This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/us/politics/trump-inauguration-stephanie-winston-wolkoff.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Inaugural Official Disputes White House Account of Her Departure Inaugural Official Disputes White House Account of Her Departure
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a leading contractor for President Trump’s inaugural committee and a former adviser to the first lady, Melania Trump, has publicly disputed accounts of her departure from the White House last year, rejecting claims from officials that she had been dismissed. WASHINGTON — Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a leading contractor for President Trump’s inaugural committee and a former adviser to the first lady, Melania Trump, has publicly disputed accounts of her departure from the White House last year, rejecting claims from officials that she was dismissed.
Ms. Winston Wolkoff specifically took issue with suggestions by White House officials that she was forced out because of reports that she had profited excessively from her role in helping organize inaugural events. She gave her account of what happened in a statement to The New York Times more than a year after she parted ways with the White House, where she had served as an unpaid adviser to Mrs. Trump after the inauguration. Ms. Winston Wolkoff specifically took issue with suggestions by White House officials that she had been forced out because of reports that she had profited excessively from her role in helping organize inaugural events. She gave her account of what happened in a statement to The New York Times more than a year after she parted ways with the White House, where she had served as an unpaid adviser to Mrs. Trump after the inauguration.
“Was I fired? No,” Ms. Winston Wolkoff said in the statement. “Did I personally receive $26 million or $1.6 million? No. Was I thrown under the bus? Yes.”“Was I fired? No,” Ms. Winston Wolkoff said in the statement. “Did I personally receive $26 million or $1.6 million? No. Was I thrown under the bus? Yes.”
It was the first time Ms. Winston Wolkoff has provided extensive public comments about the events around her split from the White House, including characterizations at the time by White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, that she had been forced out because of reports about lavish spending on the inauguration.It was the first time Ms. Winston Wolkoff has provided extensive public comments about the events around her split from the White House, including characterizations at the time by White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, that she had been forced out because of reports about lavish spending on the inauguration.
Her lawyer recently informed inaugural committee officials that she had been cooperating since last fall with federal prosecutors in Manhattan investigating the committee’s spending and fund-raising. Her lawyer recently informed inaugural committee officials that she had been cooperating since last fall with federal prosecutors in Manhattan who are investigating the committee’s spending and fund-raising.
In breaking so publicly with the White House, she became the latest in a growing group of former aides or employees who have begun speaking out about feeling mistreated by Mr. Trump, his family and his advisers, and who have documentation to back up their statements. In breaking so publicly with the White House, she became the latest in a growing group of former aides or employees who have begun speaking out about feeling mistreated by Mr. Trump, his family and his advisers and who have documentation to back up their statements.
Ms. Winston Wolkoff was one of Mrs. Trump’s earliest advisers, a friend from the first lady’s days in New York and one of the few trusted aides who helped put together initiatives for her official government portfolio. Ms. Winston Wolkoff, a New York socialite who is best known for her role in producing the Met Gala, joined the planning for the inauguration, along with others from the president’s orbit, including most of his adult children, in a hastily arranged setup after Mr. Trump’s surprise victory, all of them forced together by circumstance.Ms. Winston Wolkoff was one of Mrs. Trump’s earliest advisers, a friend from the first lady’s days in New York and one of the few trusted aides who helped put together initiatives for her official government portfolio. Ms. Winston Wolkoff, a New York socialite who is best known for her role in producing the Met Gala, joined the planning for the inauguration, along with others from the president’s orbit, including most of his adult children, in a hastily arranged setup after Mr. Trump’s surprise victory, all of them forced together by circumstance.
The inaugural committee was led by Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a financier and longtime friend of Mr. Trump’s. He was assisted by Rick Gates, who had been a deputy campaign chairman for Mr. Trump in 2016, working under Paul Manafort. The inaugural committee raised more than any other in history, $107 million, and spent lavishly on events, including two major dinners. The inaugural committee was led by Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a financier and a longtime friend of Mr. Trump’s. He was assisted by Rick Gates, who had been a deputy campaign chairman for Mr. Trump in 2016, working under Paul Manafort. The inaugural committee raised more than any other in history, $107 million, and spent lavishly on events, including two major dinners.
Ms. Winston Wolkoff worked mostly behind the scenes with the Trumps, primarily Mrs. Trump, until February 2018, when the presidential inaugural committee filed a financial disclosure statement showing an entity she incorporated, WIS Media Partners, was paid roughly $26 million. Of that, officials said at the time, her own firm received $1.62 million, which was spread among more than a dozen contractors. Ms. Winston Wolkoff worked mostly behind the scenes with the Trumps, primarily Mrs. Trump, until February 2018, when the presidential inaugural committee filed a financial disclosure statement showing that an entity she had incorporated, WIS Media Partners, was paid roughly $26 million. Of that, officials said at the time, her own firm received $1.62 million, which was spread among more than a dozen contractors.
Ms. Winston Wolkoff said she could not discuss the inaugural spending, saying that she had signed a nondisclosure agreement with the committee that had no expiration date. If the committee “were to release me from this obligation, I would be able to speak freely without the fear of legal or financial repercussions,” she said. “Otherwise, I am regrettably unable to provide any substantive comment.”Ms. Winston Wolkoff said she could not discuss the inaugural spending, saying that she had signed a nondisclosure agreement with the committee that had no expiration date. If the committee “were to release me from this obligation, I would be able to speak freely without the fear of legal or financial repercussions,” she said. “Otherwise, I am regrettably unable to provide any substantive comment.”
But documents reviewed by The Times showed she personally received about $500,000, a figure first reported by Vanity Fair. The documents show that another $425,000 went to three producers, two of whom are associated with Mark Burnett, the creator of the reality-television show “The Apprentice,” which brought Mr. Trump fame over 14 seasons. And $2 million of the WIS money was used to cover costs related to the events-planning firm Hargrove, the committee’s second-largest vendor, the documents show. But documents reviewed by The Times showed that she had personally received about $500,000, a figure first reported by Vanity Fair. The documents show that a further $425,000 went to three producers, two of whom are associated with Mark Burnett, the creator of the reality-television show “The Apprentice,” which brought Mr. Trump fame over 14 seasons. And $2 million of the WIS money was used to cover costs related to the events-planning firm Hargrove, the committee’s second-largest vendor, the documents show.
The bulk of the $26 million to WIS, which handled a range of production issues including the broadcasting rights, was spent on an entity created by the three producers, called Inaugural Productions, the documents show. Other top vendors were David Monn, a New York-based events planner, who received nearly $4 million. He worked with Ms. Winston Wolkoff on the first Governor’s Ball at the White House, according to a person close to her. The bulk of the $26 million to WIS, which handled a range of production issues including the broadcasting rights, was spent on an entity created by two of the three producers, called Inaugural Productions, the documents show. Other top vendors were David Monn, a New York-based events planner, who received nearly $4 million. He worked with Ms. Winston Wolkoff on the first Governor’s Ball at the White House, according to a person close to her.
Another top vendor, PRG, was paid $2.7 million, a cost that merely covered the staging for a group of performers who worked with the casino magnate Steve Wynn, according to people briefed on the spending.Another top vendor, PRG, was paid $2.7 million, a cost that merely covered the staging for a group of performers who worked with the casino magnate Steve Wynn, according to people briefed on the spending.
After the initial round of articles in The Times and elsewhere about Ms. Winston Wolkoff and the money received by WIS, senior administration officials privately said she had been ousted from her job, primarily because the president and the first lady were angry over the spending, and because officials at both the White House and the inaugural committee had found her difficult to work with. After the initial round of articles in The Times and elsewhere about Ms. Winston Wolkoff and the money received by WIS, senior administration officials privately said she had been ousted from her job, primarily because the president and the first lady were angry over the spending and because officials at both the White House and the inaugural committee had found her difficult to work with.
Yet in private communications with Ms. Winston Wolkoff on Feb. 20, 2018, a deputy White House counsel, Stefan Passantino, told her that the administration was terminating all types of “gratuitous service agreements,” the type of employment agreement she had with the White House, around the same time amid a controversy over security clearances involving other officials.Yet in private communications with Ms. Winston Wolkoff on Feb. 20, 2018, a deputy White House counsel, Stefan Passantino, told her that the administration was terminating all types of “gratuitous service agreements,” the type of employment agreement she had with the White House, around the same time amid a controversy over security clearances involving other officials.
She was assured by Mr. Passantino that “you didn’t do anything wrong, and there’s nothing wrong with this kind of contract, and I don’t want you to think that this has anything to do with” the inaugural spending, she recalled. “So this is not personal.”She was assured by Mr. Passantino that “you didn’t do anything wrong, and there’s nothing wrong with this kind of contract, and I don’t want you to think that this has anything to do with” the inaugural spending, she recalled. “So this is not personal.”
In a letter written that same day and reviewed by The Times, Mrs. Trump told Ms. Winston Wolkoff that the decision affected “all” such contracts, was “not personal” and was made on a “professional level by White House counsel.”In a letter written that same day and reviewed by The Times, Mrs. Trump told Ms. Winston Wolkoff that the decision affected “all” such contracts, was “not personal” and was made on a “professional level by White House counsel.”
In the statement to The Times, Ms. Winston Wolkoff said Mrs. Trump’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, gave reporters at the time a “misleading statement about these events.” In the statement to The Times, Ms. Winston Wolkoff said Mrs. Trump’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, had given reporters at the time a “misleading statement about these events.”
Ms. Grisham, she said, “said that because she had been ‘inundated’ with questions following press reports about the” inaugural committee, “a decision was made to state publicly that I had been ‘severed.’ That was not fair or accurate.”Ms. Grisham, she said, “said that because she had been ‘inundated’ with questions following press reports about the” inaugural committee, “a decision was made to state publicly that I had been ‘severed.’ That was not fair or accurate.”
She said Ms. Grisham “informed me that she had consulted with others within the White House and it was decided that ‘this messaging is the best way to go in order to minimize the negative press stories of today and protect’” the first lady and the administration. She said Ms. Grisham had “informed me that she had consulted with others within the White House and it was decided that ‘this messaging is the best way to go in order to minimize the negative press stories of today and protect’” the first lady and the administration.
Mr. Passantino, who has left the White House, declined to comment. In an email, Ms. Grisham said, “The White House ended Mrs. Wolkoff’s contract, period. I’m not going to waste my time arguing the semantics of what the word ‘severed’ means simply because someone decided to run to the media with hurt feelings and a bruised ego. As stated more than a year ago, I wish Mrs. Wolkoff well.” Mr. Passantino, who has left the White House, declined to comment. In an email, Ms. Grisham said: “The White House ended Mrs. Wolkoff’s contract, period. I’m not going to waste my time arguing the semantics of what the word ‘severed’ means simply because someone decided to run to the media with hurt feelings and a bruised ego. As stated more than a year ago, I wish Mrs. Wolkoff well.”
Over the past several months, the inaugural committee has drawn scrutiny from a number of law enforcement agencies.Over the past several months, the inaugural committee has drawn scrutiny from a number of law enforcement agencies.
Ms. Winston Wolkoff may have inadvertently triggered the first investigation when she relayed her concerns about the committee to Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, a friend, who recorded the conversation. The prosecutors in Manhattan, who were conducting a separate investigation of Mr. Cohen, found the recording on his cellphone. Mr. Cohen reported to prison in upstate New York on Monday, after pleading guilty to personal financial crimes and arranging a hush-money scheme to pay off two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump. Ms. Winston Wolkoff may have inadvertently prompted the first investigation when she relayed her concerns about the committee to Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, a friend, who recorded the conversation. The prosecutors in Manhattan, who were conducting a separate investigation of Mr. Cohen, found the recording on his cellphone. Mr. Cohen reported to prison in upstate New York on Monday after pleading guilty to personal financial crimes and arranging a hush-money scheme to pay off two women who said they had had affairs with Mr. Trump.
Last fall, the prosecutors sought Ms. Winston Wolkoff’s assistance with their investigation of the committee, and she agreed. Mr. Cohen has helped them as well. Last fall, the prosecutors sought Ms. Winston Wolkoff’s help with their investigation of the committee, and she agreed. Mr. Cohen has helped them as well.
The prosecutors have been interested not only in the committee’s spending on vendors, but its donors as well, including whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to the committee. In February, federal prosecutors issued a subpoena to the inaugural committee demanding that it turn over documents about donors and any benefits handed out to them, including photo opportunities.