Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Manhattan’s district attorney convenes grand jury in Trump investigation: report

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has convened a grand jury panel that will decide whether or not criminal charges will be brought forth against former President Donald Trump, executives of the Trump Organization, and possibly the organization itself, according to a new report from The Washington Post

Efforts have long been underway by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. to investigate whether Trump and his family business committed possible financial crimes, such as misleading insurers and lenders or tax fraud. 

“The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months. It is likely to hear several matters — not just the Trump case ­— during the duration of its term, which is longer than a traditional New York state grand-jury assignment, these people said. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation,” The Post reported. “Generally, special grand juries such as this one are convened to participate in long-term matters rather than to hear evidence of crimes charged routinely.”

Two anonymous sources familiar with Vance’s probe told The Post that the “investigation is expansive” in nature. 

“Vance’s investigation is expansive, according to people familiar the probe and public disclosures made during related litigation. His investigators are scrutinizing Trump’s business practices before he was president, including whether the value of specific properties in the Trump Organization’s real estate portfolio were manipulated in a way that defrauded banks and insurance companies, and if any tax benefits were obtained illegally through unscrupulous asset valuation,” The Post further reported. 

The decision from the Manhattan DA’s office signals that Vance has confidence in the case and has potentially found evidence of wrongdoing by Trump or someone within the former president’s orbit, according to The Post. 

Trump has long called the investigation “the greatest political witch hunt in the history of our country.” Again, he fervently denied any wrongdoing on Tuesday.

“This is purely political, and an affront to the almost 75 million voters who supported me in the Presidential Election, and it’s being driven by highly partisan Democrat prosecutors,” Trump said in the statement released through his Save America PAC. “Our Country is broken, our elections are rigged, corrupt, and stolen, our prosecutors are politicized, and I will just have to keep on fighting like I have been for the last five years!” 

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen predicted that “significant exposure” would bring down his former boss Monday on MSNBC primetime. 

“But it wasn’t just the Trump Organization. It was Donald’s personal accounts. It was the kids’ business accounts, presidential inaugural committee, campaign. Any penny that had anything to do with Donald Trump went through Allen Weisselberg’s desk,” Cohen said. “I do believe that he has significant exposure, and I think his exposure is not one that you can just hide because the beautiful thing about numbers is numbers don’t lie.” 

John Cena’s apology to China for calling Taiwan a country blasted as “pathetic”

Professional wrestler and “Fast and Furious” franchise star John Cena apologized to fans in China for calling Taiwan a country, sparking outrage from some Republican politicians in the U.S.

In a video shared on Weibo, a Chinese social platform, on Tuesday, Cena apologizes for his remarks in Mandarin – a language he began learning in 2016 to help promote the WWE overseas. The supposed gaffe in question came when Cena did a promotional interview for the upcoming ninth “Fast and Furious” movie with the Taiwanese broadcaster TVBS. In it, Cena told the reporter — also in Mandarin — that “Taiwan is the first country that can watch” the film.

Cena’s video on Weibo, in which he profusely apologizes for his recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty and states his “love and respect” for “China and Chinese people,” has since attracted extensive backlash from right-wing politicians and media figures, who have long criticized Hollywood, the NBA, and other institutions for being financially beholden to China.

First criticized by Newsmax and Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, by Tuesday afternoon, Cena’s video was widely panned on Twitter by right-wing political figures ranging from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton to conservative firebrand Erick Erickson.

While right-wing media and politicians are quick to blast any members of the supposedly “liberal” media elite, especially for deference to China, it’s important to contextualize their Twitter pile-ons with their politics. Their vocalized support for political agency for Taiwan and Hong Kong, and criticisms of China’s financial influence, have often been directly contradicted by their politics at home. 

Newsmax and other right-wing figures slamming Cena were some of the most vocal leaders in trying to help former President Trump overturn the election, and consequently, American democracy, last year. Right-wing political leaders like Shapiro have also been among the most vocal opponents of Palestinian human rights and sovereignty. And as for their criticisms of China’s financial influence, conservative elected officials like Sen. Cotton have also repeatedly opposed legislation to restrict the power of money in politics.

Cena’s inadvertent slight to China isn’t the first time an American actor or celebrity has offended China, and had to quickly shift into damage control mode. Many industries, and especially the entertainment industry, have extensive business and financial ties with the country, and often must avoid making any comments on the politics of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and other regions in conflict with the Chinese government. More recently, NBA players from superstars LeBron James to James Harden, who have done extensive business with China, have made statements defending China following former Houston Rockets’ General Manager Daryl Money’s comments in support of Hong Kong in 2019

The ninth and latest “Fast and Furious” installment is slated for a June 25 release in the U.S., and will star Cena reprising his role as Jakob Toretto, alongside Charlize Theron, Vin Diesel, and others.

Tim Scott and the GOP’s response to George Floyd’s killing

With Congress now expected to miss a deadline it set to pass a sweeping police reform bill on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death, some might say the bill’s passage falls largely on the shoulders of rising GOP star Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who has been christened by Republicans as their chief negotiator on the measure.

Bipartisan negotiations around the bill have been unfolding for weeks. However, lawmakers have seemingly reached an impasse with no apparent end in sight, given the wide rift between the progressive and conservative sentiment on police reform. 

Scott, who is joined by Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., to lead the negotiations, has presented himself as someone who deeply connects to the grievances many Black Americans have with the police. “I personally understand the pain of being stopped 18 times driving while black,” he said in the ‘”Face the Nation” interview. “I also have seen the beauty of when officers go door-to-door with me on Christmas morning, delivering presents to kids in the most underserved communities. So I think I bring an equilibrium to the conversation.”

Last year, Scott proposed the GOP-backed Justice Act, which sought to ramp up de-escalation training, incentivize a ban on chokeholds, provide grants to police departments for more body cameras, and increase disciplinary transparency between police departments. The Justice Act ultimately failed to garner enough votes from Democrats, who deemed the bill inadequate in solving issues of police misconduct. 

While Scott has been painted as a GOP bastion of police reform, he has predictably stood firm against loftier demands from progressives, who have called for measures like an outright ban on chokeholds, abolishing qualified immunity, and defunding the police. Last year, Scott called the Democratic proposition to weaken qualified immunity “the poison pill,” largely because it has been a sticking point in bipartisan negotiations, as Vox noted earlier this month. 

By comparison, the Democrats’ current legislative counterproposal – the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act – imposes a federal ban on chokeholds and no-knock warrants. It also seeks to institute a national record of police misconduct and prohibit certain kinds of military-grade weaponry from being used by police departments. 

Some on the left have expressed optimism regarding Scott’s potential to broker a deal. “He’s a good-faith actor, and he’s also a Black man in America and knows a lot of these issues, personally,” Booker said. “So if anybody can get it done on his side, he’s the right person to be negotiating.”

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told USA TODAY that the South Carolina senator “is the perfect person,” adding that he “has a lot invested in this. He’s a great spokesman; I have a lot of respect for him for stepping out and doing this.”

Others see Scott’s role in the negotiating process as more of a symbolic gesture by Republicans to play nice or even stall negotiations. Jason Williams, assistant professor of justice studies at Montclair State University, told USA TODAY that Scott is simply a Trump loyalist who “tends to pander to the right.”

“I see him giving absolutely nothing to the cause on this,” Williams said, claiming that he will likely stall negotiations until political pressure fizzles out. 

During Scott’s response to President Biden’s first speech to Congress, the GOP lawmaker recounted his experience of being called racially derogatory terms like the N-word and “Uncle Tom.” He also mentioned that he personally knew what it felt like “to be pulled over for no reason” and to be “followed around a store while I’m shopping.” Scott went on to argue, however, that America is not in fact not a racist country.

ABC’s Mike Tyson documentary “The Knockout” is a celebratory apologia without adequate interrogation

ABC News’ two-part documentary “Mike Tyson: The Knockout” inadvertently answers the question of how men accused of misconduct against women can make a comeback without sufficiently interrogating whether they deserve one. In terms of Tyson, much of the world definitively answered that question more than a decade ago, celebrating his surprising cameo 2009’s “The Hangover.”

The public tacitly forgave Tyson long before that, an absolution earned by way of his return to boxing following his rape conviction. Americans love a comeback almost as much as they love a fall, and when he bit off a chunk of Evander Holyfield’s ear during a 1997 rematch he became a national joke. Tyson’s mental health and his boxing record deteriorated before our eyes, and soon as many people treated his pain like a sideshow as had cheered his return.

Tyson’s life story is an odd one, and his image overhaul may be one of the most curious cases of our time – although for some, it is less curious than irritating. Which side you identify with depends on which chapter of the man’s history comes to mind at the mention of his name. Do you view him as one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century and fearless tiger cuddler? Or do you associate Tyson with spousal abuse and the rape of an 18-year-old pageant contestant?

“The Knockout” favors the first view without eliding Tyson’s crimes and misdemeanors which, in his case, would be impossible. Tyson’s life story includes multiple stints in lockup as a youth before his 1992 conviction for the rape of Desiree Washington in Indianapolis, where she was competing as Miss Black Rhode Island in the Miss Black America pageant in July 1991.

But the violence he committed before his boxing career and during it is presented via the framing of reasons as opposed to excuses. Tyson’s explosive rage was the product of his being raised in a crime-ridden neighborhood and abject poverty, says everyone from reporters to trainers to actress Rosie Perez (who is at various points identified as a “boxing aficionado” and as someone who originates from Bushwick, Brooklyn, among other descriptors).

“Whether it was his fault or not, he’s been through enough,” says Perez, Academy Award nominee, near the end of the special’s second half. By that point even the man’s most vociferous critics may find themselves swept up in the intoxicating apologia of it all. From the illustrated recreations of scenes from Tyson’s heartbreaking childhood to the empathetic input from the people who covered him, knew him and admired him, its four hours roll out as an appreciation instead of an unblinking evaluation.

There’s no denying that Tyson’s life story is fascinating, and his significance to sports history is indisputable. Not only did he become the youngest heavyweight champion in history in 1986 at the age of 20, he also rocketed boxing back into mainstream popularity.

We witness this by way of footage from the 1988 bout when Tyson defeated Michael Spinks by knockout 91 seconds into the first round. It was one of the fastest K.O.s in heavyweight history, moving the announcer to crow, “And now the question is, who in this world has any chance against this man?”

Tyson’s fans might say that man had it backwards, that what he, and we, should be asking is how someone like Tyson has any chance against this world. Being a Black man in America who rose from nothing and overcame much made and makes Mike Tyson a symbol of strength, indomitability, and Black pride.

But he was also one of the most famous celebrity defendants in a highly polarizing rape case, reported at a time when few victims ever came forward. As someone points out, Tyson’s trial encompassed myriad questions about how the justice system treats Black men and the price Black women pay in the bargain.

“The Knockout” spends the opening 30 minutes of its second half walking us through the case, showing the ways that Washington was dragged through the mud as she testified before the Indianapolis jury.

A blood-boiling montage of footage reminds us that some of Tyson’s most vocal supporters were women, along with male leaders of the church community of which Washington was a part. During his time behind bars Tyson received a parade of famous visitors and, according to subjects featured in the special, many women.

Tyson’s boosters stood by him post-conviction, which is not shocker. They stayed with him after Tyson’s first wife Robin Givens accused him of spousal abuse during an interview with Barbara Walters. Givens’ reputation suffered more than his. When she married him, she was a sitcom regular, starring in “Head of the Class.” Her career was ascending. These days, Tyson’s film and TV career is doing better than hers.

Save for a few diplomatic observations by The Undefeated’s Danyel Smith, who expresses some dismay over #MeToo’s inability to hold men like Tyson to greater accountability, “The Knockout” treats these chapters as additional obstacles for him to defeat.

That said, former New York Times reporter E.R. Shipp’s input provides useful counterbalance by placing the outrage directed toward Givens and Washington in the context of the times, along with providing a brief explainer about the country’s history of convicting and executing Black men for crimes they didn’t commit, or for any reason whatsoever. (The debut of “The Knockout” coincides with the one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder; make what you will of that timing.)

But the eternal question that’s never asked receives no airplay here, and that is: where are the second chances for the women Tyson hurt? Washington is determined to keep her life private; she declined to participate in the special, and beyond receiving a settlement to close a civil suit filed against Tyson she’s been very successful at keeping her life private. She makes her living as a teacher.

Givens, meanwhile, has popped up here and there since her divorce from Tyson and her subsequent painting as a gold-digging homewrecker. Meanwhile, following his second fall from grace and several run-ins with the law, Tyson dove into therapy and embarked on an amends-making tour enabled in part by Oprah Winfrey and “The View.” He’s since starred in a Spike Lee-directed one-man show and a kooky Scooby Doo-style cartoon series on Adult Swim, “The Mike Tyson Mysteries,” and made various TV cameos, including competing on “Lip Sync Battle.”

“I, Tonya” screenwriter Steven Rogers and director Craig Gillespie are producing an eight-episode miniseries about Tyson’s life for Hulu, about which he’s voiced his disapproval. That’s probably because he’s involved in another limited series, “Tyson,” from director Antoine Fuqua and executive producer Martin Scorsese, starring Jamie Foxx.

These projects and “The Knockout” bring to mind my colleague Amanda Marcotte’s bracing evaluation of cancel culture as we knew it in 2019. She rightly described it as “an incoherent and inadequate response to sexual abuse. People turn to it because real justice is elusive.”

At that time people were embroiled in debates over whether it is possible to separate art from the artist specifically as it pertained to the music of Michael Jackson and R. Kelly. Each is the subject of damning documentaries featuring men and women accusing them of sexual abuse that came out that year. If there was some assurance that real justice was possible, Marcotte asked, could we be in a better position to continue enjoying their work?

Yes, she concludes, adding that if Kelly were to do real time for his alleged crimes, it will be a whole lot easier for people to listen to his music without guilt. “After all, Kelly’s crime wasn’t making memorable R&B hits. It was hurting women. If he pays for the latter, then maybe we can reassess how we feel about the former.”

Tyson’s career demonstrates this. The sports reporters, authors and experts who helped create his legend – most of them white and male – point out at regular intervals that had the former heavyweight champion of the world been released from prison in 2020 instead of 1995, after serving three years of a six-year sentence for rape, his life’s trajectory may have been quite different.

They have a point. For all the wealth and fame Tyson earned as the heavyweight boxing champion of the world, he had no real power when he went to prison. Relative to the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Les Moonves, he still doesn’t. Instead he has a sense of humility, as he demonstrates in an interview with Byron Pitts at the tail end of “The Knockout” that shows where he is today.

By that point we’ve heard from a therapist who worked with him, from professors and professionals who offer their view of how he’s transformed himself for the better and, again, from Perez, who offers nothing but admiration and awe.

“Life has beaten me into submission so . . . I’m committed to going the other way,” Tyson tells Pitts, and we can see that through a moment he shares with his son and secondary testimonials. Each person is invested spiritually, morally, and some of them financially, in his recovery and success. Together they make  “The Knockout” into quite an uplifting story of second and third chances, as long as you don’t think too hard about the people Tyson hurt and wonder why they weren’t afforded so much grace.

“Mike Tyson: The Knockout” premieres at 8 p.m. Tuesday, May 25 on ABC and concludes the following week starting at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, June 1. It will be available the next day to be streamed on demand and on Hulu.

“Game of Thrones” alum Hannah Waddingham says she was “waterboarded” for 10 hours in filming

Two years after its series finale outraged fans around the world, HBO’s controversial epic fantasy series “Game of Thrones” has become even more controversial. In a new interview with Collider Ladies Night, Hannah Waddington, who played the fanatical religious zealot Septa Unella, said she was “waterboarded” for 10 hours for one particularly gratuitous torture scene at the end of Season 6. 

In the scene in question, Unella is attacked, tortured and killed by Gregor Clegane, played by Ian Whyte. Waddington said that on top of this, Clegane was also initially written as raping Unella, before a last-minute change.

“I think they’d had so many complaints about the rape of Sansa [Sophie Turner] that they chose not to go with it,” Waddington said. “Unbelievably, they changed it quite at the last minute. I think they possibly changed it when I was mid-air flying to Belfast because suddenly I got sent these new sides that said I would need a wetsuit top.”

Waddington also described her shock when she said the production team informed her on set she would actually be waterboarded for the scene. “I was like, ‘But we’re not actually doing waterboarding.’ And they were like, ‘No, no, no, we are,'” she recounted, adding that “other than childbirth, [it] was the worst day of my life.” 

After filming the scene, Waddington described being traumatized. “It definitely gave me claustrophobia around water,” she said. “It’s quite full on being waterboarded for 10 hours — and then, for only one minute and 37 seconds to be used on camera.”

She added that immediately after filming, she already felt “bruises coming up.”

“I didn’t want the strap tight around my neck, but as they pointed out if the camera can see you lifting your head up to save yourself, that’s not authentic,” she said. “As [“Game of Thrones” co-creator] Dan Weiss pointed out, he came up and said, ‘Look, in the script it says Cersei empties the remainder of her glass of red wine to wake up Unella. People aren’t going to think that’s enough. That is not enough retribution for Cersei.'” 

She added, “The one thing I kept thinking to myself was the production company aren’t going to let you die, so get on with it, be uncomfortable.”

HBO has yet to comment on Waddington’s interview, but her disturbing revelation about the extreme discomfort and torture she experienced filming “Game of Thrones” comes after Emilia Clarke, who played Daenerys Targaryen, recounts almost dying while filming Season 2 of the series

From the cruelty inflicted on Waddington’s Unella, to the sexual shaming to which Unella subjected Lena Headey’s Cersei Lannister, “Game of Thrones” became notorious for its extensive, graphic and dehumanizing depictions of violence against women and girls. 

In addition to the aforementioned scenes, before the show writers finally responded to criticism and expressed openness to making changes in 2017, the show had featured the violent rape of Turner’s Sansa Stark, Kerry Ingram’s Shireen Baratheon — a child — being burnt at the stake, and other unnecessary scenes featuring sexual violence inflicted on women and girls. George R.R. Martin, author of the book series “Game of Thrones” is based on, has often defended this violence as necessary to be true to history, as if dragons, sorcery, and reanimating the dead are less of a liberty in a fictional universe than treating female characters as human beings.

Since playing Septa Unella, Waddington has played Rebecca in Apple TV+’s “Ted Lasso.”

The US Capitol will be home to “Hannibal” fan art thanks to a New Jersey teen – this is their design

Last week, when New Jersey Rep. Andy Kim announced in a tweet that his office had chosen a young student’s artwork to hang in the U.S. Capitol as part of the annual Congressional Arts Competition, he had no idea the piece was fan art

Kathleen Palmer, a senior at Shawnee High School in Kim’s district, created a Cubist painting depicting characters from NBC’s “Hannibal” — two men, Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen) and Will Graham (Hugh Dancy) – whom many fans theorized had a romantic relationship. Rep. Kim told the New York Times last week he hadn’t even known that Palmer’s painting “was related to a TV show.” He added, “I just thought it was really beautiful, well executed, and it was really striking.”

Palmer’s elegant piece is titled “Dolce,” after an episode from the final season of “Hannibal,” which went off the air in 2015. The show explored the fascinating relationship between cannibalistic psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter and FBI agent Will Graham. Of fans’ “shipping” of Lecter and Graham, Palmer told the Times, “I guess I did incorporate that into the painting.”

Palmer, 17, also told the Times they were surprised by the success of their tribute to the NBC hit. “It was just a casual art-class project,” they said. “I didn’t expect it to go this far.” The high school senior recounted discovering “Hannibal” from TikTok videos last year, diving into the series five years after its cancellation, and completing the 16-by-20-inch oil painting by December. 

As the New York Times points out, the U.S. Capitol is “an unusually high-profile space to display fan art,” which has more often found a home on platforms like Tumblr and Deviant Art. But as shown by Rep. Kim’s high praise for the painting, without even knowing it was based on “Hannibal,” good art is good art.

Palmer is currently preparing to enter Ohio University as a studio arts major. “Being validated in this scale is really, really fantastic,” they told the Times. “It’s lit the fire underneath me to paint more and work on my skills more.”

As of February, Mikkelsen has spoken on Danish podcast “Happy Sad Confused” about talks with Netflix considering a “Hannibal” Season 4 following a resurgence in its popularity, after the show was added to the streaming platform last year. “[Since the series] has found a new home on Netflix, the talks have been revitalized,” he said. “I don’t think you’d find a member of the cast that is still alive that would say, ‘No, thanks.’ We all enjoyed it tremendously.”

Today’s Republican Party is a political crime family — and we know who the godfather is

On Jan. 6, Donald Trump’s followers launched an attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was part of a larger coup attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and end America’s multiracial democracy. Trump’s forces carried Confederate flags and a Christian fascist cross, and were adorned with neo-Nazi, KKK and other white supremacist regalia. Many were believers in the antisemitic QAnon conspiracy theory. The forces that overran the Capitol that day had various weapons — although fortunately relatively few firearms. A weapons cache that included homemade explosives was also discovered nearby.  

Trump’s terrorist force intended to stop the certification of Joe Biden as winner of the 2020 presidential election. Part of their plot involved “arresting” then-Vice President Mike Pence as well as senior Democratic members of Congress, and perhaps also those Republicans deemed “traitors” or “enemies” by the Trump movement. The mob would have in all likelihood followed through on its threats to execute those people, perhaps using the functioning gallows that had been constructed on the Capitol grounds.

Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to establish an independent commission to investigate these events, 252-175, with only 35 Republicans voting in support of the bill. Senior Republicans in the Senate have announced that they oppose the creation of such a commission, and possess the power to block the legislation with a filibuster. It appears highly unlikely that such a commission will ever be convened by Congress.

By refusing to  investigate Donald Trump’s coup attempt and the Capitol attack, today’s Republican Party has shown itself (again) to be a terrorist organization.

In a recent op-ed for USA Today, David Mastio summons the horrific terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to make a powerful comparison to the events of Jan. 6 — and by implication Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s betrayal of the United States:

After 9/11, the leaders, financiers and backers of the terrorists had had their one shot at tearing America down. Their only hope was to hide in caves and pray we wouldn’t find them. After Jan. 6, the leaders, financiers and backers of the insurrection feel no such fear. Trump is plotting his comeback in Mar-a-Lago. Fox News is busily rewriting the history of Jan. 6. The members of the House and Senate who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election are plotting to take over Congress so they can control the results next time.

As surely as the terrorists of 9/11 wanted to tear down American democracy in 2001, the terrorists of Jan. 6 want to tear down our democracy as well, even as they pose as its defenders. And unlike the Sept. 11 attackers, they are going to get another chance.

I hope there are some Trump supporters who can be shocked out of their destructive fealty to a man who would put his ego before American democracy even if his agenda costs people their lives. 

Yes, 9/11 cost many more lives than Jan. 6 has so far, but comparing the two attacks is reasonable because the Big Lie is more dangerous to our way of life than the 2001 terrorists’ medieval ideology ever was.

Numerous people within the Republican Party aided and abetted the Jan. 6 coup attempt and attack on the Capitol. As part of a much larger pattern of stochastic terrorism, leading Republicans and their allies in the right-wing media incited and encouraged the violence of that day. It seems more likely than not that Republican members of Congress were co-conspirators in Trump’s coup attempt and attack on the Capitol.

This is the most basic and fundamental reason why Republicans do not want an independent commission to investigate the events of Jan. 6: Such an investigation would reveal the extent of their culpability.

In total, this is the behavior of a political crime family, with Donald Trump as the ruling boss who demands absolute fealty. Last Tuesday, Trump issued the following edict to his soldiers in Congress:

Republicans in the House and Senate should not approve the Democrat trap of the January 6 Commission. It is just more partisan unfairness and unless the murders, riots, and fire bombings in Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, Chicago, and New York are also going to be studied, this discussion should be ended immediately. Republicans must get much tougher and much smarter, and stop being used by the Radical Left. Hopefully, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are listening!

To this point, Trump’s Republicans are dutifully following his orders.

Criminal organizations value loyalty above all other things. This explains why “snitches” such as Rep. Liz Cheney are being purged, along with other Republicans who refuse to be silent about Donald Trump and his party’s crimes against democracy.

The Republicans’ desperate attempt at an Orwellian rewrite of Jan. 6 offers further evidence that their party opposes democracy and the rule of law.

Fascist-authoritarian organizations such as the Republican Party encourage and participate in what is known as “criminogenic politics.” In his essay “Criminogenic Politics as a Form of Psychosis in the Age of Trump,” philosopher Henry A. Giroux offers this explanation of the relationship between this phenomenon and Trumpism:

In its late stages, capitalism morphs into a form of neoliberal fascism. In this instance, the structural misery produced by capitalism via its destruction of the welfare state, safety net, and its growing investment in accelerating inequality and criminalizing all social problems merges with the theater of racism, racial cleansing, hyper-masculinity, ultra-nationalism, militarism, scapegoating the vulnerable, and the politics of disposability. Cruelty and hate now become a badge of honor among the financial, political, and corporate elite. One consequence is not merely a criminogenic political and economic system, but a state of barbarism that reflects a death-dealing psychosis among political leaders such as Trump and [Brazilian president] Bolsonaro. We have seen such things in the form of the Trump regime’s corruption, legal theft, and other criminal behavior both by Trump himself, his inner circle, other Republicans and members of the right-wing movement.

Republican criminogenic politics is also embodied in the crimes committed by leading Republican officials, and the party’s broad tolerance, if not celebration, of such behavior. These offenses have included sexual assault and rape, terrorist threats and street violence, financial corruption, vote theft and other election crimes, apparent treason and extortion, among many other actual or probable examples.

In addition to being a crime family, the contemporary Republican Party can be described as a political cult. Destructive cult groups often commit crimes against their own members as well as outsiders and society more generally.

Joe Biden may now be president, but Trump’s followers reject that fact and remain staunchly loyal to him.

Ultimately, the Trump-controlled Republican Party’s embrace of terrorism, white supremacy, crime and corruption and other antisocial and anti-human behavior represents the normalization of deviance in American society. For at least four years, the Trump regime and the larger neofascist movement permitted or encouraged the worst aspects of human behavior.

Biden and the Democrats have done an admirable job of confronting the coronavirus pandemic and the economic ruin and human misery it has caused. Biden is also working to advance a surprisingly progressive economic agenda, which is long overdue. But make no mistake: Trumpism endures and is continuing to grow as a threat to American democracy.

Neofascism and authoritarianism are cultural forces, perhaps more than strictly political movements. In that sense, American culture is sick, and it will require a great reckoning to fully heal. Correctly identifying, confronting and defeating the Republican Party and larger right-wing movement as a corrupt, criminal and existentially dangerous threat to American democracy and freedom is the first step in that long journey of national recovery. We are running out of time to begin that journey. 

The essential gardening step you’re probably skipping

When I started my first vegetable garden, I drew everything out on graph paper, much to the amusement of my husband. As it turns out, I had the right idea. A few years later, when I became a Master Gardener, I learned that record-keeping is an indispensable first step. Because, while we think we remember, the reality is that we forget things (did I fertilize that tomato plant two weeks ago?) in the course of a gardening season, let alone from one gardening year to the next.

How you keep track of what you grow — with a garden app, notebook, monthly planner, index cards, or on spreadsheets — doesn’t matter, as long as it works for you and you record things while they’re still fresh in your memory. As with anything else, record-keeping takes the guesswork out of gardening so you can focus your efforts on making your plants thrive.

If you’ve never grown a garden — in your backyard or in raised beds — keeping track of all the details can be overwhelming. But fear not, because I’ve broken down the best practices for record-keeping into two groups: essential data (for gardeners of all levels) and advanced record-keeping (for the more experienced among us).

* * *

For gardeners of all levels: Essential data

Make a map

Make a map to scale to record what you plant where. Figure out how much space each crop will need, mark it on your map, and plant accordingly. You will need the map for your garden next year to practice crop-rotation, a very old farming practice that avoids planting crops of the same families in the same spot for at least two years in a row. For example, peppers, eggplants, potatoes, and tomatoes are all members of the nightshade family, so you should not plant tomatoes in the same spot where you planted peppers the year before.

Each vegetable takes different nutrients out of the soil, and the plants can leave disease pathogens behind that survive even subzero winters and are ready to attack if they find fresh plants of the same family the next year. Crop rotation breaks that disease cycle. If you go by the book, plants of the same family should ideally not be grown in the same spot for three to four years. But frankly, that can be difficult to implement even if you have a large garden, so I’d recommend sticking at least to the two-year rule.

Keep track of planting and fertilizing dates

Recording the dates of what you planted is especially important when starting vegetables from seed, so you’ll know the time frame in which you can expect to see growth, or whether the seeds have failed to germinate and you should reseed.

Record the dates when you add fertilizer and which type, as well as the dates when you applied products for pest or disease control. By and large, too little is better than too much, because overdoing fertilizer or chemicals can harm your plants.

* * *

For experienced gardeners: Advanced record-keeping

Make note of harvest dates

Recording the harvest dates for crops like garlic is crucial because if you wait too long, the cloves will have started to separate, and the garlic won’t store well. When crops are ready to be dug will vary by variety, as well as the weather, but this year’s harvest date will give you a reliable target date to harvest in subsequent years, subject to fine-tuning.

Keep pests top of mind

Note when pests and diseases pop up, such as the Colorado potato beetle. That way, you’ll know next year when to watch out for those striped pests and you can take the necessary pest control measures right away.

Know your favorites

Write down the names of vegetable varieties and the seed company or nursery where you purchased them. With so many different varieties of every vegetable, this will help you keep track of which beefsteak tomatoes did well and tasted the best.

Expand your records to the whole yard

The above lists are for edible annuals (vegetables, herbs, and fruits such as melons) but keeping track of what you plant elsewhere in your yard is a good idea, too. In gardening groups on social media, I often see cries for help like “Can you identify this plant? I planted this last fall and I have no idea what the heck it is.” Writing down which plants ended up where in your yard sets the whole ecosystem up for success, year after year.

The best shortening substitutes for baking

You just finished the most recent episode of The Great British Bake-Off and you want to bake something, stat. Maybe sugar-crusted shortbread, or vanilla bean scones, or double chocolate cake. Whatever the recipe, odds are, you’re going to need shortening.

Which might not mean what you think. Technically speaking, “shortening” can be defined any fat that’s used in baked goods. Which is to say, vegetable shortening is shortening, yes, but so are butter, margarine, and lard.

Today, we’re going to focus on what most people think of when they hear shortening — the vegetable sort — and learn what to do when a recipe calls for it but, whoops, you have none in stock.

Spoiler alert: There are substitutes aplenty. Now hit me with your best Qs.

What is vegetable shortening, anyway?

Vegetable shortening, according to The New Food Lover’s Companion, is “a solid fat made from vegetable oils, such as soybean and cottonseed” that have been “chemically transformed into a solid state through hydrogenation.” You’ll find vegetable shortening called for in all sorts of recipes, from homemade flour tortillas to white cake. While shortening doesn’t add much flavor, it adds richness and tenderness to baked goods.

Is vegetable shortening, like Crisco, bad for you?

For the answer to this question, you have to ask another question: How was shortening originally made? An oil, such as soybean gets hydrogenated, which turns it from a liquid into a solid. This chemical process creates trans fats — the consumption of which, according to the American Heart Association, “increases your risk of developing heart disease and stroke.”

Since this correlation between shortening and trans fats and health risks became evident in the mid-1990s, vegetable shortening brands have gone out of their way to distance themselves from trans fats. For example, Crisco now boasts “0 grams trans fats per serving” on its label. And brands, such as Spectrum, produce organic, non-hydrogenated vegetable shortenings.

Is coconut oil a good substitute for shortening?

Absolutely. Coconut oil stands out from canola, vegetable, and its other oil relatives, because it’s naturally solid at room temperature (though if said room gets to 76°F or warmer, the solid oil will start to melt). Substitute coconut oil instead of shortening by following a 1:1 ratio. And if you don’t want a noticeable coconut flavor or aroma, buy refined (versus unrefined) coconut oil.

Besides coconut oil, what are other good substitutes for shortening?

Margarine and butter can both be used as a substitute for shortening, though their moisture contents should be taken into consideration before making the swap. While shortening is 100% fat, margarine and butter contain a small percentage of water (so, shortening adds more fat, thus more richness and tenderness). All these ingredients also have distinct melting points. Despite these differences, many community members have reported successfully swapping margarine and butter in place of vegetable shortening. For example, in this Hotline thread from 2011, Sdebrango wrote, “I interchange butter, shortening, and lard all the time and the ratio is the same.” Speaking of lard, that, bacon fat, and even chicken fat could be used instead of shortening, depending on the context (a chicken fat biscuit sounds very good to me, though a chicken fat red velvet cake does not—but you do you).

What’s a good shortening substitute in cookies?

Cookies made with shortening are characteristically short in texture (think, crumbly like shortbread), domed (because the shortening discourages significant spreading), and mild in texture. Comparatively, cookies made with butter are crispier, flatter, and, well, butterier in flavor (big surprise there). To successfully replace shortening in a cookie recipe, you can swap in 100% butter, but you might want to accordingly lower the liquid in another part of the recipe (due to the butter’s water content). You could also do a mix of butter and coconut oil.

What’s a good shortening substitute in biscuits?

A good biscuit should be tall, flaky, and fluffy. Many biscuit makers swear by lard or shortening or a mix, for guaranteed flakiness. Others preach butter for its A+ flavor. If you’re starting with a biscuit recipe that calls for shortening, you can swap in butter or margarine at a 1:1 ratio. We even have a recipe on the site from Sweet Laurel Bakery that uses almond flour instead of all-purpose and coconut oil instead of shortening or butter.

What’s a good shortening substitute in bread?

Enriching bread dough with fat is a great way to add tenderness and flavor (classic examples include oil in challah and butter in brioche). If a bread recipe calls for shortening (for instance, like in these fluffy pork buns), you can swap an equal quantity of butter, oil, or even leaf lard or bacon fat for added savoriness.

What’s a good shortening substitute in frosting?

Save the tough one for last. Because frosting is little more than fat and sugar, swapping either of these ingredients will yield a noticeable difference. Using all shortening (shortening plus confectioners’ sugar) yields a stable, but neutral-flavored, frosting. Meanwhile, using all buttercreates a frosting that’s more likely to melt and separate over time at room temperature, yet is super rich in flavor. In addition to doing a 1:1 swap of shortening to butter, you can also use margarine, coconut oil, or some mix of the three.

Put those shortening-subs to work

The following recipes can be made with shortening (or butter or bacon fat or schmaltz or coconut oil or — OK, OK, you get it. Moving on.) How many have you tried?

Homemade Flour Tortillas

Homemade flour tortillas, steaming hot and fluffy, will ruin you for other tortillas. This recipe calls for vegetable shortening, but as noted in this article you could easily substitute lard (one of the more common fats in Mexican cooking) or another animal fat like rendered bacon fat or schmaltz.

Classic Parker House Rolls

Author Yossy Arefi writes, “the original recipe calls for shortening, which I know many people like to avoid, so feel free to substitute unsalted butter in the rolls.” Butter brings welcome richness to these perfect dinner rolls.

Stella Parks’ No-Stress, Super-Flaky Pie Crust

Many pie crust recipes call for a mix of shortening and butter since shortening’s higher melting point makes the dough easier to work with and is said to create a more tender and flaky crust. However, this Genius Recipe for all-butter crust from Stella Parks yields the flakiest, most delicious pie crust I’ve ever made. Make it! Love it! You’ll likely forget why you ever used shortening in pie crust.

Perfect Vegan Pie Crust

Another shortening-free pie crust, this recipe utilizes coconut oil to create a flaky pie crust for any dairy-free folks out there. Zero animal fat, zero flavor compromise.

Mamma’s Orange Refrigerator Rolls

As is the case with many hand-me-down family recipes born in the South, the go-to fat here is shortening. However, butter is a perfect substitute for these sweet orange rolls that proof overnight in the fridge, making breakfast a breeze and the whole family happy.

This post contains products that are independently selected by Food52 editors, and Food52 may earn an affiliate commission.

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Holocaust comparison draws delayed condemnation from GOP leaders

Republican Party leadership has finally emerged, nearly five days after the fact, to denounce far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s comparison of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s mask mandates on the House floor to the death of Jews during the Holocaust.

The statements from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell follow days of outrage over Greene’s comments and a groundswell of criticism to the GOP’s inaction from Jewish groups and moderate Republicans alike.

“Marjorie is wrong, and her intentional decision to compare the horrors of the Holocaust with wearing masks is appalling,” McCarthy finally wrote in a statement released on Tuesday morning. “Let me be clear: the House Republican Conference condemns this language.”

Scalise on Tuesday followed the lead of McCarthy and denounced the remarks from Greene.

“Rep. Scalise does not agree with these comments and condemns these comparisons to the Holocaust,” Scalise spokesperson Lauren Fine told The Hill’s Scott Wong. 

Additionally, McConnell called Greene’s comments “outrageous” and “reprehensible.”

Republican and recently appointed House Conference chair Rep. Elise Stefanik also released a statement about the Greene remarks but failed to cite the lawmaker by name.

“Equating mask-wearing and vaccines to the Holocaust belittles the most significant human atrocities ever committed. We must all work together to educate our fellow Americans on the unthinkable horrors of the Holocaust. #NeverAgain,” Stefanik stated. 

The controversial remarks from Green stem from an appearance the lawmaker made on a far-right internet show, on “The Real America’s Voice” with host David Brody, where the comparison was touted with little pushback from the host.  

“You know, we can look back at a time in history where people were told to wear a gold star, and they were definitely treated like second-class citizens, so much so that they were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany,” Greene stated.

“And this is exactly the type of abuse that Nancy Pelosi is talking about,” the Republican and QAnon floating congresswoman added, referring to the mask mandate.  

But the comment and quick backlash from the comparison didn’t phase Greene, as the member proceeded to double and triple down on her Holocaust comparison. 

“I never compared it to the Holocaust, only the discrimination against Jews in early Nazi years. Stop feeding into the left-wing media attacks on me,” Greene tweeted on Tuesday morning after GOP leadership denounced her remarks. “Everyone should be concerned about the squads’ support for terrorists and discrimination against unvaxxed people. Why aren’t they?” Greene added firing back at criticism from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. 

Responding to PunchBowl News founder Jake Sherman, Greene didn’t back down either. “You are a liar. Stop twisting my words. If you care about people NOT being discriminated against or being treated unequally then you would use your platform to be against vaccine passports. Instead, you are all in for this sick Socialism just like good little state-run media,” Greene tweeted. 

While many spoke out against the comparison of Greene, some on the far-right backed the lawmaker, including former Breitbart editor Raheem Kassam. “Democrats are promoting violent anti-Semitism across the world but @GOPLeader is more concerned with an awkward comparison vis a vis authoritarianism,” he tweeted. “Why is there never universal, strong condemnation of the anti-Semitism peddled by @RashidaTlaib, @IlhanMN, and their squad?” former Trump campaign advisor Boris Epshtey floated in a whataboutism style tweet on Tuesday. 

Joe Biden and the theater of bipartisanship: Democrats know GOP will never negotiate in good faith

As part of their apparent mission to cause progressives to die from “I told you so” strokes, Politico ran this headline Monday evening: “‘Time to move on’: Infrastructure talks near collapse: Republicans have soured on negotiations while progressives push to move forward without the GOP.” 

The piece, yet another without a whiff of irony, portrayed the negotiations over the American Jobs Plan — Biden’s $1.7 trillion bill to reinvest in the nation’s infrastructure and build a more sustainable economy — as a real thing that Republicans were totally engaged in for real. It described Republicans as “mulling whether to even make a counteroffer” with bipartisan negotiations portrayed as taking “a nosedive on Friday.” The general picture is one of two parties coming together in good faith to reach a deal, yet simply unable to do so. 

This is all, of course, honking nonsense.

From day one, Republicans never had even the slightest inclination to strike a deal and were never going to find their way to a “compromise” that would result in any Republican votes to satisfy the seemingly endless need on the part of both Democrats and the mainstream media for “bipartisanship”. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., told Politico, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “ultimate purpose is not compromise but delay and mischief.”

This is not a surprise. As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote earlier this month, “Republicans have run a certain playbook,” where they “hint at support for Democratic initiatives only if more concessions are offered, yet that support almost never materializes.” It happens so often and so predictably that it “has become an online meme” — that of Lucy yanking away the football from Charlie Brown. 

Sargent wasn’t even writing about the jobs and infrastructure bill, but about immigration. But really, the same story could be written about any bill, including, most recently, the carefully negotiated plans for a January 6 commission Republicans predictably blew up after wasting months of Democratic time. And yet, despite this same story playing out over and over and over again — and despite being warned this would happen by progressive pundits — a dizzying number of Democrats are happy to play the hopeful mark who is certain this time the grifter isn’t grifting them. 

“It’s always darkest before dawn,” Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., told Politico. The article also notes that Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., “remain hopeful about bipartisan negotiations” and that Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., “balked at leaving behind Republicans” and passing the bill through a party-line budget reconciliation vote. 

But, of course, there were only two ways for this to end: A party-line vote through the budget reconciliation process, or by Republicans successfully running out the clock with fake negotiations. That’s it. There is no option where Republicans vote for the bill. Republicans are smart enough not to give Democrats a win they can highlight in their re-election campaigns. To ever think otherwise is a fool’s errand. McConnell even brags to reporters about how he has no intention of letting President Joe Biden have any political wins. Yet here moderate Democrats are, acting like the wife insisting this time, her philandering husband will not cheat on her, unlike the past 15 times she left yet went back to him. 

Are moderate Democrats really this dumb? Do they really not see, after all this time, that Republicans view yearnings for “bipartisanship” as nothing more than a vulnerability to exploit? Is it humanly possible for people to not understand that they’re being played, even in the face of so many of their allies telling them they’re being played and a long history where every “negotiation” ends in exactly the same way? How many times do these toddlers have to touch the hot stove before they believe that it’s actually hot? 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


Certainly, one should never underestimate how soft-headed power can make people. It’s impossible to measure the amount of yes-siring that the average senator — especially one who has had their seat as long as some of these Democrats — receives over the years. Being surrounded by people happy to tell you what you want to hear famously dulls the ability to hear hard truths. Which is to say that yes, it may be that some of these Democratic senators really are that dumb. 

Still, there is a theory that, since so many of these senators come from swing states, there’s a little bit of a dog-and-pony show being performed for the voters with these fake negotiations. After all, polls routinely show that, when asked, vast majorities of voters will say things like “attempts at bipartisanship are a good thing.” So it’s entirely possible that some, if not all, Democrats who are doing this negotiation tapdance with Republicans know that it’s fake, but still feel like they have to go through the motions in order to please voters. 

If so, while that is slightly less dumb than negotiating in good faith, it’s still extremely blinkered thinking.

Those polls are functionally meaningless, the equivalent of asking voters where they stand on the issue of whether rainbows are pretty. Of course, people are going to endorse the idea of compromise and negotiation, since that all sounds really nice and uplifting. But ultimately, most voters don’t care, any more than most people spend more than a few seconds admiring a rainbow. Most voters can’t even tell you who their congressional representatives are and they certainly don’t spend time monitoring every news story to make sure the politician they voted for is putting on a big enough show of “bipartisanship.” They just want Congress to get things done. Which is why it’s foolish to let Republicans run out the clock so they can then run campaign ads accusing Democrats of not getting anything done. 

The good news is most Democrats finally — finally — seem to get this, which is why there’s an informal deadline next week for the fake negotiations to wrap up. Republicans have promised to propose a counteroffer on Thursday. The move to pass this bill how it was always going to pass — without Republicans — will then hopefully begin.

Still, while the infrastructure bill is likely to pass fairly intact, the damage done with the Theater of Bipartisanship is immeasurable. Republicans successfully sucked up months of valuable time that Democrats could have spent advancing other parts of Biden’s agenda. There’s unlikely now to be any energy left for fake negotiations around other priorities — such as gun control or climate change — that are apparently necessary to prove to moderate Democrats that Republicans are ungettable on those issues, as well. And, of course, Republicans have probably killed off any time or energy necessary for passing democracy reform, which means Republicans have paved their way to cheating in and possibly even stealing the 2022 and 2024 elections

“The proverbial smoking gun”: Maddow explains what newly unredacted Manafort files reveal

Federal investigators have declassified “smoking gun” court documents that indicate Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, handed over campaign polling data to the Russian government, according to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

“Now we know today, in black and white, what Trump’s campaign chair lied to prosecutors about on pain of considerate prison time for doing so,” Maddow declared.

During the Mueller investigation back in 2017 – in which Robert Mueller, the former special counsel for the Department of Justice, probed whether Russia meddled in the 2016 general election – Mueller put specific emphasis on Manafort’s relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian and Ukranian political consultant. 

In 2018, an AP News report found that Manafort worked alongside Kilimnik for years, each of them reportedly working to promote their own country’s interests in the U.S. and Russia. Officials had long alleged that Kilimnik has ties to the Russian government, with some speculating he may have played a key role in helping Russia exert enough influence in the 2016 general election to ensure that Donald Trump would beat Former United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. 

However, in April of this year, the Treasury Department formally revealed that Kilimnik had in fact handed over internal polling data, given by Manafort, to the Russian government.

Newly redacted court documents, as Maddow reported, shed more light on the extent of the Mueller investigation. “The issue of internal campaign polling data being sent to [redacted], who the defendant conceded is extremely close to the senior leader in Russia, is in the core what the special counsel is supposed to be investigating,” wrote Andrew Weissman, the former general counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Court documents also alleged that “Manafort lied to the government about his sharing of internal campaign data with Kilimnik.” Previously, as Maddow noted, Manafort said that the information he handed over was not sensitive in nature. 

Manafort also reportedly lied about whether he knew Kilimnik would transfer the internal campaign data to the Russian government. Court documents stated Manafort was not only “sharing internal confidential polling data covered by a non-disclosure agreement…outside the campaign, but he’s sharing it with a foreign national with a specific understanding and intent that it would be passed on to other foreign nationals, in this case Russians.”

However, it still remains unclear why Manafort intentionally shared information with the Russian government – and to what end. “Why would Donald Trump’s Kremlin-linked campaign chair be sharing protected valuable internal campaign polling data with a Russian intelligence officer while Russia was carrying out an attack on our election to try and get Trump elected?” Maddow asked rhetorically.

“That was what fully half the Muller investigation was about – what Russia did to our election to try to elect Trump and how the Trump campaign was involved in it and perhaps assisted it? 

“What we thought happened, happened,” Maddow continued. “Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, sharing this kind of data with a Russian intelligence officer is the proverbial smoking gun in terms of how the Trump campaign was involved in it.”

Racism derails Black men’s health, even as education levels rise

More education typically leads to better health, yet Black men in the U.S. are not getting the same benefit as other groups, research suggests.

The reasons for the gap are vexing, experts said, but may provide an important window into unique challenges faced by Black men as they try to gain not only good health but also an equal footing in the U.S.

Generally, higher education means better-paying jobs and health insurance, healthier behaviors and longer lives. This is true across many demographic groups. And studies show life expectancy is higher for educated Black men — those with a college degree or higher — compared with those who have not finished high school.

But the increase is not as big as it is for whites. This comes on top of the many health obstacles Black men already face. They are more likely to die from chronic illnesses like cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer than white men, and their life expectancy, on average, is lower. Experts point to a variety of factors that might play a role, but many said the most pervasive is racism.

Researchers note that Black women face many of the same challenges as Black men, but Black women generally have a longer life expectancy than Black men. (They also point out that it is hard to draw conclusions about Hispanic residents because of a lack of studies on the issues.) As a result, many experts said that the health problems stem from a persistent devaluation of Black men in U.S. society.

“At every level of income and education, there is still an effect of race,” said David Williams, a professor of public health at Harvard University who developed a scale nearly 30 years ago that quantified the connection between racism and health.

The precise difference in health gains between educated white men and educated Black men is hard to pinpoint because of differences in study designs. Some studies, for example, look at life expectancy, while others look at disease burden or depression.

Experts said, however, that the evidence is strong and convincing that these gaps have persisted over many years. A 2012 study published in Health Affairs, for example, found that life expectancy for white men with the most education was 12.9 years longer than for white men with the least education. For Black men, the difference was 9.7 years.

In addition, other research shows how that gap plays out. A 2019 study examined years of “lost life” — years cut off because of health challenges — between the groups. Educated Black men lost 12.09 years, while educated white men lost 8.34 years, according to the study, published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Racism affects Black men’s health and it is persistent, experts said.

“No matter how far you go in school, no matter what you accomplish, you’re still a Black man,” said Derek Novacek, who has a doctorate in clinical psychology from Emory University and is researching Black-white health disparities at UCLA.

S. Jay Olshansky, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois in Chicago and lead author of the 2012 study, said possible risk factors for various diseases and environmental issues could also play a role: “I’d be very surprised if this wasn’t part of the equation. The risk of diabetes and obesity is much higher among the Black population, even those that are highly educated.”

Among other possible causes that researchers are probing are stress and depression.

“When you follow other groups, with more education depression declines,” said Dr. Shervin Assari, associate professor of medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles County, California, who studies race, gender and health. “But when you look at Black men — guess what? Depression goes up.”

Depression is often an indicator of physical well-being as well as a contributing factor to many chronic illnesses, such as hypertension, obesity and diabetes.

Isolated at Home and Work

Researchers who study the health of various racial and ethnic groups, as well as the social factors that influence health outcomes, see cause for concern. The findings suggest that the power of discrimination to harm Black men’s lives may be more persistent than previously understood. And they could mean that improving Black men’s health may be more complicated than previously believed.

“What has surprised me is how powerfully and consistently discrimination predicts poor health,” said Williams.

Covid-19 has underscored the issue. As early as last April researchers noticed higher death and hospitalization rates for Black people. The patterns have persisted, with Black patients being nearly two times as likely as whites to die of the virus and Black men have the highest rates of covid deaths.

The covid outcomes, Williams and others suggested, helped point out that the health and well-being of middle-class, educated Black men have been overlooked.

Higher education hasn’t brought about the health equity many experts had expected. While Black men have worse health than other groups if they are not educated, they can’t catch up to their white peers even when they are.

“What society has done to Black men is to corner them,” Assari said.

Black men, even with an education, have less of a financial and social safety net than white men. That brings added stress, the experts said. Also, as Black men climb a corporate, academic or managerial ladder, many feel isolated. And social isolation harms health.

Thomas LaVeist, a sociologist and dean of the school of public health at Tulane University, said that in a white-dominated society Black men are less likely to have family members with high incomes or social and business connections who can open doors for them. And once hired into the workplace, they are less likely to have mentors, LaVeist said, and that lack of connections is associated with stress, depression and other factors that can lead to poorer health.

“There needs to be a designated effort to provide an on-ramp” for Black men, he said.

And they may have experienced more cumulative adversity and continued racism.

“Your high socioeconomic status doesn’t protect you from the impact or from the incidence” of racism, said Dr. Adrian Tyndall, associate vice president for strategic and academic affairs at University of Florida Health.

“That is difficult,” added Tyndall, who is Black. “If I were to walk out of this institution and into the community, where people don’t know me, I could be called the N-word. And yeah, that’s pretty depressing.”

The Need to Prove Yourself

The cumulative effect of discrimination takes a toll psychologically and physiologically — but so does the anticipation of it.

“It’s not just the actual exposure in dealing with these kinds of experiences, but it’s ‘What do you do before leaving home?’ You’re careful about your dress, your behavior, the way you look because of the threat of discrimination, and so you react,” said Williams, the Harvard professor.

For example, when Williams, who is Black, first became a professor at Yale University, he wore a coat and tie every day. No one else in his department did that. And yet, he said, he kept up the practice for years.

LaVeist remembers getting onto an elevator at an academic medical center around 1990, shortly after earning his Ph.D., and a passenger wearing a white coat — presumably a doctor — assumed LaVeist worked in housekeeping. The man asked LaVeist, who was dressed in a suit, to clean up a spill on the sixth floor.

“When I told him that I was a professor, he didn’t speak,” said LaVeist. “He simply didn’t speak.”

Greg Pennington, 67, of Atlanta, has a doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina and an undergraduate degree from Harvard, owns a professional consulting firm and has worked with hundreds of men individually as well as dozens of Fortune 500 companies. “It’s not so much that [Black men] experience discrimination and depression ‘even after’ they have advanced degrees,” he said. “It’s more descriptive to say ‘throughout the whole process.'”

Despite their academic credentials, Black men said, they often feel they need to prove themselves, which adds another layer of stress.

“It’s almost like I can’t fail; I’m representative of other Black males,” said Woodrow W. Winchester III, director of professional engineering programs at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. “Your value and your success are around advancing the collective.”

The bottom line, experts agreed, is that discrimination has a lingering effect on health.

Dana Goldman, director of the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, was co-author of the 2012 Health Affairs study on these chasms. Goldman said he agrees that the underlying cause is racism and added that he thinks one solution is to improve education. He and others suggested that schools, starting in the lower grades, need to provide Black students with more culturally appropriate curricula that bolster their self-image and help build social relationships between white and Black youngsters. Those efforts need to continue as students progress into higher education.

“The policy remedy is not just less racism but to improve the quality of our schools, occupational safety and public health,” Goldman said.

Others agree that the findings suggest a need to reconsider broad policy changes — in education, housing and the justice system — so that Black males feel confident and supported in pursuing better educations and jobs. 

It will be a long-term project, said Williams, the Harvard professor.

“We need a Marshall Plan for all disenfranchised Americans,” he said, but one that especially addresses implicit biases and how American society views and treats Black males.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Biden’s latest executive order takes aim at climate change’s risk to the economy

Climate change could wreak havoc on nearly every aspect of life, and the U.S. financial system is no exception: Local housing market crashes and absurdly high insurance premiums are just two potential examples of the fallout. The federal government is beginning to act on these possibilities. On Thursday, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing government agencies to expand their efforts to analyze and disclose economic risks stemming from climate change.

The executive order requires Gina McCarthy, the national climate advisor, and Brian Deese, the director of the National Economic Council, to prepare a report within 120 days on climate-related financial risks to government assets and programs. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen also has new assignments: She will have to assess the stability of the U.S. financial system, steps being taken to improve climate-related disclosures by companies, and gaps in the oversight of insurers. The Department of Labor and the Office of Management and Budget must  take additional steps to reduce climate risks to pension portfolios and identify ways to integrate risks into federal lending and procurement programs, respectively. 

The executive order “will help the American people better understand how climate change can impact their financial security” and “strengthen the U.S. financial system,” a fact sheet from the White House notes. “We know that the climate crisis, whether through rising seas or extreme weather, already presents increasing risks to infrastructure, investments, and businesses. Yet, these risks are often hidden.”

Mindy Lubber, CEO and President of Ceres, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, called the directive a “bold, thoughtful and important step” toward preparing the economy for the climate crisis. The executive order is “especially timely” given the International Energy Agency’s warning earlier this week that the path to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius involves investors withdrawing from fossil fuel projects, she said. 

The order comes as banks, investors, and regulators raise more warnings about the risks posed by climate change. Last month, 160 banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions pledged to cut the carbon emissions of their investments and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The list includes Bank of America and Citigroup, which are among the largest financiers of fossil fuel projects. And earlier this year, the CEO of the investment giant BlackRock, Larry Fink, recommitted to pushing companies to achieve net zero by 2050. “We know that climate risk is investment risk,” he wrote in a letter to shareholders.

Whether these commitments constitute mere lip service or a serious reckoning on Wall Street remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the risks continue to mount. First, as the planet warms, extreme events such as hurricanes and wildfires are becoming more frequent and destructive, putting more homes, factories, and businesses backed by bank loans at risk. And as more of the economy runs on clean energy, the value of coal plants, natural gas pipelines, and other fossil fuel infrastructure could plunge, leading to ripple effects through companies that own them and banks that may have financed them. Given that tens of millions of people own mortgages, pay for insurance, and invest in the stock market, such systemic risks could wind up hitting every American’s pocketbook. 

The federal government can play a key role in ameliorating these risks. For one, the U.S. currently does not have uniform, mandatory climate risk reporting requirements for companies; without these, investors could be in the dark about the true risks in their portfolios. President Biden’s latest executive order tasks the Treasury Secretary with issuing a report that assesses whether the federal government needs to “enhance” climate-related disclosures by regulated businesses.

The Biden administration has also taken other steps in its first 100 days to address climate risks. The Securities and Exchange Commission, a regulatory agency that is tasked with protecting investors, has created a special climate and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) task force to root out firms misleadingly touting environmental benefits of financial products that have none. It has also issued a “risk alert” warning investors of the potential for greenwashing and securities fraud in the ESG market.

Still, some environmental groups say Biden must move faster to address climate risks by phasing out private and public financial support for fossil fuel projects.

“The fossil fuel industry and Wall Street have been extracting from Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities for decades and driving our climate crisis off a cliff,” said Erika Thi Patterson, the climate and environmental justice campaign director with the Action Center on Race and the Economy, in a statement. “Over 100 days into [the Biden] presidency we’re still hearing about plans to release plans. This pace fails to match the urgency of our crisis — we need immediate, bold executive action to stop Wall Street from financing climate catastrophe.”

An unexpected side effect of climate change? More stillbirths

Update: This story has been updated to include responses from the research team behind the paper.

Climate change is perhaps the greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced — and as environmental research accumulates, we keep discovering unexpected side effects of making industrial civilization reliant on fossil fuels. The latest one: a likely link between global warming and increased numbers of stillbirths.

A new study published in the scientific journal Environmental Research suggests a connection between an increase in the Earth’s temperature and more stillbirths. Authors from the University of Queensland found that pregnant women who were exposed to extreme ambient temperatures during their pregnancy seemed to be at an increased risk of stillbirth, especially later in the pregnancy. Scholars at their School of Earth and Environmental Science and the Mater Research Institute reviewed 12 studies with relevant data in their study.

“An estimated 17–19% of stillbirths are potentially attributable to chronic exposure to extreme hot and cold temperatures during pregnancy,” the authors note.

“Climate change can have a multitude of impacts on an individual’s health, especially among vulnerable populations,” the research team behind the study told Salon by email. “For pregnant mothers, extreme weather events can impact access to antenatal services and increase risk of heat-related illnesses. Mothers living in low-resource settings are particularly vulnerable to these effects.”

In a press release regarding the study, environmental scientist Dr Scott Lieske described how their conclusions suggest that marginalized populations which already struggle disproportionately due to lack of resources will be even harder hit as global temperatures rise and they suffer more miscarriages.

“More than two million stillbirths occur every year around the world, with the most occurring in low resource settings,” Dr. Lieske said in the press release. “Not only are these poorer countries already affected disproportionately by stillbirth, they’re now going to be disproportionately affected by climate change as well. If the link apparent in this research bears out upon further scrutiny, the majority of new stillbirths will occur invariably in the nations already suffering the most.”

The scholars emphasized that much additional work needs to be done to fully understand the science at play here.

“To fully understand the effects of maternal exposure to ambient temperatures and stillbirth, future studies should focus on the biological mechanisms involved and contributing factors, in addition to improving measurement of ambient temperature exposure,” Professor Vicki Flenady, Director of the Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth (Stillbirth CRE) at Mater Research, said in the press release. “In the meantime, we would encourage pregnant women to talk to their healthcare providers about staying safe during the cold days of winter and hot days of summer.”

The research team told Salon that they are interested in learning more about the ways our environment impacts stillbirth risks and chose to study ambient temperature exposure during pregnancy as an initial step.

“The NHMRC Stillbirth CRE research program addresses priorities across four major program areas, including improving stillbirth data to drive change and identifying new approaches to stillbirth prevention,” they wrote to Salon. “This review helped us to identify an important gap in data as well as highlighting a potential area where stillbirth risk could be improved in the future.”

The possible rise in stillbirths is only the latest in a series of red flags indicating that pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are making Earth less habitable. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the population sizes of “mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish” have fallen by 68 percent since 1970, amounting to an “unprecedented” decline in Earth’s biodiversity. Over the last two centuries, humans have destroyed one-third of the planet’s forest cover and overfished one-third of the world’s fish stocks. We also continue to churn out plastic products that clog up our oceans, clutter up our land and contain chemicals that have been linked to ominously declining sperm counts.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


Kevin McCarthy paid Frank Luntz for advice — and it came from a team of Democrats

Longtime Republican pollster and frequent cable news guest Frank Luntz, who provided housing to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy this year and whose company, FIL, Inc., was paid to do 2020 polling by McCarthy’s leadership PAC, appears to have a staff consisting mostly of Democrats.

In April 2020, FIL, Inc. received a $77,900 loan from the Paycheck Protection Program, which was expected to save five jobs at Luntz’s company. An exhaustive LinkedIn search conducted by Salon identified five employees at FIL, Inc., including Luntz — and three of the other four have been involved in Democratic politics at various times.

Luntz hired Daniel Siegel in August of 2018 directly from the campaign operations team of Katie Porter, then a House candidate in California and now a Democratic member of Congress. According to his LinkedIn profile, before working for Porter as a press assistant and deputy field director, Siegel was briefly deputy political director for California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s campaign earlier in the 2018 cycle. (He appears to have graduated from UCLA just before that, so these job titles may carry some poetic license.) At the moment, Siegel is working on Luntz’s team overseeing research on vaccine hesitancy among conservatives.

Siegel was presumably instrumental in helping Porter #Flipthe45th from Republican to Democratic control, a result clearly not on Kevin McCarthy’s wish list. Porter defeated then-incumbent Republican Rep. Mimi Walters, one of McCarthy’s “Young Gun” alumnae, in a key Southern California race heavily funded by McCarthy’s PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, which pumped more than $3 million into backing Walters. 

Siegel seems to have traveled to Dallas in October 2018, at precisely the time that Luntz hosted a VICE News/HBO focus group on the tight Senate race between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke, while Cruz’s campaign was paying Luntz’s company for “survey research/travel,” as Salon reported last week

Luntz’s social media manager and content creator, Hetal Bhatt, has worked for him since August 2018, but worked concurrently in 2019 for Ami Horowitz, a right-wing, anti-Muslim documentary filmmaker who briefly ran for president as a Democrat.

That was a strange choice considering Bhatt’s social media posts, which often appear strikingly at odds with the views of Luntz, McCarthy or Horowitz. On several occasions he has posted anti-Trump and pro-Black Lives Matter content on Instagram, writing during the George Floyd protests last June, “Y’all need to edit your #BlackoutTuesday captions and tell people to donate to groups like the @NAACP_LDF, @ColorOfChange, and Minneapolis’ own @ReclaimTheBlock to help them win this fight.” In February 2019, Bhatt posted: “The #BorderWall is such a ‘national emergency’ that Trump waited 2 years to declare it” with a photo of Los Angeles street art depicting Trump’s face and the word “disobey.”

Luntz’s chief of staff at FIL, Inc., Alexis Vickers (previously his executive assistant at a different company, Luntz Global), was formerly director of scheduling for the Democratic conference leader in the New York State Senate during 2009 and 2010. During that period she also donated to the 2009 campaign of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, a progressive Democrat (and current New York mayoral candidate). 

Andrea Arletti, the final employee, appears to be of Italian origin and now lives in the UAE, with no visible ties to either Democratic or Republican politics. Arletti seems to have started working for Luntz in September 2019, and earlier that year began contributing political columns to La Voce di New York, a bilingual English-Italian site. In April of 2020, Arletti interviewed Luntz for a column entitled “Trump and Biden’s possible strategies for the White House in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic,” notably without disclosing his business relationship with Luntz. 

Arletti’s LinkedIn page describes him as project director for Luntz at Expo 2020 Dubai, responsible for “communications, marketing, and messaging strategy.” It’s not clear what Luntz’s involvement may be with Expo 2020, an immense world’s-fair-type commercial and networking event that was delayed by a full year due to the pandemic and will now open this October.

To be fair, Luntz has said he began his political career as a youthful Democrat in 1976, working with a town council candidate in West Hartford, Connecticut, who made Frank cry after forgetting to show up at a local mall to campaign for Jimmy Carter. The council candidate remembers that episode differently, but in Luntz’s version of the story, after that he became a Republican.

In 1993, Luntz described himself to the Hartford Courant as a social libertarian, a conservative on economic issues and a mild hawk on foreign policy. “I act like a Democrat,” he said. “I don’t act like a conservative in my dress or the way I speak. I’m shy, but I’m not stodgy. I don’t have the half-a-million-dollar beach house, even though I could.” 

After the 1992 elections, the Courant story notes, some Republicans accused Luntz of having “prostituted himself politically by jumping from one candidate to another, seemingly without regard to ideology.”

In 2007, Luntz caused a stir in Republican circles by meeting with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That came after John Boehner became House minority leader in February 2006 and “unofficially banished” Luntz from the party, a ban that didn’t last long. Some Republicans were also “upset that [Luntz] invited a number of Democrats, including liberal columnist Arianna Huffington, to his annual party for the Major League Baseball All-Star Game.”

Since 2010, the longtime Republican pollster has held a board seat at the Dreyfuss Initiative, the nonprofit led by actor Richard Dreyfuss, a well-known Hollywood Democrat who described Donald Trump’s celebrity supporters as “whores” in 2016.

Luntz has discussed his “special bond” with Joe Biden and described himself as a longtime adviser and confidant to the current president, as well as a close friend of Beau Biden, the president’s late son. “I know Joe Biden; I’ve known him for 30 years,” Luntz says in the YouTube video embedded below. 

“I taught Beau Biden, Joe’s son, he was one of my favorite students, I know I was one of his favorite professors, and we stayed friends,” Luntz continues. “I used to fly to Philadelphia from L.A., and Beau would pick me up at the airport at about 6:30 a.m., drive me to his father’s house in Wilmington. I’d go to sleep upstairs for an hour and a half, take a nap, shower and I’d come down around 9 o’clock. We’d talk about language and we’d talk about policy and we’d talk about presentation and communication for hours, and we did this week after week.”

In late 2020, emails allegedly exchanged between Luntz and Hunter Biden in 2012 circulated on the internet, purportedly sourced from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Their authenticity is unconfirmed, but their contents are plausible enough: Hunter writes to Luntz, “I love you … beau loves you.” Luntz responds by observing that he was recently snubbed by Joe Biden, who was then vice president, writing that “fair-weather friends get fair-weather treatment … and by the way, I declared your dad the winner of his debate against Paul Ryan even though Ryan is an actual current client.” That much was true: Ryan, Mitt Romney’s 2012 running mate, was a client of Luntz Global.

Early this month, Fox News host Tucker Carlson began a sustained campaign of attack against Luntz — and by extension against Kevin McCarthy — suggesting that Luntz has lobbied for “some of the most left-leaning” causes in American politics. 

Few actual supporters of “left-leaning” causes would agree, but Carlson is on safer ground in claiming that Luntz’s relationship with McCarthy “gives Luntz outsized influence over the Republican Party’s policy positions.” Carlson has also suggested that Luntz’s focus groups essentially yield cooked results, saying, “Most of those pronouncements, as you can imagine, tend to comport perfectly with his own views, as well as the views of Google executives.”

Luntz would surely reject that characterization, but it’s true that the pollster’s former company website offered up “a little known fact: we work on both side of the aisle” and cited work for a wide range of major corporations, including Google, eBay and Facebook — now the focus of Republican anger at “Big Tech.” Luntz likely never imagined that one day those associations, along with his vague history of bipartisanship, would suddenly appear toxic to his fellow conservatives.

How so-called libertarian Charles Koch drove a national wave of anti-protest laws

In 1995, when the Koch Petroleum Group was indicted by a federal grand jury on 97 felony charges for alleged environmental crimes at one of its Texas oil refineries, Charles and David Koch, the famous billionaire investors and political donors, had a seeming crisis of conscience. “It was a really, really torturous experience,” explained Mark Holden, Koch’s chief counsel, years later. “We learned first-hand what happens when anyone gets into the criminal justice system.” After enduring that “torturous” experience, Holden said, Charles Koch grew very worried about “how the little guy, who doesn’t have Koch’s resources, deals with prosecutions like that.”

As far-fetched as this may seem, Charles Koch has been driven by that concern ever since — at least to some degree. (His younger brother David, who was less engaged with these issues, died in 2019.) Along with supporting typical conservative or libertarian causes like lower taxes and deregulation, Koch has also fought for reform in both civil asset forfeiture and mandatory minimum sentencing. He has supported prison programming and expanded visitation. More recently, the Koch lobby has pushed for marijuana legalization, partnering with numerous civil liberties organizations normally identified with the left, like Drug Policy Alliance and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, to decriminalize nonviolent drug offenses. 

In keeping with his broader libertarian agenda of promoting individual freedom and limiting state power, Charles Koch has a demonstrable record of fighting to keep people out of prison. Except, that is, in one particular area. When it comes to nonviolent protests against Koch-affiliated businesses — especially when valuable private property, aka “critical infrastructure,” might be at risk — he’s far less interested in limiting the reach of law enforcement or the carceral authority of the state, and has supported a nationwide wave of legislation aimed at criminalizing the Koch companies’ fiercest critics. 

According to an extensive Greenpeace report published in May, Koch Industries ranks among the largest donors to elected officials who sponsored anti-protest bills between last June and this March. Koch’s donations — totaling at least $151,050 — haven’t gone just to politicians who have sponsored measures to criminalize protests that supposedly threaten “critical infrastructure.” The money has also flowed to those who have backed bills seeking to suppress all kinds of protest, even when defined in broad and sweeping terms, with significant criminal penalties attached.

Over the past several years, environmental advocates have pointed out the apparent contradictions between Charles Koch’s criminal justice platform and his support of anti-protest bills throughout the country. 

“Koch Industries talks on both sides of their mouth on this issue of protests,” Folabi Olagbaju, Greenpeace USA’s democracy campaign director, told Salon in an interview. “On one hand, they’re spending tens of millions of dollars to advance criminal justice reform. On the other hand, they are also pushing laws that further criminalize people who protest — and we’re talking about Black, brown and poor people.”

Take, for instance, Oklahoma, where Koch hosted a panel in 2016 addressing the state’s excessive prison population. During the 2020 election cycle, Koch Industries donated at least $6,000 to the sponsors of H.B. 1674, according to the National Institute on Money in Politics. That bill, enacted in April, makes participating in a “riot” a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and also grants civil and criminal immunity to motorists who accidentally kill someone with their vehicle, if the motorists are “fleeing from a riot” and “exercise due care at the time of death.”

Koch Industries has also donated thousands of dollars to the sponsors of “critical infrastructure” bills, as mentioned above, which specifically prohibit demonstrators from trespassing on or tampering with “critical” company property. 

In Kansas, where Koch Industries pushed for a law that prohibited the state from asking job applicants about their criminal record, the company donated a total of $7,000 to various sponsors of S.B. 172, which made entering a “critical infrastructure” facility a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison. The measure also made trespassing with the intent to “tamper with” critical infrastructure a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. 

In 2019, Koch Industries also contributed a total of $1,300 to sponsors of a Mississippi law in the same vein. That measure, H.B. 1243, which enacted last July of last year, makes “impeding critical infrastructure” a felony with a potential seven-year sentence if the action causes “damage or economic loss” amounting to $1,000 or more. That law also carries some excess verbiage that turns simple trespassing into a misdemeanor offense with a possible one-year sentence.

It’s no mystery what produced this abrupt wave of “critical infrastructure” bills: the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016. Native American protesters and their allies from around the world staged a long-term occupation on energy company property in western North Dakota in an effort to block pipeline construction on tribal lands, arguing among other things that the pipeline would pollute the region’s water sources. 

When construction workers bulldozed what Native Americans deemed to be sacred ground that September, protesters physically intervened, prompting security workers to release attack dogs. At one point, police targeted protesters with water cannons in freezing temperatures. That conflict spanned 10 months and ended with one person dead, 300 injured and more than 487 arrested. The following year, North Dakota enacted a spate of anti-protest bills designed to inflict harsh criminal penalties on anyone who threatened or damaged “critical infrastructure.” 

While Koch Industries has been instrumental in pushing these bills through state legislatures, it has also played a key role in drafting them. That happens largely through Koch’s relationship with the semi-notorious American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, an immensely well-connected conservative policy organization known for drafting mock bills as models for real-world legislators.

Sometimes described as a “corporate bill mill,” ALEC demands impressive fees from its member companies, which are increased if a company wants to play a direct role in writing proposed laws. The Koch network has used ALEC, by many accounts, as a private legislative incubator, where state lawmakers and company lobbyists can collaborate in drafting bills — including this new wave of critical infrastructure laws — meant to boost the firm’s bottom line.

“There is no other company or corporate CEO who is as well-represented at ALEC as Charles Koch,” Connor Gibson, an opposition researcher, told Salon in an interview. “Koch always seems to be in the room.”

Michael Morgan, a top lobbyist for Koch Industries, sits on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council, which “promote[s] the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism with real-world business experience.” According to a Documented report from 2018, Koch Companies Public Sector, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and various other Koch-funded groups — including American Energy Alliance and Americans for Tax Reform — sit on ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force, which promotes “principles of free-market environmentalism.” In 2017, 52 Koch-affiliated staff attended ALEC’s annual meeting in Denver, according to a roster obtained by Documented. Two years later, 68 Koch affiliates attended ALEC’s annual meeting in Austin. From 1997 to 2019, ALEC received at least $3.8 million from various Koch-affiliated foundations, according to public records reviewed by KochDocs.

In addition to financing the sponsors of critical infrastructure laws — and helping author the laws — Koch entities have also directly lobbied state governments to get them passed.

According to Iowa records, in 2018, the Kochs lobbied for the passage of H.S.B. 603, which would have assigned severe criminal penalties to “critical infrastructure sabotage,” defined in remarkably vague terms as “any unauthorized act that is intended to or does in fact cause substantial interruption or impairment of service.” Whatever that may describe, it would have become a felony punishable by up to 25 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. (That bill died in the legislative chamber, perhaps because its terms were so imprecise.) 

The Koch network lobbied for Texas’ H.B. 3557 in 2019. Under that bill, an individual who “enters or remains on or in a critical infrastructure facility and intentionally or knowingly impairs or interrupts the operation of the facility” could face felony charges and prison time. Two of its sponsors, state Sen. Brian Birdwell and state Rep. Chris Paddie, both Republicans, are ALEC-affiliated legislators, according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Campaign finance records show that Koch Industries donated at least $4,000 to the bill’s sponsors during the 2020 election cycle. 

The Koch network can pull legislative strings in ways that are more difficult to documented. As Gibson put it, “Koch is the company that is very, very frequently one step removed in states where it wasn’t directly lobbying” for such bills. 

One way to accomplish that is by placing representatives on industry trade groups that then advocate for policies the company favors. Consider Francis Murphy, who sits on the board of directors at American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a huge oil and gas trade association that spends tens of millions of dollars to defeat environmental regulations. Murphy is also senior vice president of chemicals at Flint Hills Resources, a Koch Industries subsidiary.

Jeff Culver, who is senior counsel for transportation and security at Koch, chairs AFPM’s Security Committee, which provides “a forum for the exchange of information among the membership on security-related issues within the petroleum refining and petrochemical manufacturing industries.” Koch and Flint Hills affiliates sit on a variety of other committees in the AFPM. 

AFPM, not coincidentally, has supported a whole host of “critical infrastructure bills” in states like Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia and Wyoming

In 2019, the Intercept acquired a leaked recording of an AFPM event, in which the group “concedes that it has been playing a role behind the scenes in crafting laws recently passed in states across the country to criminalize oil and gas pipeline protests, in response to protests over the Dakota Access pipeline.”

Attendees at that event were reportedly given copies of an anti-protest template bill drafted by ALEC called the “Critical Infrastructure Protection Act.” When the bill was later disseminated to hundreds of ALEC-affiliated state legislators, it came with the formal endorsement of AFPM.

Salon asked three Koch Industries employees whether they thought the company’s support of critical infrastructure bills contradicted the Koch networks’ oft-stated commitment to criminal justice reform. Two of them did not respond. The third repeated a statement attributed to David Dziok, the Koch director of communications, who said these new bills that redefine and criminalize nonviolent protest actions “are necessary – not only for the safety of the communities in which we operate, but also for the safety of those exercising their rights to demonstrate.”

Environmental activists might well respond that Koch’s business operations — which have polluted many areas of the United States over a period of decades — pose a threat to public safety all by themselves. In the past, Koch companies have dumped millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into ponds, streams, lakes and coastal waters and emitted immense amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, while officially either denying the existence of climate change or seeking to underplay its effects. 

Olagbaju told Salon that Dziok’s statement, and Koch’s overall claim that critical infrastructure bills carry some benefits for protesters or ordinary citizens, amount to “Orwelian doublespeak.”

“They are not trying to protect people’s right to protest,” Olagbaju said. “They are trying to stifle dissent.”

Poison control centers are getting more and more calls from stoned people

In the past decade, 17 states have legalized cannabis for recreational use, starting with Colorado in 2012. That’s caused a shift in American society, as weed becomes a more casual, normalized drug and recreational cannabis shops become a feature as normal as a liquor store. But there’s one social shift from legal weed that was perhaps less anticipated: calls to poison control. 

According to a new research letter published in the journal JAMA Network Open, poison control centers around the United States have been receiving an increasing number of calls regarding “adverse events” associated with weed and weed products. Researchers from the Oregon Public Health Division and American colleges from Washington and Colorado to Arkansas and Massachusetts analyzed data on cannabis exposures that had been reported to poison centers and added to the National Poison Data System. They found that the vast majority of exposures came from plant materials (nearly two out of three), although children were more likely to get exposed to manufactured products.

“Our findings document that US poison centers are increasingly receiving calls about adverse events associated with exposures to manufactured cannabis products,” the authors write. “Higher rates in legal states suggest that continued increases may be expected with adult cannabis use legalization in more states.”

They added that manufactured products like edibles presented a greater problem not only because children were more likely to be exposed to them, but because they tend to have higher THC levels and can include unsafe processing ingredients (such as vaping products that injure the lungs).

“Applying regulatory controls to market-driven innovations in potency and additives is key,” the authors conclude. “Novice cannabis users are often advised to ‘start low, go slow’; this guidance may be equally applicable to regulating new retail cannabis markets and products.”

Although marijuana is generally agreed to be less dangerous than other legal drugs like alcohol, it has been a long road to getting it legalized throughout the country, and full federal legalization still seems far off. Donald Trump actually cracked down on marijuana users during his presidency, reversing the somewhat more liberal policies implemented by Barack Obama. President Joe Biden has not suggested any major marijuana reforms and even fired White House staffers who admitted to using the drug, even when they did so in states where it is legal.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“Significant exposure”: Trump insiders warn new probe could bring former president down

On Monday’s edition of MSNBC’s “The Beat,” anchor Ari Melber spoke with three key insiders to former President Donald Trump’s empire: former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg’s ex-daughter-in-law Jennifer Weisselberg, and former Melania Trump associate Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. All of them agreed that the Trump family and inner circle are in serious jeopardy from the new investigations emerging from New York State — particularly Weisselberg.

“I think [Allen] is the maestro,” said Jennifer Weisselberg. “He’s the one that has orchestrated — he’s at the apex of it. I think that — I don’t fully believe Donald knows the ins and outs — not of what’s going on. He’s absolutely fine with whatever saves him money on his taxes to benefit him, but Allen is the one who orchestrated all things and put the family and everyone in a bad position.” She added that he expects Weisselberg to flip on Trump.

“Allen is a very interesting guy because Allen was the gatekeeper for every penny that came in and went out of the Trump Organization,” said Cohen. “But it wasn’t just the Trump Organization. It was Donald’s personal accounts. It was the kids’ business accounts, presidential inaugural committee, campaign. Any penny that had anything to do with Donald Trump went through Allen Weisselberg’s desk . . . I do believe that he has significant exposure, and I think his exposure is not one that you can just hide because the beautiful thing about numbers is numbers don’t lie.”

“Stephanie, when Donald Trump was ostensibly busy being president, who was running the Trump Organization, based on your knowledge?” asked Melber.

“Based on my knowledge, it was — I think they were all still involved,” said Wolkoff. “I don’t really have the authority to say who was. Supposedly Don Jr. and Eric, but Allen, as always, again knowing that he had his fingers all over the finances was so — I — I was so enraged because that was something thrown on me and my family, that I was accused of stealing millions of dollars after giving, you know, something that was supposed to be more patriotic . . . The reality of all of this is Allen was also involved with what happened to me so intrinsically, and I wasn’t really aware until after it was brought to my attention and after I read the 900-page deposition.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Joe Scarborough just noticed something “strange” about the GOP’s Trump “personality cult”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough noticed something “strange” about the “personality cult” that has developed around former president Donald Trump in the Republican Party.

The GOP has lost control of the House, Senate and White House since Trump was first elected, but the “Morning Joe” host said the more they lose, the more they seem to love the twice-impeached one-term president.

“It really is strange,” Scarborough said. “The more Republicans lose, the more of a personality cult Donald Trump seems to develop. You can look at his losses in ’17 and ’18 — historic losses. I mean, Republicans losing like they’ve never lost before in the House of Representatives, just as far as a pure, pure vote totals, [and in] ’19, they started losing governorships in the South and then in ’20, they lost the big race, lost the race for their presidency, lost Georgia, lost the Senate, lost the House.”

“Rational parties, parties that actually want to rule, parties that want their policies to change, instead of just these — putting forth these hyper-gestures, they self-adjust and start electing candidates that can get elected,” he added. “Donald Trump is not that guy, he’s just not that guy, and we’ve seen time and again that he puts, in many cases, people in a difficult position to win general elections.”

Scarborough fact-checked conspiracy theories offered by his friends and family to suggest Republicans are popular, actually, and the election was stolen from Trump.

“I just want to clear one thing up, because I’ve had some family members and friends ask me, ‘Well, if Donald Trump was so bad and this wasn’t rigged, why did the Republicans win and do so well in the House?'” Scarborough said. “Republicans overperformed expectations, based on the terrible polling that was out there. But it is important to remember that the House still remained Democratic and remained Democratic by, you know, I think they’re plus-nine, plus-10. That’s about the same. [Joe] Biden did about the same that Bill Clinton did in ’92, did about the same, Bill Clinton did in ’96, did much better than JFK, if you just look at the House side.”

“Biden did much better than either party when you came to the Senate,” Scarborough added. “He was a net plus-five in picking up Senate seats. He picked up five Senate seats in 2020, Donald Trump lost two in 2016, and you can go all the way back — 40, 50 years — and Biden did much better than most. So this idea — and it’s become urban legend that Democrats just got completely romped, because the polling was so bad and the expectations were so high. But this was not an historic anomaly. If Republicans were going, ‘Hey, we did a great job! We only lost by 10 seats.’ It’s kind of the way losers think. You either win or you lose, and they lost.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is taking Trumpism for a “road-test” in Arkansas: report

Deep-red Arkansas is gearing up for its first gubernatorial race of the Biden era, and one of the Republicans seeking the GOP nomination is Sarah Huckabee Sanders — daughter of the state’s former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former President Donald Trump’s second White House press secretary. Journalist Jonathan Martin discusses Arkansas’ political climate and its 2022 GOP gubernatorial primary in an article published by the New York Times this week, emphasizing that the primary is a “test case for the future of the Republican Party.”

“Arkansas represents the full spectrum of today’s GOP,” Martin explains. “There are Trump devotees fully behind his false claims of a stolen election and his brand of grievance-oriented politics. That faction is now led by the former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the daughter of Mike Huckabee, the state’s one-time governor.”

Martin describes Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas as the type of conservative Republican who is “less Trump-centric than Sanders,” adding, “And then there are pre-Trump Republicans, like Gov. Asa Hutchinson, hoping against hope the moment will pass and they can return the party to its Reaganite roots. Finally, some Republicans are so appalled by Trumpism, they have left or are considering leaving the party.”

Arkansas is a bastion of right-wing politics, and it is even more conservative than neighboring Texas. While Trump defeated now-President Joe Biden by 6% in Texas in 2020, he won by 27% in Arkansas.

Sanders’ gubernatorial campaign, according to Martin, will “road-test Trumpism in state politics.” In the primary, she is running against Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who, Martin notes, “unsuccessfully pleaded with Mr. Trump not to endorse Ms. Sanders.” Arkansas Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin dropped out of that primary in February.

Arkansas State Sen. Trent Garner told the Times, “Arkansas Republicanism is defined by President Trump right now.” But former Arkansas House Speaker Davy Carter has a very different perspective. Carter, who is being mentioned as a possible third-party candidate in the gubernatorial race, told the Times, “I’m convinced that even in Arkansas, Trump and Trumpism is a slow-sinking ship.”

Conservative Arkansas State Sen. Jim Hendren, who left the Republican Party following the Jan. 6 insurrection, is another possible candidate in Arkansas’ gubernatorial race. Hendren, a nephew Hutchinson, is considering running for governor as an independent.

The 38-year-old Sanders was Trump’s second of four White House press secretaries, replacing Sean Spicer in July 2017 and staying until July 2019 —when she was replaced by Stephanie Grisham. Trump’s fourth and final White House press secretary was Kayleigh McEnany, now a Fox News pundit.

Martin notes, “The governor and most observers are deeply skeptical that an independent could win statewide. Indeed, more than a year and a half before Ms. Sanders would even take office, many insiders have moved on to discussing what sort of governor she would be. Would she repurpose Mr. Trump’s media-bashing and grievance-oriented politics to stay in the national headlines, and perhaps propel a presidential run of her own, or would she mirror her father’s more pragmatic approach to the office?”

Wilbur Ross’ reign of “paranoia and retaliation”: Report reveals Trump-era “obscure security unit”

During Donald Trump’s four years as president, his administration was a revolving door. But one person who was part of the Trump Administration throughout most of his presidency was former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who started in February 2017 and stayed until February 2021. The U.S. Department of Commerce, journalist Shawn Boburg reports in an article published by the Washington Post on May 24, has had an “obscure security unit” that was “tasked with protecting” its “officials and facilities” — and during its Trump/Ross era, according to Boburg, it “evolved into something more akin to a counterintelligence operation that collected information on hundreds of people inside and outside the Department.”

According to Boburg, “The Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS) covertly searched employees’ offices at night, ran broad keyword searches of their e-mails trying to surface signs of foreign influence and scoured Americans’ social media for critical comments about the (2020 U.S.) Census, according to documents and interviews with five former investigators. In one instance, the unit opened a case on a 68-year-old retiree in Florida who tweeted that the Census, which is run by the Commerce Department, would be manipulated ‘to benefit the Trump Party,’ records show.”

Boburg adds, “In another example, the unit searched Commerce servers for particular Chinese words, documents show. The search resulted in the monitoring of many Asian-American employees over benign correspondence, according to two former investigators.”

John Costello, who formerly served as deputy assistant secretary of intelligence and security for the Commerce Dept. under the Trump Administration, is highly critical of ITMS — telling the Post that ITMS “has been allowed to operate far outside the bounds of federal law enforcement norms and has created an environment of paranoia and retaliation at the Department.”

Bruce Ridlen, a former supervisor, told the Post that the ITMS’ tactics make it look as though “someone watched too many ‘Mission Impossible’ movies.”

Ridlen, who left ITMS in October 2020, told the Post, “I chose to resign from my position with ITMS after it became clear there was no authority to perform law enforcement functions. There were no policies in place to outline standards of conduct or to establish parameters for investigative activities, which led to investigative inquiries of U.S. persons over protected free speech found on several social media platforms.”

Former Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo was sworn in as commerce secretary under President Joe Biden in early March.

Boburg explains, “(ITMS) has managed to keep a low public profile until now, while pursuing investigations into ‘counterintelligence, transnational crime and counterterrorism,’ as it described its activities in a 2018 budget document submitted to Congress. Incoming Commerce leaders from the Biden Administration ordered ITMS to pause all criminal investigations on March 10, and on May 13, ordered the suspension of all activities after preliminary results of an ongoing review, according to a statement issued by Department spokeswoman Brittany Caplin. The suspension came two days after the Post presented its findings about the unit to the department and sought interviews.”

The statement read, “The current Commerce Department leadership team takes this issue seriously. The Department expects that at the end of the review, it can and will implement a comprehensive solution to the issues raised.”

Kevin Spacey cast in accused pedophile movie, his first project since sexual assault allegations

Kevin Spacey has been cast in a new role for the first time since sexual assault allegations emerged against the “House of Cards” actor in 2017, according to ABC News. The role is reportedly in the upcoming Italian film, “L’uomo Che Disegno Dio” (or “The Man Who Drew God”), directed by Franco Nero. In the movie, Spacey will play a detective investigating a “false claim of pedophilia” — an ironic twist in context with allegations of his predatory behavior toward boys and young men. Nero stars as the blind artist in the film who is falsely accused of sexual abuse.

Shortly after allegations were first made against Spacey, the actor was dropped from Netflix’s “House of Cards,” as well as other projects he had been cast in, including the Sony film “All the Money in the World.”

In 2017, actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of making unwanted sexual advances toward him when Rapp was 14. Shortly after Rapp’s accusation, Spacey was charged with sexually assaulting an 18-year-old man, who went on to refuse to testify against Spacey, leading prosecutors to drop the case. Later, a massage therapist accused Spacey of groping and making unwanted sexual advances toward him in 2019.

The first allegations against Spacey came amid an avalanche of sexual misconduct allegations against prominent actors and figures in the entertainment industry, and all industries, as survivors united in solidarity under the banner of #MeToo. But since #MeToo first gained traction and led to the immediate ousting of many male abusers in the fall of 2017, some of these men have slowly returned to their respective industries, while others, including former president Trump, have still yet to face accountability at all. 

As the New York Times has noted, it’s not uncommon for actors, filmmakers and creators who are blacklisted for sexual misconduct in the entertainment industry in the U.S. to move on to work in Europe. Like Spacey, director Roman Polanski, accused of sexual misconduct with a minor, and Woody Allen, accused of sexual assault by his daughter, have continued their work in Europe. 

In the #MeToo era, Spacey isn’t the first alleged abuser to make a comeback, despite claims of #MeToo’s opponents that the movement has irreparably ruined men’s lives by denying them power and opportunities. Comedian Louis C.K. is one of the most vocal and visible men in the entertainment industry who was able to resume his work, and has since used his platform to lambast “PC culture.” 

Filming for “L’uomo Che Disegno Dio” is set to begin later this year.

Gordon Sondland sues Mike Pompeo, claiming he reneged on legal fees after “quid pro quo” testimony

Gordon Sondland, the former U.S. ambassador to the EU who became a key witness during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment proceedings, has filed a lawsuit against former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the federal government for legal fees stemming from his 2019 impeachment testimony.

Sondland filed a 21-page lawsuit in federal court in Washington on Monday alleging that Pompeo “reneged” on his “legally binding promise” that the State Department would pay Sondland’s legal fees in the impeachment probe after the former ambassador corroborated allegations of a “quid pro quo” between Trump and Ukraine.

Sondland, a Portland hotel magnate who was appointed by Trump after donating $1 million to his inaugural committee, said in the lawsuit that Pompeo and his staff “continued to reaffirm” the then-secretary’s promise to cover the legal costs through the fall of 2019. The department ultimately paid $86,040 of his legal fees, according to the complaint. The suit seeks $1.8 million in compensation paid by the government — or by Pompeo personally, if he lacked the authority to authorize the payment.

“If Pompeo did not have the authority to bind the government, Pompeo went rogue and acted outside the course and scope of his employment and duties, making a promise in his personal capacity that was not the kind of act he was employed to perform, and not motivated by a desire to serve as the leader of the Department of State,” Sondland’s legal filing argues. “Instead, it was self-serving, made entirely for personal reasons for his own political survival in the hopes that Ambassador Sondland would not implicate him or others by his testimony.”

Government officials are typically provided legal representation before Congress by the department where they work or by the Justice Department. Sondland claims in the complaint that the State Department “bucked normal convention and denied him the services of any government counsel.”

The suit claims that Sondland’s legal costs were particularly high because the administration restricted “access to materials essential to his preparation,” forcing Sondland’s lawyers to “reconstruct” a timeline of the events in question.

The State Department initially blocked Sondland’s testimony, but he agreed to be interviewed after House Democrats issued a subpoena. Sondland proved to be a key witness for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment probe. He initially claimed he did not know about any quid pro quo after Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden in exchange for military aid and a White House meeting, but later revised his testimony significantly.

“Was there a quid pro quo? With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland testified at a congressional hearing, adding that “everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.”

After the testimony, the suit says, Sondland was pressured to resign his ambassadorial post.

“Ambassador Sondland confirmed he would not resign because he did not do anything improper,” the suit says. “After that, everything changed. Ambassador Sondland did not receive his attorneys’ fees, notwithstanding the promises from the State Department that the attorneys’ fees would be paid.”

After the testimony, Trump tried to distance himself from the Republican donor, claiming that “I hardly know the gentleman” after previously praising him.

Trump ultimately fired Sondland in February 2020, just two days after the then-president had been acquitted by the U.S. Senate.

Sondland said he was told by the administration that it “appreciated his testimony” but “wanted to purge everyone remotely connected to the Impeachment trial,” according to the complaint.

“For all his troubles, Ambassador Sondland learned that testifying truthfully and candidly before Congress as cameras roll was in fact a fireable offense in Pompeo’s Department of State,” the lawsuit says.

A spokesperson for Pompeo, who is reportedly mulling a 2024 presidential run, said in a statement to NBC News that “the lawsuit is ludicrous. Mr. Pompeo is confident the court will see it the same way.”

Mark Zaid, an attorney who has represented many government officials in lawsuits, said it was unlikely that Sondland would be able to win the promised legal fees.

“There should be provisions for government officials who are unwittingly pulled into political battles that they have their legal fees covered,” Zaid told The Washington Post, which first reported the lawsuit. “He did the right thing. He stepped up and fulfilled his role as a representative of the U.S. government.” But because secretaries of state are given broad immunity for official actions, he added, “the sad fact is that sometimes doing the right thing doesn’t lead to a reward, and unfortunately it has a cost.”

Sondland, who provided 17 hours of colorful testimony to impeachment investigators, told the House that he, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry and special Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, were the “three amigos” in charge of an “irregular” foreign policy channel aimed at forcing Ukraine to announce investigations Trump wanted in return for the release of about $400 million in blocked military aid and a highly-sought Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky and Trump.

The effort was driven by former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who bragged publicly that he was pushing Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in order to damage Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Giuliani has since come under scrutiny by federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York, an office he once led as U.S. attorney. Federal investigators raided Giuliani’s home and office last month, seizing more than a dozen electronic devices. Investigators are reportedly looking into Giuliani’s role in ousting Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, after publicly describing her as a roadblock to his pressure campaign in Ukraine. Investigators are also looking at whether Giuliani was working on behalf of Ukrainian officials or oligarchs accused of corruption and whether he violated laws prohibiting lobbying on behalf of foreign officials without registering as a foreign agent. Giuliani has denied any wrongdoing.