Congress for instigating the charges against Hunter and unraveling his [would-be plea deal](https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199584231/hunter-biden-is-indicted-on-felony-gun-charges) through political pressure, though the special counsel leading the firearm probe has [denied facing political interference](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hunter-biden-prosecutor-testify-behind-closed-doors-house-republicans-2023-11-07/). In his statement, Biden said, "No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son." "I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice," Biden added. "I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision." Biden's decision was met with criticism from both sides of the aisle. For one, his rationale closely echoes Donald Trump's claims of a politicized Justice Department — even though the charges against Hunter Biden and Trump, the first president to be convicted of a felony, are very different. Trump was charged with trying to [overturn the 2020 election](https://www.npr.org/2024/10/02/nx-s1-5137303/trump-election-interference-jack-smith-immunity-jan-6) and endangering national security through his [handling of classified documents](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/1181340894/trump-indictment-classified-documents-charges), though both [cases were dismissed](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/25/nx-s1-5205376/jan-6-trump-case) after his 2024 election victory. Trump was quick to slam Biden's pardon as an "abuse and miscarriage of Justice." Even some Democrats — including Colorado Gov. [Jared Polis](https://x.com/jaredpolis/status/1863392145669046677), Arizona Rep. [Greg Stanton](https://x.com/RepGregStanton/status/1863401113946345599) and Colorado Sen. [Michael Bennet](https://x.com/SenatorBennet/status/1863623197788160041)— publicly denounced Biden's decision. They warned it could set a dangerous precedent, especially before the return of Trump, who has vowed to [pardon Jan. 6 rioters](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5181960/can-trump-pardon-as-promised-people-convicted-in-connection-with-the-jan-6-attack) and baselessly suggested [he could even pardon himself](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/09/955087860/can-trump-pardon-himself). "Joe Biden put self before country, and just pardoned his son," [tweeted Joe Walsh](https://x.com/WalshFreedom/status/1863412524559077633), an anti-Trump former Republican congressman who had endorsed Biden. "And that selfishness took the 'no one is above the law' argument against Trump off the table." Presidential pardons have been commonplace since the days of George Washington, who forgave the two men convicted of treason for their role in the [Whiskey Rebellion](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion). Over the years, many have been cause for celebration as well as controversy. ### What is a pardon? Presidential pardon authority is inspired by early English law, which granted kings "the prerogative of mercy." Article II, Section 2 [of the Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/) gives the president the power to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." "The U.S. Constitution grants the president of the United States what's called unilateral clemency power," explains [Lauren-Brooke Eisen](https://www.brennancenter.org/about/leadership/lauren-brooke-eisen), the senior director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program. "And you can think of clemency as the umbrella term." Acts of clemency include granting amnesty, reprieves, commutations, and pardons — the most expansive form of relief. A full pardon releases the person from punishment and restores their [civil liberties](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=A%20pardon%20is%20an%20expression,It%20does%20not%20signify%20innocence.), including their right to vote, hold office and sit on a jury. "Clemency really is an expression of mercy, and often tempers the very overly punitive, harsh, inequitable results that our criminal justice system produces," says Eisen. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the president's pardoning powers as relatively broad, "extending to 'every offence known to the law' and available 'at any time after \[a crime's\] commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment,' " according to the [Congressional Research Service](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46179) (CRS). In some rare cases, presidents have even pardoned individuals who had not been charged with a crime: Gerald Ford [pardoned Richard Nixon](https://www.npr.org/2024/08/09/nx-s1-5068704/nixon-resign) after the Watergate scandal, and Jimmy Carter pardoned most [Vietnam War draft dodgers](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-carter-pardons-draft-dodgers), both charged and uncharged. The only limits — at least according to the Constitution — are that a president can only grant pardons for federal criminal offenses, not state or civil offenses, and cannot issue pardons in cases of impeachment. ### How have pardons typically been used?  Presidents have pardoned all sorts of federal offenses, from marijuana possession to mail fraud to murder. Somewhere along the way, they even started [pardoning Thanksgiving turkeys](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/25/nx-s1-5199862/turkey-pardon-history-washington-president) to spare them from the dinner table. Some pardons have involved high-profile figures: Andrew Johnson [pardoned a doctor](https://fords.org/lincolns-assassination/material-evidence-dr-mudd/) who treated John Wilkes Booth's broken leg after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln, as well as thousands of Confederate soldiers and officials after the Civil War. Warren Harding [pardoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fiery-socialist-challenged-nations-role-wwi-180969386/) after he was sentenced to a decade in prison for speaking out against World War I. Richard Nixon pardoned [Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa](https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1862257_1862325_1862316,00.html) during his 15-year prison sentence for jury tampering and fraud. More recently, over 3,000 acts of clemency were granted in the four decades between the start of the Ronald Reagan and end of the Barack Obama administrations, according to the [White House Historical Association](https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-history-of-the-pardon-power). But the number of pardons has varied widely between presidents. Obama granted the most clemency actions — 1,927, of which 212 were pardons — of two-term presidents since the mid-20th century, according to the [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/01/22/trump-used-his-clemency-power-sparingly-despite-a-raft-of-late-pardons-and-commutations/). George W. Bush issued the fewest — 200, including 189 pardons. Trump granted 237 acts of clemency during his first term, including 143 pardons and 94 commutations. His use of the power was relatively rare compared to many of his predecessors, but highly controversial because most of the people he helped had some sort of [personal or political connection](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trumps-aberrant-pardons-and-commutations) to him. ### Have presidents pardoned relatives before? Biden is now the third president to pardon a relative. On his last day in office in 2001, President Bill Clinton pardoned his [half-brother, Roger](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-william-j-clinton-1993-2001), who had pleaded guilty and spent a year in jail on drug charges. That was one of a whopping 140 pardons that Clinton issued that day, and not the most controversial. He got much more flack for [pardoning Marc Rich](https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1862257_1862325_1862324,00.html), a disgraced financier who had fled to Switzerland after being indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, among other charges. Rich's ex-wife Denise had donated over $1 million to Democrats and Clinton's presidential library, [raising questions](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-bill-clinton-pardon-scandals-should-help-biden-fix-flawed-ncna1249785) and a Justice Department investigation into the pardon, which ultimately [found no wrongdoing](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500297580/more-surprises-fbi-releases-files-on-bill-clintons-pardon-of-marc-rich) by Clinton. Trump also issued a [flurry of pardons](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/20/934139723/trump-pardons-steve-bannon-lil-wayne-in-final-clemency-flurry) — 74, to be exact — in the final hours of his first term, with recipients including his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, rapper Lil Wayne and Al Pirro, the former husband of Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro. He had previously pardoned many other [members of his inner circle](https://www.npr.org/2020/12/23/949820820/trump-pardons-roger-stone-paul-manafort-and-charles-kushner) who had been charged with various crimes, including Republican operative Roger Stone, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Charles Kushner — the father of his senior advisor, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Charles Kushner, himself a real estate billionaire, pleaded guilty in 2004 to filing false tax returns, lying to the Federal Election Commission and retaliating against a witness: his own brother-in-law. The case, prosecuted by then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, led to Kushner attempting an elaborate blackmail plot against his brother-in-law and former employee, William Schulder, who had become a witness for federal prosecutors. He hired a prostitute to sleep with Schulder, secretly videotaped the encounter and mailed the recording to Schulder's wife — his own sister — who turned it over to authorities. Kushner served about two years in prison before his release in 2006, and Trump cited his philanthropic record "of reform and charity" when pardoning him in 2020. Over the weekend, Trump announced he [intends to nominate Charles Kushner](https://apnews.com/article/trump-france-ambassador-charles-kushner-pardon-c3835be92b1fbd1dffcd05707cba9f52) to serve as ambassador to France. ### How does Hunter's pardon fit into Biden's clemency record? Biden has pardoned [25 individuals](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-joseph-biden-2021-present) and commuted 132 sentences during his tenure, according to Justice Department data. He has granted clemency to many more, including entire groups. In 2022, he took executive action to pardon the more than 6,500 people [convicted of simple marijuana possession](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/06/1127302410/biden-pardon-marijuana-possession-convictions) under federal law and D.C. statute, which he [expanded last year](https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221230390/biden-pardons-clemency-marijuana-drug-offenses). Earlier this year, he issued a blanket pardon to [LGBTQ+ service members](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/g-s1-6364/biden-pardon-troops-lgbtqi-sexuality) removed from the military over their sexual orientation or gender identity. Even so, Eisen says there is much more Biden could do before his term ends — including addressing the more than 8,000 petitions for clemency pending before his administration. The Brennan Center, which describes itself as a nonpartisan law and policy organization, is among the groups urging the president to commute all death sentences to life without parole. Last month, more than 60 members of Congress [wrote Biden a letter](https://theappeal.org/biden-commutations-pardons-before-trump/) asking him to use his authority to "help broad classes of people and cases, including the elderly and chronically ill, those on death row, people with unjustified sentencing disparities, and women who were punished for defending themselves against their abusers." While Biden's most recent — and most personal — pardon is in the spotlight, Eisen hopes he will take this opportunity to afford the same grace to many others who are already serving what she calls excessive sentences. "President Biden has until January 20 to provide clemency for thousands of individuals who are appropriate clemency candidates who are sitting in federal prison right now," Eisen says. "So there's plenty of time."

When [Joe Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/joebiden) announced on Sunday that he would be pardoning his son, Hunter – who was facing sentencing in two federal criminal cases – he helped cement Donald Trump’s much-repeated [argument](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-wants-control-justice-department-fbi-his-allies-have-plan-2024-05-17/) that the American judicial system is rotten, politicized and in need of an overhaul. It’s a stupid refrain, but there _are_ some heavy issues with Biden’s choice to do this now. What are we to make of the hypocrisy of a president who promised he’d “never interfere in the dealings of the justice department”, and swore even up until six weeks ago that he would not pardon his son? Or the fact that he just delivered Trump and the Republican party the kind of ammunition they need to justify pardoning, say, the orchestrators of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol? More morally troubling is that there’s a million other worthy causes that Biden could be using his pardon powers for. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong,” Biden said in his official statement on the pardon. He also [called](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/) Hunter’s conviction a “miscarriage of justice”. [ Joe Biden issues ‘full and unconditional’ pardon to son Hunter ](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/01/joe-biden-pardons-hunter) Sure, there’s validity to Biden’s claims that Hunter was singled out because of who his father is: prosecutors rarely ever charge people for illegal gun possession while being addicted to a controlled substance unless there’s a violent crime involved, for instance, and many other people who are nicked on late tax charges are allowed to resolve things through the civil courts. But political witch hunt or not, the optics of Biden letting his son cut in line are terrible when there are thousands of people languishing in federal prisons who deserve this consideration. From inmates sitting on federal death row charged with faulty evidence, to the Black and brown people serving long jail terms for drug offenses or non-violent crimes, the inequities in the US justice system and who it punishes or rewards are far too grave and well-documented for Biden to have thought this was the right move. Trump has [promised](https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-the-criminal-legal-system#specific-threats-potential-responses) to accelerate mass deportations, to carry out a [spree](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/death-row-capital-punishment-trump-election) of executions including for drug offenses and is actively seeking to re-incarcerate [thousands of people](https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2024/11/06/the-bureau-of-prisons-under-a-trump-administration/) who were released into federal home confinement during the pandemic. Biden’s lack of foresight and judicial inaction on these issues becomes even more shameful in light of Hunter’s pardon. Still, presidential pardons have always been something of a political lootbag for outgoing presidents – a gift for friends and family to be handed out before the party ends. Bill Clinton used his to clear his half-brother of old cocaine charges, while Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father, for tax evasion among other charges. But that’s just family. Let’s not forget that Trump also spent his first term [doling out](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/12/02/trump-pardoned-during-first-term/76705964007/) these pardons to his merry band of thieves and liars including Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. And it is that track record that makes the fallout from Biden’s pardon so frightening, because Trump has [already begun hinting](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/hunter-biden-pardon-trump-jan-6) at the ways he plans to capitalize on the decision. “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump wrote on Truth Social after the announcement. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” Meanwhile, Trump’s Republican buddies have already found ways to shoehorn this moment into a defense of Trump’s most egregious Senate picks. “Democrats can spare us the lectures about the rule of law when, say, President Trump nominates Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to clean up this corruption,” Tom Cotton, the Arkansas senator, wrote on X. More than anything, the Hunter pardon and its fallout are reflective of the sad and un-funny joke that has become [US politics](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-politics) and governance. Next month, Trump will be the first convicted felon ever sworn in as president in American history, and he’s already lining up the get-out-of-jail-free cards for his criminal friends. The difference is that now, any time Trump is criticized for his use of pardon power, he will be able to argue that Biden used those same powers to protect his own son. * Tayo Bero is a Guardian US columnist

Late-night hosts discuss [allegations](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/pete-hegseth-defense-department-alcohol-use) of [Pete Hegseth](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/pete-hegseth)’s worrisome drinking and [sexual misconduct](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/02/pete-hegseth-non-profit-allegations), as well as outrage over [Joe Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/joebiden)’s [pardon](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/01/joe-biden-pardons-hunter) of his son Hunter. Stephen Colbert --------------- On Wednesday evening, [Stephen Colbert](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/stephen-colbert) focused on Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host and [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump)’s choice to be secretary of defense, who by all accounts has a “slight work problem when he shows up at drinking”, the Late Show host joked. According to an NBC report, Hegseth’s drinking even worried colleagues at Fox News. “Reached for comment, Judge Jeanine Pirro said: ‘ahgusasinfarp’,” Colbert quipped. In anonymous interviews, several of Hegseth’s former colleagues at Fox said that on more than a dozen occasions during his time as Fox & Friends Weekend cohost, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. “Come on, it’s a show that starts at 6am on the weekend – I’m sure a lot of morning hosts are still feeling it from the night before,” Colbert continued. Though none of his former co-workers could recall a time when Hegseth missed a scheduled appearance because of his drinking, Colbert noted: “That’s great, because you know what everyone says when the drunk guy shows up at work: ‘Oh good, you’re here.’” Amid cratering congressional support, Hegseth has attempted to defend his appointment by promising to remain sober. “This is the biggest deployment of my life, and there won’t be a drop of alcohol on my lips while I’m doing it,” he said. “A bold pledge that can mean only one thing: he’s gonna butt chug,” Colbert quipped. Trump’s support of Hegseth is reportedly teetering – “much like Pete Hegseth at a staff meeting”, Colbert joked – and he is mulling replacing him with Florida’s governor, [Ron DeSantis](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ron-desantis). While DeSantis has some defense qualifications, his nomination faces an uphill battle, as many in Trump’s orbit strongly dislike him. “Wow, that is a weird way to find out I’m in Trump’s orbit,” said Colbert. Jimmy Kimmel ------------ In Los Angeles, [Jimmy Kimmel](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/jimmy-kimmel) expressed more frustration over the reaction to Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter on federal gun and tax charges. “I don’t love the idea that the president said he wasn’t going to pardon him and then he pardoned him,” he said. “But I’m also having a hard time digesting some of the outrage.” “Over the past three, four days, I’ve heard every Republican screaming about this 24/7 on Fox News. And not just Republicans, Democrats too,” such as Adam Schiff, Gavin Newsom and Tim Kaine. “A lot of them are mad, but what I don’t remember – and maybe someone can help me with this – was hearing anyone from the right; I don’t remember hearing any Republican currently serving in the Senate or in the House, wagging their fingers or clucking their tongues when Donald Trump pardoned his friend Steve Bannon, or swindled a bunch of his Maga supporters out of their money for the wall, or for Paul Manafort or Roger Stone or Michael Flynn or Ivanka’s father-in-law Charles Kushner, who hired a prostitute to blackmail his sister’s husband. “I don’t recall anyone on Fox News or Newsmax or anyone express a single negative thought about those pardons,” he continued. “But I am hearing anchors on CNN, MSNBC, pieces in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Atlantic, lambasting Joe Biden for pardoning Hunter. Isn’t that curious? “I think Joe Biden made a mistake,” he added, explaining that the president should have justified the pardon by what would happen to Hunter under Trump’s administration. “He said he was pardoning his son because he was selectively prosecuted,” he said. “What he should have said is: ‘I’m pardoning him because I know if I don’t, you animals are going to keep tormenting him for the rest of his life. And the reason I know that you’re going to do this is because you guys are currently doing it.’ “Did Joe Biden do the right thing? No, he did not do the right thing,” he concluded. “If my son was in this situation, would I do what Joe Biden did? You’re goddamn right I would.” The Daily Show -------------- “Donald Trump is still constructing his next administration, but he seems to be doing it the same way that that billionaire built the Titanic submarine, because it’s imploding immediately,” said Ronny Chieng on The Daily Show, referring to cratering support for Hegseth after numerous reports of his excessive drinking. “This would be very sobering news for Pete Hegseth if he wasn’t shitfaced right now,” Chieng joked. “I mean, if Hegseth doesn’t get confirmed, this is really going to make people question Trump’s strategy of giving the most unemployable people on Earth the hardest jobs that ever existed.” Chieng said he almost felt bad for Hegseth. “He had it made – a cushy job on Fox News, a side hustle selling macho garbage on rightwing Instagram, a loving third family – and then Trump comes along and offers him a job and now his life is kinda fucked up. I mean, who could’ve seen that coming … other than Matt Gaetz, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen and everyone else Trump has ever come into contact with.”

On Thursday, the White House announced that President Joe Biden is [commuting sentences for roughly 1,500 people](https://apnews.com/article/biden-pardons-clemency-4432002d67334e6716c2776fd73f3cc8) who had been released from prison during the pandemic and have since been placed on home confinement — a record number of commutations in a single day. Biden also pardoned 39 others convicted of nonviolent crimes and said he will continue to review clemency petitions, which can come in the form of a commutation or a pardon. The move underscores how crucial the pardon power really is: the last possible corrective when the criminal justice system imprisons too many people and punishes them too harshly. But it comes just after Biden showed the other side of the presidential pardon. Shortly after Thanksgiving, Biden issued a [broad pardon of his son Hunter](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/us/politics/biden-pardon-son-hunter.html), arguing that Hunter had been unfairly prosecuted and that the tax evasion and gun charges brought against him were politically motivated. That decision was a stark departure from his campaign promise to reestablish a commitment to the rule of law and to restore norms that insulate the Department of Justice from a president’s conflicts of interest after Donald Trump so brazenly abandoned those principles during his first White House term. Biden’s pardon of his son was roundly criticized by lawmakers, including [members of his own party,](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/02/politics/biden-allies-disappointed-pardon) and also appears to be unpopular with the American public. (According to an Associated Press poll, [only around two in 10 Americans](https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-pardon-poll-approve-disapprove-survey-cb7b7e4931b0a778bd0a68cc1733c4a9) approve of Biden’s decision to pardon his son.) In the wake of the Hunter pardon, as well as Trump’s previous corrupt use of the power and [promise to pardon participants in the January 6, 2021, insurrection](https://www.vox.com/politics/390519/trump-pardon-january-6-insurrection), lawmakers have rightly renewed [calls to place checks on the president’s pardon power](https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/concerns-about-hunter-bidens-pardon-ring-hollow-republicans-sidelined). Thursday’s pardons, however, emphasize why the power is an important tool to preserve and why efforts to reform it ought to be careful. But there are still ways to ensure it’s used more for good than for personal gain. That said, any attempt at pardon reform will face an uphill battle because the power is [enshrined in the US Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/) — but given the bipartisan tendency to misuse it and the frustration people from both parties have over it, lawmakers now might have a unique opportunity to make some key changes. The pardon is one of the president’s broadest and most unchecked powers. As my colleague [Ian Millhiser recently pointed out](https://www.vox.com/criminal-justice/390060/biden-trump-pardon-power-supreme-court-enemies), the Supreme Court has, for more than 150 years, acknowledged that presidents can issue pardons as they please — to whomever and however many people they want — and neither Congress nor the courts can get in the way. The limits on the pardon power are also extremely narrow: Presidents can only pardon federal crimes, so presidential pardons don’t protect their recipients from being prosecuted under state laws. And presidents can’t issue pardons for crimes that may be committed in the future. “The pardon power is certainly among the most expansive afforded to an American president and the least constrained,” said Donald Sherman, the executive director and chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit government ethics watchdog, adding that it is “especially dangerous in the hands of a lawless president.” Throughout American history, all but [two presidents have made use of their pardon power](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article296503904.html), typically [issuing them on their way out of the White House](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/presidential-pardons-explained) to avoid political backlash during their time in office. And many presidential pardons have been, to put it mildly, controversial. Trump, for example, issued pardons of his close allies, including Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon. He also [pardoned his son-in-law’s father](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/file/1112541/dl?inline), and even [seemingly publicly dangled](https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/ny-post-trump-manafort-pardon-on-the-table/index.html) a pardon in front of Paul Manafort, his former campaign chair, when Manafort was under investigation over Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. But perhaps most (in)famously, Gerald Ford [granted a pardon of Richard Nixon](https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/digital-research-room/library-collections/topic-guides/nixon-pardon) after the Watergate scandal led to Nixon’s resignation — setting the precedent that presidents are, in fact, above the law. But the president’s ability to grant clemency is also a powerful tool that can be used for good, specifically to correct historic injustices perpetrated by federal courts, as evident in Biden’s decision today. Barack Obama granted clemency to nearly 2,000 people, most of them nonviolent drug offenders. It can also be a democratic tool, as was highlighted on Jimmy Carter’s first full day in the White House, when he [pardoned the hundreds of thousands](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/apply-vietnam-era-pardon#:~:text=On%20January%2021%2C%201977%2C%20President,certificate%20if%20you%20were%20pardoned.) of Americans who evaded the Vietnam War draft, fulfilling a [campaign promise](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/president-carter-pardons-draft-dodgers-jan-21-1977-346493). By empowering the president, as the elected representative of the people, to grant clemency, the pardon is essentially the public’s only means of undoing convictions that we as a society decided were wrong So while the pardon power has certainly been misused, it also serves an important purpose and shouldn’t be done away with entirely. That’s why efforts to rein it in should focus on narrowly limiting the president’s power by simply providing more transparency and oversight and the possibility of undoing a corrupt pardon. One of the easier routes to reform the pardon is by creating new rules at the executive level. And though those can be easily undone — and are certainly unlikely to happen during the Trump years — they can set standards and public expectations about how presidents issue pardons. A future president, for example, [can establish a clemency board](https://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2021/06/future-proofing-the-presidency/part-5-rewards-for-doing-the-presidents-bidding/), similar to how many states grant pardons. The board would be staffed by experts, who would review petitions, and provide a more transparent and deliberative process than the current system. Right now, that happens at the Office of the Pardon Attorney with the Department of Justice, which has been [criticized for its opaque process](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/pardon-chief-aims-for-transparency-in-opaque-doj-process) in how it makes recommendations for presidential pardons. More complicated reforms would require a constitutional amendment enshrining the new limits. “One thing that may be worth exploring is a congressional override,” Sherman said. That way, Congress doesn’t have to necessarily curtail the president’s power or put limits on who a president can and can’t pardon. But in deeply unpopular cases that present a conflict of interest, Congress can have a say in whether or not those pardons should stand. “If there was a supermajority override provision, \[that\] might address some of the most egregious cases,” Sherman added. Other proposals could include putting explicit (though narrow) limits on the president’s power. Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for example, [previously introduced legislation](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/4/text) to amend the Constitution to bar presidents from being able to pardon themselves, their family members, and administration and campaign officials. “The framers of the Constitution included the pardon provisions as a safety valve against injustice, not as the means for a President to put himself, his family, and his associates above the law,” Cohen [said in a statement at the time](https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-cohen-introduces-constitutional-amendment-reform). Until these reforms happen, presidents will continue to exercise one of their most sweeping powers with no checks and balances. Biden may have shown how this power ought to be used on his way out (Hunter pardon aside), but with Trump preparing to return to the White House more unrestrained than ever, leaving the pardon power untouched should worry lawmakers across the board. You’ve read 1 article in the last month Here at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country. Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change. We rely on readers like you — join us.  Swati Sharma Vox Editor-in-Chief See More: * [Criminal Justice](https://www.vox.com/criminal-justice) * [Policy](https://www.vox.com/policy) * [Politics](https://www.vox.com/politics)

Four years after [receiving a pardon](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/23/us/politics/trump-pardon-manafort-stone.html) from President Donald J. Trump for crimes related to foreign lobbying, Paul Manafort is again seeking business from political interests abroad. Mr. Manafort, who led Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign for a few months, has assembled a team of consultants who helped run Mr. Trump’s 2024 effort and is looking to advise campaigns for opposition and far-right political factions in Latin America and Europe, according to documents and interviews. Mr. Manafort has discussed working for a French billionaire supporting anti-immigration politicians including Marine Le Pen, as well as an ultraconservative Peruvian mayor seen as a possible presidential candidate. Mr. Manafort has even engaged with interests in Ukraine, the country where his work for Russia-aligned interests led to his downfall. The circumstances around his re-emergence on the international political consulting scene are murky and fraught, particularly in Ukraine, where there are concerns about Mr. Trump’s commitment to supporting the defense against Russian aggression and where Mr. Manafort’s previous activity remains infamous. A memo detailing the team’s members and pitching its services recently circulated in political circles in Kyiv, generating anxious buzz. Mr. Manafort said in a statement that he has been contacted “by numerous parties in Ukraine,” but “never submitted a proposal on any matter to anyone in Ukraine,” and has not signed any contracts with interests there. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F01%2F12%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F01%2F12%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F01%2F12%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F01%2F12%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-manafort.html).

First, before Elon Musk came for everyone, [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) came for the US Senate. When he returned to office, the House of Representatives was already under his heel. Many of the House Republican leaders had been his sidekicks during January 6, and one, Mark Johnson, had since become the speaker. The Senate, however, still retained, for the most part, its club-like atmosphere where the members considered themselves powers unto themselves. Senators with a toga complex have always looked down on House members as rabble. Trump viewed the independent character of the upper body as a thorn in his side. The subservience of the House of Representatives was the model that Trump envisioned for the Senate. It could no longer pretend to be the greatest deliberative body of legislators in the world, but a vassal fiefdom subject to his whims. Trump’s opportunity to crush the Senate appeared at once. As soon as he made his nominations for his cabinet, the Senate would hold confirmation hearings. His misfit nominees gave him his chance. In any previous time, just a tincture of the alcoholism, serial sexual abuse, playing footsie with a Russian-backed despot, hawking of snake oil, doodling enemies lists and bilking non-profit organizations, quite apart from plain incompetence, would have been enough to knock them out before they ever approached a seat in a hearing room. The senator John Tower, of Texas, very much a member of the club of his day, but a drunken sexual harasser of the old school, groping in elevators, was exposed when George HW Bush nominated him as secretary of defense, and dropped out. But shame in the Trump orbit is as antiquated a notion as virtue. The patent unfitness of Trump’s nominees put the senators on the spot. It was the senators, not the obviously disqualified nominees, who had to pass the test. They were not the ones sitting in judgment; they were in Trump’s dock. If Trump could break the lords of the Senate over his cabinet of curiosities, he could reduce them to being his serfs. By transforming their duty to advise and consent into shut up and obey, Trump would trample more than unstated norms. He would be obliterating a constitutional responsibility of the Senate and removing a further check and balance on his power. Subverting the institution was not an abstract exercise. If individual senators looked like they might stand in the way, it was not enough that they be defeated on a roll-call vote. They had to be personally violated. The part of themselves that they held to be at their core both as public officials and private persons had to be soiled. They had to be made examples before the others. Their humiliation had to be performed as a public demonstration. By voting in favor of nominees they knew in their bones should never be approved, whose disqualifications crossed the senators’ deepest principles, their intimidation made them Trump’s subjects. Once the method of defilement was established, it would be applied again and again. It would loom as an ever-present threat over any others’ wavering. Trump’s degradation would be sufficient to cow the rest. But he would not stop. After the first victim, then there was the next, and the next, one after another, until Trump was the master of the Senate. Trump began with one senator whose vulnerability he could twist to make her writhe. That senator was Joni Ernst, of Iowa. [](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/16/donald-trump-us-senate#img-2) Joni Ernst during a confirmation hearing in Washington DC on 23 January 2025. Photograph: Laura Brett/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock After attending Iowa State University, where she joined ROTC, Ernst enlisted in the army, served during the Iraq war in Kuwait in charge of a transport unit, and attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. Running for the [US Senate](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-senate) in 2014, she said she had been sexually harassed in the military and pledged that, if elected, she would make independent investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes her signature issue. Once she entered the Senate, Ernst was for the most part a down-the-line conservative Republican, yet was also among the few [Republicans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans) who consistently sponsored and voted for bills to protect victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, especially focusing on women in the military. When Ernst divorced in 2019, her painful story of emotional and physical abuse became public – her husband’s dalliance with a babysitter, his long-term affair with a mistress and, after she confronted him, how he suddenly “grabbed me by the throat with his hands and threw me on the landing floor. And then he pounded my head.” Her husband responded by accusing her of having an affair herself, which she said was a “lie”. She also revealed at that time that she had been raped as a college student, reported it to the counseling service, but chose not to go to the police, and had kept it a secret. “I couldn’t stomach the idea that my rape would become public knowledge,” she [wrote](https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/12/10/ernst-hegseth-nomination-allegations/) in a memoir published in 2020. “I was sure my boyfriend would find a way to blame me.” Ernst’s divorce complaint disclosed for the first time that she had turned down candidate Donald Trump’s offer to be his vice-presidential running mate in the 2016 campaign. She attributed her refusal as vaguely not being “the right thing for me or my family”. It is uncertain whether Trump ever made the actual offer. He took Mike Pence, who was pressed on him by his campaign manager Paul Manafort to represent the evangelical right. When Trump nominated Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense, stories instantly surfaced that the Fox News weekend host had been accused of rape, paid hush money, had a history of sexual abuse in two of his marriages, impregnated a girlfriend and was a raging alcoholic who drank on the job. He also opposed women serving in combat roles in the military, as Ernst had. “I am a survivor of sexual assault,” Ernst said in her initial response to Hegseth’s nomination. She insisted that she wanted “to make sure that any allegations have been cleared, and that’s why we have to have a very thorough vetting process”. But the “vetting process” was warped. Witnesses were hesitant to come forward, afraid they would be subject to the reign of terror that Christine Blasey Ford endured when she publicly testified in Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing to be on the supreme court he had sexually assaulted her. But the woman who claimed that Hegseth had raped her was willing to speak privately with Ernst. So were two other witnesses, both female soldiers who would also talk to her in private about his drunkenness and sexual harassment. Ernst was then subjected to waves of “Maga” attacks. Facing re-election in 2026, she was threatened with a primary challenge from a local rightwing talkshow host, Steve Dease, who posted: “Joni Ernst sucked as a Senator long before this … I am willing to primary her for the good of the cause.” Elon Musk forked over a half-million dollars to blast ads that wallpapered Iowa TV, hailing Hegseth as a “patriot” and “warrior”, and warning that the “deep state” (ie Ernst) opposed him. Donald Trump Jr unleashed a storm on social media against Ernst, saying that if any senator criticized Hegseth, “maybe you’re in the wrong political party!” An online squadron of winged monkeys swarmed her. The phrase “She’s a Democrat” trended. Ernst succumbed to the smear campaign. She refused to meet with the alleged rape victim, according to a [report](https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-pressure-campaign-to-get-pete-hegseth-confirmed-as-defense-secretary) by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker. She also would not see the other women with first-hand accounts. Ernst hid. The witnesses, however, told their stories to Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat of Illinois and a combat veteran who lost both of her legs. From her isolation, Ernst finally released an announcement that she would support Hegseth. Duckworth said that Ernst and other Republican senators had refused to put “the national security of America over their own political survival”. Then came the turn of Thom Tillis, the senator of North Carolina. He, too, was wary of Hegseth. He heard first-hand from a witness about his drunken behavior. Tillis [told](https://www.wsj.com/politics/pete-hegseth-thom-tillis-senate-confirmation-1974dd47) Hegseth’s former sister-in-law that if she provided an affidavit about Hegseth’s abuse, he would vote against him. So, she came forward despite the slings and arrows of the Trump mob. The evening before the vote, Tillis quietly told the Republican leader John Thune he would oppose Hegseth. Tillis [spoke](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/us/politics/hegseth-trump-tillis-senate.html?searchResultPosition=1) with both JD Vance and Trump. Unlike Ernst, none of his drama was conducted in public. When the time came to vote, Tillis, who faces a tough re-election in 2026, voted “yes”. Tillis turned on a dime. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/16/donald-trump-us-senate#EmailSignup-skip-link-17) Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion [](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/16/donald-trump-us-senate#img-3) Pete Hegseth in Warsaw, Poland, on 13 February 2025. Photograph: Aleksandra Szmigiel/Reuters Then they came for Bill Cassidy, the senator of Louisiana. Cassidy is a physician who has devoted much of his career to public health and educating people about the importance of vaccinations. He was the decisive vote on the Senate finance committee on the nomination of Robert F Kennedy Jr to become secretary of health and human services, the leading vaccine skeptic who has made millions off his crank conspiracy theories and whose cousin, Caroline Kennedy, called him “a predator”. Cassidy attempted to coax Kennedy into committing to the scientific truth that vaccines work. “I’m a doc, trying to understand,” Cassidy said. “Convince me that you will become the public health advocate, but not just churn the old information so that there’s never a conclusion.” No matter how many times he tried, Kennedy would not give him a straight answer. Cassidy was already vulnerable. He had voted to impeach Trump after the January 6 insurrection. A far-right primary opponent, the representative Clay Higgins, was preparing to run against him. After Cassidy’s questioning of Kennedy, the winged monkeys descended on him. And Higgins posted on X: “So, vote your conscience Senator, or don’t. Either way, We’re watching.” Cassidy replied with a biblical quotation: “Joshua said to them: ‘Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Be strong and courageous. This is what the LORD will do to all the enemies you are going to fight.” But when the vote came, Cassidy crumpled. They came for Todd Young, the senator of Indiana. He is something of Hoosier Republican royalty, married to the niece of former vice-president Dan Quayle. Young was poised as the decisive vote on the Senate intelligence committee on the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence. In addition to “parroting false Russian propaganda”, as the former senator Mitt Romney put it, and visiting Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, whom she declared was not a “torturer” and “murderer”, she had urged a pardon for “brave” Edward Snowden, who stole massive amounts of data from the National Security Agency and absconded to Russia. When Young asked her whether Snowden had “betrayed the American people”, she acknowledged he had broken the law, but would not go beyond that formulation. Young appeared edgy about her nomination. “Todd Young is a deep state puppet,” posted Elon Musk. His ears had pricked up when he had learned that Young was on the board of directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, created by Ronald Reagan and funded through USAid to promote the rule of law and democracy around the world. Musk tweeted that the NED was “an evil organization \[that\] needs to be dissolved”. The Trump X mob swarmed. Besieged, Young spoke with JD Vance. The US vice-president arranged a call with Musk. Young announced he would back Gabbard. The noise disappeared. The novel Advise and Consent, by a Washington reporter, Allen Drury, published in 1959 and produced as a movie in 1962, described a cold war melodrama in the Senate over the confirmation of a nominee to become secretary of state who had a left-wing background in his youth. One senator, with a secret gay past, caught up in the fight, fearing exposure, commits suicide. (The scene depicting a gay bar was a movie first.) But the suicide was not over any great principle. The victim was collateral damage. And the president in Advise and Consent was not attempting to use the process to coerce the Senate into vassalage. Hegseth, Kennedy and Gabbard are now all confirmed. The advise and consent responsibility of the Senate was twisted. The senators came to kneel before Trump – and Musk. Musk praised Young, the former “puppet”, as “a great ally”. Cassidy posted: “After collaborative conversations with RFK and the White House, I voted yes to confirm him.” Tillis gave a floor speech extolling Musk and Doge: “Innovation requires pushing the envelope and taking calculated risks.” Ernst wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled USAid Is a Rogue Agency. Meanwhile, the $2bn in USAid purchases of agricultural products for humanitarian aid were suspended. The Iowa Soybean Association, dependent on a $95m grant supporting more than 1,000 farms that was now not being paid, protested. Ernst, a member of the Senate agriculture committee, was silent. “I was embarrassed,” Ernst told the Des Moines Register about speaking about being raped. “I didn’t know how to explain it. I was so humiliated. And I’m a private person, when it comes to those things.” After that incident, she found herself in an abusive relationship and the victim of domestic violence. As a senator, she used her position to break with her past of victimhood and established herself as a champion of those who had been victimized as she had been. But then she found herself in another abusive relationship, with Donald Trump. She was threatened with being completely stripped of everything she had striven for and her status as a senator destroyed. She had a choice to stand up against her transgressor or to subject herself to him. She decided to submit to the humiliation. And afterward she became the enabler of the abuser.

To Jeffrey Toobin, author of [The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy](https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-pardon-nixon-ford-and-the-politics-of-presidential-mercy-jeffrey-toobin/21580642), pardons are “X-rays into the soul” of the American president who gives them, revealing true character. Pardons can show compassion and mercy in the occupant of the Oval Office. More often, they expose venality and self-preservation. Toobin said: “One thing you can say about [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) is that his moral compass always points in the same direction, and his motives are always the same, which are transactional and narcissistic. This is a good example, I think, of my thesis that pardons are X-rays into the president’s soul.” In his first term, Trump “wanted to settle a score with Robert Mueller, so he [pardoned everyone](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/who-trump-pardon-guide-george-papadopoulos-duncan-hunter) Mueller prosecuted” in the special counsel’s investigation of Russian election interference in 2016 and links between Trump and Moscow, Toobin said. “Trump wanted to take care of his family, so he [pardoned](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/23/donald-trumps-latest-wave-of-pardons-includes-paul-manafort-and-charles-kunsher) his daughter’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner,” who is now nominated as US ambassador to France, the author added. “He wanted to reward his House Republican allies, so he pardoned several who were engaged in [egregious corruption](https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/12/22/trump-pardons-former-rep-duncan-hunter-1350183), and he pardoned people who were \[his son-in-law and adviser\] [Jared Kushner’s friends](https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/politics/kenneth-kurson-trump-pardon-kushner/index.html).” Asked why he wrote his 10th book to come out now, so soon after such a momentous election, Toobin, a former CNN legal analyst and New Yorker writer, said: “I saw that from a very early stage in the campaign Trump was talking about January 6 pardons. But I also recognized that if Kamala Harris won, there would be pressure on her to pardon Trump” on 44 federal criminal charges now dismissed. “I think the proper way to understand the January 6 pardons \[[issued on day one](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/trump-executive-orders-jan-6-pardons) of Trump’s second term\] is to remember that Trump himself was a January 6 defendant, Toobin said. “He wasn’t charged with the riot the way the others were, but he was charged with trying to overthrow the election with the fake electors scheme. And if you look at the way in the beginning part of his second term he is settling scores and rewarding his friends, the January 6 pardons told you exactly how he was going to go about conducting his administration.” Reportedly saying: “[Fuck it, release ’em all](https://www.axios.com/2025/01/22/trump-pardons-jan6-clemency)”, Trump gave pardons, commutations or other acts of clemency to the absurd, such as the [J6 Praying Grandma](https://www.9news.com/article/news/national/jan-6-praying-grandma-trump-pardon/73-06deb7c8-5182-4228-8ef3-2b5daed612b2) and the [QAnon Shaman](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/05/trust-the-plan-review-qanon-trump-unhinged-america-will-sommer), and to the outright sinister: hundreds who attacked police, [militia leaders](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/24/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers) convicted of seditious conspiracy, Toobin wrote. He said: “If Trump had tried to carve out the non-violent January 6 rioters \[for clemency\], that that would have been somewhat more defensible than what he wound up doing, which was, in my view, completely indefensible.” His point about pardons being an X-ray for the soul applies to [Joe Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/joebiden) too. On the page, Toobin decries the 46th president’s decision to pardon his son, [Hunter Biden](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/01/joe-biden-pardons-hunter), on gun and tax charges and any other grounds, having said he would not do so. Toobin said: “When you think about Hunter, this is a guy who was [convicted](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/11/hunter-biden-gun-charges-verdict) of a crime, who [pleaded guilty](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/hunter-biden-guilty-plea-tax-avoidance-case) to other crimes. So it’s not like these were made-up accusations against him. Yes, the criminal justice system came down hard on him, but the criminal justice system comes down hard on a lot of people, and their father wasn’t president of the United States, so they don’t get this kind of break. And I just think that’s not how the system is supposed to work.” Publishing schedules being what they are, The Pardon does not cover the last-minute pre-emptive pardons Biden gave his brothers, his sister and their spouses, as well as public figures held to be in danger of persecution by Trump, Liz Cheney and Gen Mark Milley among them. But Toobin told the Guardian: “The family pardons were just bizarre, because these people, as far as I’m aware, are not even under investigation. But \[Biden\] was so worried and fixated on his family that he took this extraordinary step, which is just egregious to me.” The pardon is older than America. British kings could pardon people. When the states broke away, they kept the pardon for presidents. George Washington used it after the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, for men convicted of treason. Abraham Lincoln used it during the civil war to reprieve Union soldiers sentenced to die and to forgive Confederates in the name of peace. Such acts of mercy continue, memorably including Jimmy Carter’s clemency for those who dodged the draft for Vietnam and Barack Obama’s [record-setting](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2017/01/17/president-obama-has-now-granted-more-commutations-any-president-nations-history) issue of [commutations](https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/obama-administration-clemency-initiative) for people mostly jailed for minor crimes. Even Trump handed down mercy in his first term, amid the push which produced [the First Step Act,](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/21/trump-prison-reform-first-step-act-signed-law) criminal justice reform he swiftly seemed to forget. Asked which modern president has best used the pardon power for the public good, Toobin picks Obama. Inevitably, though, most public attention falls on use of the power for controversial ends, including George HW Bush’s [mop-up](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/24/bush-pardons-iran-contra-felons-dec-24-1992-1072042) of the Iran-Contra scandal and Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon for [Marc Rich](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/26/marc-rich-commodities-trader-fugitive-dies), a financier turned fugitive. The most famous pardon of all, the one Gerald Ford gave [Richard Nixon](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/richard-nixon) after the Watergate scandal, hangs over every president. As Toobin sees it, had Harris taken office in January, pressure to pardon Trump of his alleged federal crimes would have been great, and it would have sprung from “an interesting shift in the conventional wisdom” about Ford and Nixon. [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/feb/18/jeffrey-toobin-trump-biden-pardon-power#EmailSignup-skip-link-19) Sign up to First Thing Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion “It was [widely considered a disaster](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/08/elizabeth-holtzman-nixon-watergate-impeachment-pardon-trump-biden) in 1974” – Carl Bernstein [told](https://www.propublica.org/article/presidential-pardons-how-the-nixon-pardon-strained-a-presidential-friendshi) Bob Woodward, his Washington Post partner in reporting Watergate, “The son of a bitch pardoned the son of a bitch” – “but now you’ve had Ted Kennedy [giving](https://www.jfklibrary.org/events-and-awards/profile-in-courage-award/award-recipients/president-gerald-ford-2001) Gerald Ford an award, saying he was right about the pardon. You have Bob Woodward [changing his mind](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-nixon-pardon-in-retrospect) \[to say the pardon was ‘an act of courage’\]', and at the oral argument of the Trump v United States supreme court case \[about presidential immunity, last April\], Justice Brett Kavanaugh [said](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/kavanaugh-says-most-people-now-revere-nixon-pardon-not-so-fast/), ‘Well, everyone now agrees Ford did the right thing.’” Toobin thinks Ford did the wrong thing, given Nixon’s clearly criminal behavior. He was also “struck by the absence of a book heavily focused on that issue of the Ford pardon. So all those combinations led me to try to not only write a book, but have it come out in early 2025.” He duly devotes most of that book to the Nixon pardon: how Ford agonized about it, decided to do it, then employed an obscure young lawyer to make sure Nixon took it. “I had certainly never heard of Benton Becker when I went into this,” Toobin said. “And I think his central role illustrates how ill-prepared Ford was for the whole issue of dealing with Nixon, because if you want to address an issue that will be the central event of your presidency, maybe you want to entrust it to someone who is not a young volunteer lawyer, who is himself under criminal investigation. “Now, if you say that, you should say that Becker \[[who died in 2015](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us/benton-becker-ford-aide-dies-at-77-negotiated-nixon-pardon.html)\] was completely cleared. But it struck me as ludicrous that a president with the entire resources of the White House counsel’s office, the justice department and the entire American government, chose to invest so much authority in this young man. I think that just illustrates how Ford’s anxiousness to get the whole Nixon subject behind him led him to fail to consider the consequences of what he was doing.” The rights and wrongs of the Nixon pardon echo to this day. Looking again to last year’s supreme court arguments over presidential immunity, which the justices decided did apply in relation to official acts, Toobin said: “I thought the best question at that oral argument was Justice \[Ketanji Brown\] Jackson saying, ‘If presidents are immune, why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?’ Which is a great question, and doesn’t really have an answer. The only real answer is that \[Chief Justice\] John Roberts just completely changed the rules” in Trump’s favor. The Pardon is Toobin’s guide to how presidential pardons work, for good or often ill. He is not optimistic that the power can be reined in or usefully reformed: “The both good and bad news is that our constitution is almost impossible to amend, and no one cares enough about pardons one way or the other to undertake the massive task of of trying to amend the constitution. It’s not even clear how you would amend it. My solution to pardon problems is not changing the constitution, it’s getting better presidents.” That will have to wait – at least for four more years.

Sycophancy is the coin of the realm. In Donald Trump’s court, flattery is the only spoken language. He does not need an executive order to enforce it. Fear is the other side of the coin. Loyalty must be blind. Obedience is safety. Cronyism secures status. His whim is dogma. Criticism is heresy. Debate is apostasy. Expertise is bias. Objectivity is a hoax. Truth is just your opinion. Lies are defended to the death as articles of faith. New ones are manufactured on an industrial scale by his press office for social influencers to spread. Denying facts proves fealty. The rule of law is partisan. Russia is our trusted ally. Britain and France are “random counties”. Retribution is policy. The deeper the submission to madness, the greater his supremacy. The subjugation is more thorough if the things people are forced to accept are irrational or, better, the reverse of what they had believed. When previously held beliefs are abandoned to conform to their opposite, like the secretary of state Marco Rubio’s formerly adamant support of Ukraine, which went to his core as the son of refugees from Castro’s Cuba, the more Trump’s dominance is demonstrated. Rubio has gone full circle, from his family fleeing one kind of tyranny to Trump sneering at him as “Little Marco” to ambitious embrace of his tormentor. He finds himself as a supplicant to Trump complaining about Elon Musk’s mindless wreckage of the state department. Formally the ranking constitutional officer of the cabinet, Rubio is below Musk in Trump’s hierarchy. Each of the concentric rings of Trump’s court require different nuances of servility. At mid-level, the ethos is to mimic the irrational impulses of the ruler in order to be seen as his willing helper. In 1934, a middle-rank German minister explained that “it is the duty of everybody to try to work towards the Führer along the lines he would wish.” “Working toward the Fuhrer” – _auf den Führer hinarbeiten_ – became the governing style, or else. At the cabinet level, Rubio’s renunciation is an essential conversion to prove subservient allegiance to the _Fuhrerprinzip_. “The higher one rose in the hierarchy, the more servile one became,” wrote Albert Speer, Hitler’s war manufacturing minister, in his memoir. At the height of power, in the innermost circle, at the leader’s right hand, sits [JD Vance](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/jd-vance), who taunts and threatens on the leader’s behalf, demanding obsequious “respect” while slyly deploying his sycophancy to goad the leader. Upon passing through the gates of Trump’s White House, Ukraine’s president, [Volodymyr Zelenskyy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/volodymyr-zelenskiy), entered into a domain that would have been intimately familiar to him. It would have been reminiscent of the claustrophobic despotism in Ukraine under communism. It would have been a reminder of what was called “the Family” of kleptocratic oligarchs, lackeys and political operatives surrounding the Putin-backed Ukrainian ruler Viktor Yanukovych before he fled the country during the popular uprising of 2014 – a gangster culture that included the US consultant Paul Manafort, also Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, whom he would pardon for a host of criminal felonies. > Not even Elon Musk systematically shredding the federal government approached the historic scale of Trump’s crime against Ukraine A western world shocked at Trump’s orchestrated humiliation of Zelenskyy should have seen the staged event as the culmination of hundreds of similar transgressions since he became president again. The difference between the rest of his rampage and his denigration of Zelensky was only in its momentousness. But not even [Elon Musk](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/elon-musk) systematically shredding the federal government approached the historic scale of Trump’s crime against Ukraine, which reduced the United States through a few insults to the lowest ebb of its international power and prestige since a century ago, when, in a spasm of partisan isolationism, the Senate rejected joining the League of Nations after the first world war. But, for the appalled and disoriented Europeans who must pick up the pieces as they adjust to the reality of an American president discarding them in order to forge a grand alliance with Russia, the revealing signs of Trump’s malignancy have been present in a never-ending series of less than world historical but dramatically squalid scandals. “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized,” New York mayor Ed Koch once quipped. Now, Trump tried to erase the infamy of being a figure of ridicule in New York by planting his hooks into the current mayor, Eric Adams. A predator recognizes vulnerability. After ordering the Department of Justice to drop its corruption charges against Adams, Trump’s precipitate action prompted the resignation of the acting US attorney for the southern district of New York, Danielle Sassoon, who [stated](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25526481/sassoon-letter.pdf) that it was “a quid pro quo” in exchange for supporting the Trump administration’s “enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed”, and which was followed by the resignations of seven prosecutors from the justice department’s public integrity unit, who refused to participate in the deal. > Trump’s repetitive compulsion to create disorder allows him to present himself as its would-be master With Adams under his heel, Trump next crushed the Republican Senate through the confirmation process of his unqualified collection of quacks for his cabinet. Intimidation and smears did the work of cowing the august senators. Then, through his installation of his largest donor, Elon Musk, as his self-advertised “Dark Maga” overlord, Trump launched the massacre of the entire federal government. Off with their heads everywhere. The purges have no trials. Tick off the execution list of Project 2025. Let the courts slowly try to catch up to the devastation. Trump’s repetitive compulsion to create disorder allows him to present himself as its would-be master. He can’t temper his impulses. His bedlam provides his only arena for self-validation. He must always fabricate scenes for the exaltation of himself through the humiliation of others to confirm that he is strong. Musk magnifies his abuse. In two speeches, one by the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and the other by the vice-president, JD Vance, the [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration) shifted the ground under Ukraine and the western allies to Russian advantage. On 12 February, at the Ukraine Contact Group in Brussels, Hegseth conceded conditions to Russia before any negotiations had begun. He stated the return of occupied territory “unrealistic”, opposed Nato membership and rejected US participation in a security force. Two days later, on 14 February, Vance delivered a second shock, reciting the talking points of the far-right parties in Europe in a virtual endorsement a week before the German election of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany Party. Some Republicans appear to have a good idea about the agents of influence floating around the Trump administration. Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, said after Hegseth’s speech, “I don’t know who wrote the speech – it is the kind of thing [Tucker Carlson](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/tucker-carlson) could have written, and Carlson is a fool.” The former Fox News talkshow host, now with his own podcast, has deep ties to the regimes of Putin and Orbán of Hungary. A fount of Russian disinformation, he is at the center of a circle that includes Donald Trump Jr and JD Vance, bonded as lost boys, abandoned in childhood, and who persuaded Trump to name Vance as his running mate. Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, a pro-Russian echo chamber, now the national director of intelligence, were brought into their orbit. Tucker Carlson’s son, Buckley Carlson, is Vance’s deputy press director. [Jack Posobiec](https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/jack-posobiec/), a far-right conspiracy monger of Pizzagate and white supremacist, was invited to travel with Hegseth, to whom he is close, and has traveled with the secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, on his trip in February to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky. In 2017, according to a [report](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/The_Macron_Leaks_Operation-A_Post-Mortem.pdf) of the Atlantic Council, Posobiec was a key player in aiding the Russian “coordinated attempt to undermine Emmanuel Macron’s candidacy, with a disinformation campaign consisting of rumors, fake news, and even forged documents; a hack targeting the computers of his campaign staff; and, finally, a leak – 15 gigabytes of stolen data, including 21,075 emails, released on Friday, May 5, 2017 – just two days before the second and final round of the presidential election”. In 2024, Posobiec addressed the Conservative Political Action Committee: “Welcome to the [end of democracy](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/jack-posobiec-jan-6-2024-cpac-rcna140225). We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it.” Making nice with Trump has never proved to be a winning strategy. If Zelensky had bent to shine Trump’s shoes under his desk, he would still have been in a trap. Obsequious gestures to neutralize Trump have been repeatedly tried and failed. If anyone could cajole Trump, it would have been David Rubenstein, the billionaire founder of the Carlyle Group who built his firm with a bipartisan board. Rubenstein has been a pillar of the Washington community, who cherishes the constitution and has lent the National Archives his copy of the original Bill of Rights, personally paid for the restoration of the Washington Monument, and is a patron of the arts, the longtime chair of the Kennedy Center. He recently bought the Baltimore Orioles. Rubenstein wined and dined Donald and Melania Trump, attempted to ingratiate himself and bring them into his charmed circle. Rubenstein’s civilizing mission ran aground. Rubenstein presented Trump with a golden opportunity to gain the kind of acceptance he had sought for a lifetime. He has nursed his injury over rejection by the great and the good in New York, where his crudity, vulgarity and narrow greed constantly undermined his social ambitions. He was also a spectacular failure in the New York real estate market. But Trump still harbored resentment from the 2017 Kennedy Center Honors, when two of the recipients, choreographer Carmen de Lavallade and legendary TV producer Norman Lear, declined to attend a reception at the White House. Trump never appeared at any of the Kennedy Center Honors during his first term. He never came to a single of the thousands of the wide variety of cultural events there, not one. He was not boycotting; he had no interest in theater, music, dance, anything. He is a void. > Trump cares less for a diplomatic approach than for acting out his endless drama of victimization and self-promotion On 12 February, Trump unceremoniously fired its entire board, claimed that the national centerpiece of the performing arts in the capital was “woke” and a “disgrace,” denounced Rubenstein, who does “not share our Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture”, and announced as his replacement “an amazing Chairman, DONALD J. TRUMP!” Rubenstein was privately stunned and surprised at his shabby treatment. But Trump cared less for Rubenstein’s diplomatic approach than for acting out his endless drama of victimization and self-promotion. Trump’s interim director inserted at the Kennedy Center, Ric Grenell, a rightwing activist who was universally [despised](https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/u-s-ambassador-richard-grenell-is-isolated-in-berlin-a-1247610.html) in Germany when he was ambassador there in the first Trump term, declared that to “make the arts great again” the Kennedy Center would [stage](https://operawire.com/ric-grenell-to-celebrate-christ-at-kennedy-center-takes-shot-at-deborah-rutter/) a biblical pageant about the birth of Jesus. Trump named Melania’s former modeling agent, Paolo Zampolli, to the board. He held forth to an Italian newspaper, [Il Foglio](https://www.ilfoglio.it/esteri/2025/03/03/news/il-vannacci-di-trump-chiacchiere-ferroviarie-con-l-inviato-speciale-della-casa-bianca-in-italia-paolo-zampolli-7471080/#:~:text=We%20were%20talking%20about%20Meloni.%20What%20could%20she%20do%20to%20improve%3F%20Always%20off%20the%20record%2C%20he%20says%2C%20the%20Ukraine%20issue.%20%E2%80%9CMeloni%E2%80%99s%20position%20on%20Ukraine%20must%20change%2C%20the%20president%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20like%20it.%E2%80%9D%20And%20what%20do%20we%20do%20with%20poor%20Zelensky%3F%20%E2%80%9CHe%20should%20rebuild%20Gaza%20with%20all%20the%20money%20he%20stole.%E2%80%9D), about Zelenskyy: “He should rebuild Gaza with all the money he stole.” Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy was preceded two days, earlier on 26 February, by his first cabinet meeting that rehearsed scenes of belittlement, disparagement and deprecation. It was a sham [cabinet meeting](https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/Ih264UX9Rs9UgTKGjLaGnCggJ6q0Ew3p3dGPSzJDYpshfE_DiyBDqgKA2wDJganZ5kfb8P5C8dLZa77DLiHxHrrEnwU?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=689.58) without any proper presentations by the secretaries of their departmental work, a scene of collective submission. (I had been present in many cabinet meetings during the Clinton administration, where informative review and discussion were the regular order.) Trump’s meeting was a made-for-TV more-than-hour-long reality show with the cabinet as props, two among the 21 Fox News personalities appointed to administration posts. At his cabinet meeting, Trump began by calling on Scott Turner, the secretary of housing and urban development, the only Black person in his cabinet, a former journeyman professional football player, briefly a far-right Texas state legislator and a motivational speaker. “Thank you God for President Trump,” prayed Turner. “So Scott Turner’s a terrific young guy,” said Trump. Turner is 53 years old. “He is heading up HUD and he’s going to make us all very proud, right?” Turner did not speak again in the meeting. Trump introduced Musk, who took control of the meeting, declaring the country would “go bankrupt” if he were not allowed to destroy the government untrammeled. He stood above the cabinet secretaries, wearing all black, a T-shirt reading “Tech Support”, a black Maga cap, and condescended: “And President Trump has put together, I think, the best cabinet ever, literally.” The questions came from the reporters in the room. The nervous cabinet members sat silently, worried about not one but two overlords. Musk was asked questions about his demand that federal employees justify their work every week and wondered how many “you’re looking to cut, total”. Musk gave no answer. Trump intervened: “We’re bloated, we’re sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren’t doing their job. We have a lot of people that don’t exist. You look at social security as an example. You have so many people in social security where if you believe it, they’re 200 years old.” [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/09/sycophancy-toadying-trump-self-aggrandizement#EmailSignup-skip-link-27) Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration **Privacy Notice:** Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.theguardian.com/help/privacy-policy). We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google [Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and [Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. after newsletter promotion At the end of the meeting, as the press was led out, Trump jeered, “Thank you. Thank you very much. Pulitzer prize.” JD Vance mocked them with a sarcastic rhetorical question: “Sir, how many peacekeepers are you going to send … ” Trump joined in: “What will you do? How will it be?” Vance continued his mocking merriment. “How will you dress them?” The cabinet members nervously tittered. Vance was the king’s goad and jester. Trump called to one reporter, “Lawrence. Look at Lawrence. This guy’s making a fortune. He never had it so good. He never had it so good. Lawrence, say we did a great job, please. OK? Say it was unbelievable.” The tone for the meeting for Zelenskyy was already on display. That day, Trump banned the traditional press pool chosen by the correspondents that cover the White House. From then on, the pool covering him would be selected by Trump’s press office. The Associated Press and Reuters would continue to be banished altogether for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, following Trump’s order. Those news organizations had failed to meet the threshold of submission. Both Emmanuel Macron and [Keir Starmer](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/keir-starmer), one after another, arrived in advance of Zelenskyy to butter up Trump without losing their dignity. They treated him with delicacy as a borderline personality. Yet both corrected Trump’s central falsehood that the US had given $350bn to Ukraine while the Europeans gave loans of $100bn for which they were repaid, when in fact the US expended $120bn, most of which went to US weapons manufacturers, and Europe spent $250bn and had not been repaid a euro. Macron touched Trump’s sleeve as he corrected him. Starmer gestured in that direction but never made the physical contact. Trump was undeterred in lying about it afterward. Starmer presented the coup de grace, a handwritten invitation for a state visit from King Charles III to Donald I, royalty to faux royalty. Trump carefully opened the envelope and held up the letter. “Beautiful man, wonderful man,” he said. But there was trouble brewing in paradise when the vision of another man, [Vladimir Putin](https://www.theguardian.com/world/vladimir-putin), crossed his mind. His attitude passed from the ecstasy of Charles’s letter to the agony of “the Russia hoax”. “We had to go through the Russian hoax together,” Trump said. “That was not a good thing. It’s not fair. That was a rigged deal and had nothing to do with Russia. It was a rigged deal with inside the country and they had to put up with that too. They put up with a lot. It wasn’t just us. They had to put up with it with a phoney story that was made up. I’ve known him for a long time now.” Trump’s blurted non sequitur after non sequitur was the beginning of his self-revelatory statements about his relationship with Putin, whose actual nature he has devoted decades to covering up. Trump said he had known Putin for “a long time”. How long he did not say. The “phoney story”, which was a true one about Russia’s extensive efforts to interfere in the US election on Trump’s behalf involving hundreds of contacts between Russian agents and the Trump campaign, was stressful not only for Trump but, according to Trump, also for Putin. They went through the “hoax”, the incomplete investigations, “together”. The Mueller report concluded with a referral of 10 obstructions of justice committed by Trump to block its inquiry, but they were never prosecuted. The Senate intelligence committee report contained a [lengthy section](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf) on Trump’s sexual escapades in Russia creating “compromising information” that could be used by the Russians and “posing a potential counterintelligence threat”. Babbling away about his sympathy for Putin, Trump did not understand that he was engaging in an oblique confession. “Russia, if you’re listening … ” After Trump was shut out of the New York banks, Donald Trump Jr [remarked](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/), in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Trump’s architect Alan Lapidus stated in 2018: “He could not get anybody in the United States to lend him anything. It was all coming out of Russia. His involvement with Russia was deeper than he’s acknowledged.” Trump turned to Deutsche Bank, the only financial institution willing to do business with him. The bank served as a [conduit](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/31/deutsche-bank-fined-630m-over-russia-money-laundering-claims) for Russian money-laundering operations and in 2017 was fined $630m by American and British financial regulators for a $10bn scheme. In 2008, the bank sued Trump for non-payment for $40m on a $640m loan, and Trump counter-sued. Contrary to all normal practices, they settled and continued to do business. But after the January 6 insurrection even Deutsche Bank [cut ties](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/deutsche-bank-cuts-ties-trump-458193?utm_source=chatgpt.com) with him. His debt to the bank was more than $300m. Trump’s plot to switch sides, punish Zelenskyy, ditch the allies and partner with Putin was hatched before Zelenskyy flew to the US grudgingly to sign a deal for raw earth mineral rights in his country. Trump’s initial exorbitant insistence on $500bn may have been a ploy to get Zelenskyy to reject the deal out of hand. No rational leader could agree to such terms. Though the details of the next contract are not publicly known, Zelenskyy’s acceptance and willingness to negotiate might have come as a surprise. Terminating military and intelligence support for [Ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/world/ukraine) required a different pretext. If one pretext doesn’t work, another could be contrived, even a flimsy one. After Putin invaded Ukraine, Trump called him a “genius”. He has always admired the Russian strongman as a model. He has been hostile to Zelenskyy personally since Trump’s “perfect phone call” to him in July 2019 to blackmail him into providing false dirt about Joe Biden in exchange for releasing already congressionally authorized missiles: “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” Trump’s attempt at coercion led to his first impeachment. On 18 February, Trump launched into a tirade of old Russian talking points, that Zelenskyy was a “dictator”. You never should have started it,” Trump said about the war. And, he added, “I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings.” Zelenskyy’s response that Trump’s remarks were “disinformation” helped set the stage for the meeting on 28 February. The meeting was a wide lens on Trump’s small mind, incapable of grasping any ideas and their practical applications, like alliances, coalitions, national sovereignty or the western world. His ignorance of history is fairly complete. He sees the world like a map of Manhattan real estate that his apologists project as the revival of Great Power politics. He’ll take the West Side Highway development. Putin can get an East River stake. Trump is insistent that Ukraine owes the US money. He sees the country is a vulnerable debtor – “you don’t have the cards.” He may be influenced by his losses and liability stemming from the E Jean Carroll sexual assault and New York state financial fraud cases, where he accrued enormous penalties. Trump once again voiced his identification with Putin. “Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phoney witch-hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia … You ever hear of that deal?” JD Vance triggered the implosion with his charge that Zelenskyy was “disrespectful”. He scolded Zelenskyy for not “thanking the president”. He accused him of bringing observers to Ukraine for “a propaganda tour”. Vance’s demand for “respect” was a knowing self-abasement to awaken Trump to Zelenskyy’s absence of sycophancy. Vance’s ultimatum that Zelenskyy degrade himself revealed his own posture. But Vance is the corrective to Mike Pence, who failed at the critical moment on January 6 (“Hang Mike Pence!”). Vance ingratiated using Zelenskyy to manipulate Trump. Zelenskyy fell into the trap, trying to explain the rudiments of 20th-century history, that the geographic isolation of the US could not protect it. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel,” Trump snapped. “You don’t have the cards right now.” Zelenskyy replied, “I’m not playing cards right now.” Trump repeated a common Russian talking point: “You’re gambling with world war three.” Vance jumped in: “Have you said thank you once?” “A lot of times. Even today,” said Zelenskyy. In fact, he offered thanks six times in the conversation, with a “God bless you”. Trump kept talking about “the cards”. He brought up how he had given Zelenskyy missiles. He clearly wanted Zelenskyy to exonerate him for the high crime of his first impeachment. “You got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards with us.” And the confrontation wound down. “This is going to be great television. I will say that,” said Trump. So the fate of Ukraine and the western alliance turned on the issue of flattery. Despite Trump’s obliviousness to history, the scene recalled Edward Gibbon’s comment in The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire: “The emperors, secure from contradiction, were abandoned to the intoxication of unlimited power, which their flatterers encouraged with the vilest servility.”

“Biden was mentally sharp, even if he appeared physically frail,” Chris Whipple wrote in [The Fight of His Life](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/14/the-fight-of-his-life-review-joe-biden-white-house-trump-chris-whipple), his 2023 book on the 46th president, who was then warming up his re-election bid at the age of 80. In that book, Whipple quoted Bruce Reed, a senior aide, describing a long-distance flight. When others appeared exhausted, Biden was raring to go, Reed said. Biden showed “unbelievable stamina”. Speaking [to the Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/21/fight-of-his-life-biden-book-white-house-chris-whipple-interview) in January 2023, Whipple said Biden’s “inner circle” was “bullish about Biden’s mental acuity and his ability to govern. I never heard any of them express any concern and maybe you would expect that from the inner circle. Many of them will tell you that he has extraordinary endurance, energy.” Put it this way: much has happened since. Obviously, there was that whole 2024 election thing. You know – the one when Biden dropped out after a disastrous debate exposed his decline for all to see. There was also the day in February, before the campaign kicked off, when the special counsel Robert Hur declined to charge Biden with mishandling classified documents, because he found him too addled and sympathetic a prospective defendant. Hur wrote: “He did not remember when he was vice-president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘If it was 2013 – when did I stop being vice-president?’) and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘In 2009, am I still vice-president?’) … He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died.”  ‘Biden was unaware of what was happening in his own campaign. Halfway through the session, the president excused himself and went off to sit by the pool.’ Photograph: HarperCollins Publishers Whipple, a former CBS producer, has emerged as a go-to author on the White House and those who work there. In The Gatekeepers, he examined the lives of chiefs of staff. Then came The Fight of His Life. With hindsight, Whipple seems to have missed key evidence of Biden’s decline. But Whipple is back with a vengeance. Uncharted, his third book, hits Biden and his aides like a bludgeon. [Kamala Harris](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/kamala-harris), who became the Democratic nominee after Biden withdrew, fares little better: Whipple depicts a candidate who never should have been there, a sentiment repeatedly expressed by senior Democrats. Whipple had access. People talked. Ron Klain, Biden’s first chief of staff, is a key source – and demonstrates startling cognitive dissonance about Biden’s mental and physical decline. Klain says Biden should have stayed in the race – but also gives an absolutely withering [account](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/02/biden-ron-klain-trump-debate-prep-book-chris-whipple) of debate prep at Camp David. At his first meeting with Biden in Aspen Lodge, the president’s cabin, Klain describes Biden as “startled”. Whipple writes: “He’d never seen him so exhausted and out of it. Biden was unaware of what was happening in his own campaign. Halfway through the session, the president excused himself and went off to sit by the pool.” He fell asleep. “‘We sat around the table,’” says Klain in the book. “‘And I was struck by how out of touch with American politics he was. He was just very, very focused on his interactions with Nato leaders.’” Klain, Whipple writes, “wondered half-seriously if Biden thought he was president of Nato instead of the US”. Come the debate against Trump, Biden gave perhaps the worst performance of all time. He shuffled, he stared, he made verbal stumbles and gaffes. He handed Trump the win. Klain also tags Biden for skipping a post-debate meeting with progressives in favor of a family photoshoot with Annie Leibovitz. “‘You need to cancel that,’” Klain says he told Biden. “‘You need to stay in Washington. You need to have an aggressive plan to fight and to rally the troops.’” Biden rebuffed him and instead held a Zoom call with the progressives. It went badly. “‘All you guys want to talk about is Gaza … What would you have me do?’” Biden said. “‘I was a progressive before some of you guys were even in Congress.’” How do you remind people you’re old without saying you’re old? Whipple also pays attention to Trump. Susie Wiles, now Trump’s chief of staff, and Karl Rove, a veteran of the George W Bush White House, speak on the record. So does Paul Manafort, a campaign manager in 2016, later jailed and pardoned. “Democrats wanted to know why Harris had lost to Trump and his MAGA movement,” Whipple writes. “Susie Wiles wanted to know why Harris and her team had run such a flawed campaign.” Wiles did not view a Trump victory as inevitable. Whipple asks Wiles: “‘Did that mean Harris couldn’t have won?’” Trump’s campaign chair didn’t mince words. “‘We’ll never know,’” she replies, “‘because it didn’t seem like she even tried.’ “‘Voters want authenticity … and they didn’t get that from her.’” Leon Panetta, chief of staff to Bill Clinton, echoed Wiles. “‘I thought they were thinking they could tiptoe into the presidency without getting anybody pissed off at them,’” he tells Whipple. “‘Baloney. You’ve got to make the American people understand that you’re tough enough to be president of the United States.’” Rove does take a jab at Trump and Chris LaCivita, the ex-Marine who became a senior adviser. Rove introduced LaCivita to Trump, via the late megadonor Sheldon Adelson, but didn’t think LaCivita would take the gig. “‘I’m surprised because I know what he thinks of Trump,’” Rove tells Whipple. “‘He thinks Trump’s an idiot.’” LaCivita condemned January 6, after which he “liked” a tweet that urged Trump’s cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment and remove him from power. LaCivita [deleted the post](https://newrepublic.com/post/187439/trump-campaign-manager-lacivita-criticism-january-6) – but did not join the second Trump administration. Back in 2023, in The Fight of His Life, Whipple wrote: “Presidents do not give up power lightly.” Andy Card, chief of staff to George W Bush, weighed in: “‘If anybody tells you they’re leaving the White House voluntarily, they’re probably lying. This applies to presidents, of any age, who are driven by vast reserves of ego and ambition.’” Biden did go – but not voluntarily. In Uncharted, in merciless detail, Whipple shows he should have gone much sooner. * Uncharted [is published](https://bookshop.org/p/books/uncharted-how-trump-beat-biden-harris-and-the-odds-in-the-wildest-campaign-in-history-chris-c-whipple/22074604?ean=9780063386211&next=t) in the US by HarperCollins