HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021127.jpg

6 MICHAEL WOLFF She saw what the president saw: she knew what the president, a man unable to control his own running monologue, knew. On February 27, 2018, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee—she had already appeared before the special counsel—she was pressed about whether she had ever lied for the president. Perhaps a more accomplished communications professional could have escaped the corner here, but Hicks, who had scant experience other than working as Donald Trump's spokesperson, which, as often as not, meant dealing with his disregard of empirical truth, found herself as though in a sudden and unexpected moral void trying to publicly parse the relative importance of her boss's lies. She admitted to telling “white lies.” as in, somehow, less than the biggest lies. This was enough of a forward admission to require a nearly twenty-minute mid-testimony conference with her lawyers, dis- tressed by what she might be admitting and by where any deconstruction of the president's constant inversions might lead. Not long after she testified, another witness before the Mueller grand jury was asked how far Hicks might go to lie for the president. The witness answered: “I think when it comes to doing anything as a ‘yes man’ for Trump, she'll do it—but she won't take a bullet for him” The statement could be taken as both a backhanded compliment and an estimate of how far loyalty in the Trump White House might extend—probably not too far. Almost no one in Trump’s administration, it could be argued, was con- ventionally suited to his or her job. But with the possible exception of the president himself, no one provided a better illustration of this unprepared and uninformed presidency than Hicks. She did not have substantial media or political experience, nor did she have a temperament annealed by years of high-pressure work. Always dressed in the short skirts that Trump favored, she seemed invariably caught in the headlights. Trump admired her not because she had the political skills to protect him, but for her pliant dutifulness. Her job was to devote herself to his care and feeding. “When you speak to him, open with positive feedback; counseled Hicks, understanding Trump’s need for constant affirmation and his almost complete inability to talk about anything but himself. Her atten- tiveness to Trump and tractable nature had elevated her, at age twenty-nine, to the top White House communications job. And practically speaking, SIEGE 7 4 she acted as his de facto chief of staff. Trump did not want his administra- tion to be staffed by professionals; he wanted it to be staffed by people who attended and catered to him. Hicks—“Hope-y,’ to Trump—was both the president's gatekeeper and his comfort blanket. She was also a frequent subject of his pruri- ent interest: Trump preferred business, even in the White House, to be personal. “Who's fucking Hope?” he would demand to know. The topic also interested his son Don Jr., who often professed his intention to “fuck Hope.” The president's daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, both White House senior advisers, expressed a gentler type of concern for Hicks; sometimes they would even try to suggest eligible men. But Hicks, seeming to understand the insular nature of Trumpworld, dated exclusively inside the bubble, picking the baddest boys in it: cam- paign manager Corey Lewandowski during the campaign and presiden- tial aide Rob Porter in the White House. As the relationship between Hicks and Porter unfolded in the fall of 2017, knowing about the affair became an emblem of Trump insiderness, with special care taken to keep this development from the proprietary president. Or not: other people, assuming that Porter's involvement with Hicks would not at all please Trump, were less than discreet about it. * ot In the heightened enmity of the Trump White House, Rob Porter may have succeeded in becoming the most disliked person by everyone except per- haps the president himself. A square-jawed, 1950s-looking guy who could have been a model for Brylcreem, he was almost a laughable figure of betrayal and perfidy: if he hadn't stabbed you in the back, you would be forced to acknowledge how unworthy he considered you to be. A sitcom sort of suck-up—“Eddie Haskell,” cracked Bannon, citing the early televi- sion icon of insincerity and brownnosing featured in Leave It to Beaver—he embraced Chief of Staff John Kelly, while at the same time poisoning him with the president. Porter's estimation of his own high responsibilities in the White House, together with the senior-most jobs that the president, he let it be known, was promising him, seemed to put the administration and the nation squarely on his shoulders. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021127