Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

How Josh Hawley and Marjorie Taylor Greene juiced their fundraising numbers

Two of the leading Republican firebrands in Congress touted big fundraising hauls as a show of grassroots support for their high-profile stands against accepting the 2020 election results.

But new financial disclosures show that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., relied on an email marketing vendor that takes as much as 80 cents on the dollar. That means their headline-grabbing numbers were more the product of expensively soliciting hardcore Republicans than an organic groundswell of far-reaching support.

Hawley and Greene each reported raising more than $3 million in the first three months of the year, an unusually large sum for freshman lawmakers, according to new filings with the Federal Election Commission. That’s more than the average House member raises in an entire two-year cycle, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The tallies generated favorable press coverage for Hawley and Greene, and they both seized on the numbers to claim a popular mandate.

Politico called Greene’s result “eye-popping” and “staggering,” a sign that she “appears to have actually benefited from all the controversies that have consumed her first few months in office.” The House voted in February to remove Greene from her committee assignments because of her social media posts that promoted far-right conspiracy theories; racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim rhetoric; and violence against Democratic leaders.

“I am humbled, overjoyed and so excited to announce what happened over the past few months as I have been the most attacked freshman member of Congress in history,” Greene said in an emailed statement on April 7. “Accumulating $3.2 million with small dollar donations is the absolute BEST support I could possibly ask for!”

As for Hawley, who was the first senator to say he’d object to certifying the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, Politico proclaimed that his massive increase showed “how anti-establishment Republicans are parlaying controversy into small-dollar fundraising success.” Hawley’s pollster, Wes Anderson with the political consulting firm OnMessage, said in a memo distributed to supporters that the “fundraising surge” made “crystal clear that a strong majority of Missouri voters and donors stand firmly with Senator Hawley, in spite of the continued false attacks coming from the radical left.”

It wasn’t until later, when the campaigns disclosed their spending details in last week’s FEC reports, that it became clearer how they raised so much money: by paying to borrow another organization’s mailing list.

“List rental” was the No. 1 expense for both campaigns, totaling almost $600,000 for each of them. It’s common for campaigns to rent lists from outside groups or other candidates to broaden their reach. But for Hawley and Greene, the cost was unusually high, amounting to almost 20% of all the money they raised in January, February and March.

The actual return on renting the lists was likely even lower, since it’s probable that not all their donations came from emailing those lists. It’s not possible to tell from the FEC filings which contributions resulted from which solicitations. Firms that sell lists sometimes demand huge cuts: The top vendor for Hawley and Greene, LGM Consulting Group, charges as much as 80%, according to a contract disclosed in Florida court records as part of a dispute involving Lacy Johnson’s long-shot bid to unseat Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

The Hawley and Greene campaigns did not respond to requests for comment. LGM Consulting Group’s principal, Bryan G. Rudnick, also did not respond to phone messages or an email.

Far beyond these two campaigns or this one company, small-dollar fundraising has exploded thanks to easy online payments, which are rewriting the playbook for campaign finance in both parties. At the same time, the rise of email fundraising has spawned some aggressive or even deceptive marketing tactics and made plenty of room for consultants and vendors to profit. A move by then-President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign to sign up supporters for recurring payments by default led to as much as 3% of all credit card fraud claims filed with major banks, according to The New York Times. In some long-shot congressional races, consultants could walk away with almost half of all the money raised, The Washington Post reported.

Hawley’s and Greene’s list rentals show how politicians can pad their fundraising figures — if they’re willing to pay for it. There’s scant evidence that fundraising success represents broad popular support for a politician outside the narrow slice of Americans who make political contributions, and many of the people on the rented mailing lists may not have been constituents of Hawley’s or Greene’s. Still, the money is real, and the perception of fundraising star power is its own kind of success in Washington.

“They’re juicing their numbers, but their return on investment is still a net gain,” said Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, a professor at Fordham University who researches how political campaigns use digital communications. “The money matters, the articles about the money matter and convey power, and it adds to their clout.”

The cost to rent a list can be a flat fee, a percentage cut of money raised, or even all money raised after a campaign clears a certain threshold. Donors have limited visibility into where their money goes and may not realize how much is being diverted from the candidate they mean to support.

Renting lists can pay dividends for campaigns because people who respond by donating then enter the candidates’ own databases of supporters, and past contributors are much more likely to give again. Candidates with big donor bases can tap them for more money later or turn around and rent their own list to others.

Political professionals have gotten more sophisticated about efficiently converting online outrage into campaign cash. At the same time, candidates who court controversy may increasingly rely on rage-fueled online fundraising as more traditional donors freeze them out. In the aftermath of Jan. 6, Hawley lost the support of some big donors, and major companies such as AT&T and Honeywell pledged to withhold donations from lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College vote.

“The news cycle that emerges out of controversial behavior by a candidate is like a strong gust of wind, and these mechanisms like list-building are the equivalent of sails,” said Eric Wilson, a digital strategist who has advised Sen. Marco Rubio and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “For candidates like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley, who have largely been shunned by traditional corporate donors who are frequently the mainstays for elected officials, especially in off years, they have no choice but to pursue grassroots fundraising. And in order for that to work, they have to continue to make more noise. It is a feedback loop in that regard.”

It’s not clear how Rudnick compiled his list (or lists). But one clue to the audience that Rudnick may help unlock is who else has hired him. Besides Hawley and Greene, FEC records show that last quarter LGM Consulting also rented a list or provided online fundraising solicitations to:

 

In the 2020 campaign cycle, the firm’s clients included then-Rep. Doug Collins, a Trump ally who lost the Georgia Senate primary; Madison Cawthorn, the 25-year-old congressman from North Carolina who spoke at the Jan. 6 rally; and Laura Loomer, a far-right internet personality who calls herself a “proud Islamophobe” and lost a run for a Florida congressional seat.

Rudnick has his own history of controversy. He was fired by the Pennsylvania Republican Party in 2008 after sending emails to Jewish voters likening a vote for Barack Obama to the leadup to the Holocaust. “Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake,” the email said. “Let’s not make a similar one this year!” Rudnick told the Associated Press at the time that party officials authorized the message, but he declined to name them.

Campaigns don’t have to disclose whose list an email is being sent to, and fundraising emails aren’t comprehensively made public, so it’s not possible to tell exactly how Hawley and Greene used the lists they rented. But several of Hawley’s fundraising emails contained digital fingerprints tying them to Rudnick: They were sent from a web domain that shares an address with one of Rudnick’s companies, and the links to donate include “ASG,” short for Rudnick’s Alliance Strategies Group.

In one email, sent on March 6, Hawley touted his interview on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, in which Hawley said Democrats would use the Jan. 6 insurrection “as an excuse to seize power, to control more power, to step on people’s Second Amendment rights, to take away their First Amendment rights.” Following up on a major media appearance with a fundraising email is an effective technique, Wilson said.

In a second email using the Rudnick-linked domain, Hawley explicitly laid out his goal of posting an impressive fundraising number.

“I will be filing the first FEC financial report I have filed since I stood up for the integrity of our nation’s election and the left began their attempts to cancel me,” Hawley said in the email. “With your donation of $25, $50, $100 or more before the critical deadline on March 31, we will shock the left — they won’t be able to ignore us any longer.”

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Fox host Maria Bartiromo: ‘If we are so systemically racist, why did we elect a Black man?’

Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich on Wednesday blasted President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris after they condemned “systemic racism” in the United States following a guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin murder trial.

“Instead of coming out and having a neutral, fair tone while we all needed to be lifted up, you have President Biden and Vice President Harris yesterday trashing America, telling us we are systemic racists,” Bartiromo complained.

Gingrich argued that Biden and Harris were spreading Chinese communist propaganda by discussing systemic racism.

“If I were the Chinese communist propagandists, I would just go on vacation,” Gingrich opined. “The president and vice president of the United States condemning America. This really does verge on a pathology that they hate their own country so much that they give the world a totally false impression.”

“If we were, in fact, systemically racist, how did the system convict a white policeman?” Gingrich argued. “It’s a repudiation of their entire worldview to look at that and realize the system worked.”

“You just articulated why I was so upset after I heard those speeches yesterday,” Bartiromo revealed. “I thought this is not a time for this now. And by the way, if we’re so systemically racist, why did we elect a Black man to be the leader of the free world and have him serve two terms? President Barack Obama.”

“I mean, explain that to me if we’re so racist,” she added.

Bartiromo, who has traditionally sided with Republican candidates, did not say whether she had personally voted for Obama.

Watch the video below from Fox Business.

Confirmed: “The Witcher” and other shows returning to Netflix this year

The first season of “The Witcher” dropped on Netflix in 2019, and the moody fantasy drama was an immediate hit. Naturally, Netflix quickly worked to get a second season off the ground.

And then the pandemic hit, and everything shut down. “The Witcher” struggled through several stop-and-start production dates (not all of them caused by the pandemic; lead actor Henry Cavill also suffered an on-set injury), but finally managed to wrap just the other week.

But was that soon enough to get “The Witcher” Season 2 out by the end of 2021? According to co-CEO and chief content officer Ted Sarandos, who was speaking in an investor video about first quarter financial results, yes:

What happened in the first part of this year was that a lot of the projects that we’d hoped to come out earlier did get pushed because of the post-production delays and COVID delays. We think we’ll get back to a much steadier state in the back half of the year, certainly in Q4 where we have the returning seasons of some of our most popular shows like The Witcher, and You, and Cobra Kai.

So not only are we getting a new season of Witcher by the end of the year, but new seasons of “You” and “Cobra Kai” as well! Netflix is spending a crazy $17 billion on content this year and they’re not about to let a global pandemic crimp their style. The company is clearly determined to remain top dog in the streaming wars.

What will happen to Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer in “The Witcher” Season 2?

As for what actually happens in “The Witcher,” the second season will adapt the events of “Blood of Elves,” the third “Witcher” book written by Andrzej Sapkowski and the first that’s crafted like a traditional novel; the first season was mostly based on “The Last Wish” and “Sword of Destiny,” which are more like short story collections.

The first season ended with Geralt of Rivia and Princess Ciri (Freya Allan) meeting up after the fall of Cintra, Ciri’s home. If the show follows the path set up by the books, Geralt will take her to Kaer Morhen, the witchers’ keep, and train her in the witching arts. As for the sorceress Yennefer (Anya Chalotra), her whereabouts remain unknown after she and her fellow sorcerers helped defeat the invading Nilfgaardian empire in the Battle of Sodden.

I’m gonna guess we’ll see new episodes around December; that’s when the first season dropped, and the team will need a while to edit and augment this special effects-heavy show.

“And Just Like That,” John Corbett joins “Sex and the City” revival

One of the biggest themes of HBO’s smash hit “Sex and the City” was that people come and go in your life. It’s not surprising, then, that several familiar faces will be missing from “And Just Like That,” the show’s upcoming revival. On the other hand, John Corbett has confirmed that he will appear in multiple episodes and it’s intriguing news.

TV Line reports that Corbett told the New York Post that he will be part of “And Just Like That,” but he didn’t stop there. “I think I might be in quite a few [episodes].”

Talk about a major revelation!

Aidan is in and Mr. Big is out in “Sex and the City” revival

The news is tantalizing, especially given that two of the show’s original stars, Kim Cattrall and Chris Noth, will not appear in the revival. Noth famously portrayed Sarah Jessica Parker’s on-again, off-again beau Mr. Big. The duo ultimately tied the knot in the first movie, but by the second movie it looked like things were a tad bit frosty between them.

Corbett’s Aidan was also in the second movie. Is it a coincidence? I think not.

Aidan was introduced as Carrie’s love interest in the show’s third season and he remained until their ugly breakup in Season 6. When she saw him again in the Middle East in the second movie, there was no mistaking their lingering chemistry despite their history together.

The addition of Aidan and the absence of Mr. Big offers several possibilities about what’s happening in Carrie’s life at this point. Could it be that Carrie Bradshaw is divorced? Is she a widow? Is she happily married? Could fans see Carrie and Aidan getting together? The possibilities are endless.

Not surprisingly, HBO Max is remaining mum on the details so we won’t know what happens until the show debuts. The show is set to film in New York this spring, at which point fans might be given a hint about when Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda will be back on their screens once again.

Nancy Pelosi shrugs off criticism after thanking George Floyd for “sacrificing your life to justice”

On Tuesday, after a three-week trial, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man who Chauvin pinned to ground on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill until Floyd died of “asphyxiation from sustained pressure.” Chauvin’s conviction, a rare occurrence when it comes to the prosecution murder by police, drew a wide variety of responses from both the left and right, many of which received vicious backlash. 

At a Tuesday press conference following the verdict, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., delivered remarks with members of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice,” Pelosi declared. “Because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will be synonymous with justice.”

Pelosi’s statement, far from her first gaffe, was widely panned as tone-deaf, but she appeared to just shrug it off.

“Pelosi thanking George Floyd for his ‘sacrifice’ continues the tradition of White people in power seeing us as Black pawns on their ivory chess boards,” tweeted Albert Lee, a Black former Democratic Congressional candidate. “George Floyd’s life mattered before he was murdered.” Pelosi later issued a follow-up statement clarifying her remarks. 

The NFL’s Las Vegas Raiders also caused quite a tizzy when they tweeted out: “I CAN BREATHE 4-20-21.” The tweet, reportedly inspired by what Floyd’s brother Philonise told reporters following the verdict (“Today, we are able to breathe again because justice for George means freedom for all.”), received a sharp rebuke online. NBA player Lebron James retweeted the post: “This is real???? Nah man this ain’t it at all. The F^%K!!!!”

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio also expressed unsolicited thoughts over Twitter that drew widespread criticism. “In June we watched in horror as Derek Chauvin took the life of George Floyd. The reality of racism in this nation finally hit a boiling point, the pain of more than 400 years of injustice. Today, justice was served.” De Blasio, who defended the New York Police Department after its officers rammed into protestors with a car last summer, was raked through the coals by many on the left for whom the violent incident was still fresh in the mind.

Chauvin’s conviction saw a lot of glib rhetoric from right-wing media as well. Ben Shapiro, conservative radio host and long time purveyor of the gish gallop, retweeted CNN anchor Don Lemon’s tweet (“Justice has been served”) and replied, “We all know he would never have said this had the reverse verdict been reached.” 

Shapiro’s retweet was widely mocked online and heavily ratioed by left-wing political commentator Hasan Abi, who rebutted: “almost like there’s a difference between a murderer going free and not.” 

Other right-wing provocateurs gave their two cents. “George Floyd is not and will never be a name that is synonymous with justice,” tweeted Black conservative pundit Candace Owens. “He victimized TOO MANY people during his life.” Tomi Lahren, known for her particular animus toward Black-led demonstrations of any kind, raged, “You got your justice so I’d assume there will be peace in Minneapolis tonight? No rioting? No looting? No harassing officers?” 

“Is the Foot Locker safe tonight?” Lahren continued. “Should be, right? Justice, right? No need to steal in the name of George Floyd anymore, right?”

Political satirist Jeremy Newberger responded, “Feels like your mouth is the foot locker, as every time you open it, your foot goes right inside.”

“Jeopardy!” finally taps LeVar Burton as a guest host, heeding the wisdom of concerted fan campaign

LeVar Burton may finally make our “Jeopardy!” hosting dreams come true. 

The beloved quiz show hasn’t been quite the same following the death of kind, witty and brainy host Alex Trebek from pancreatic cancer last November. In the eyes of many, there was no “Jeopardy!” without Trebek . . . but the former “Reading Rainbow” host and “Star Trek: The Next Generation” alum soon became a fan-favorite as a possible host contender. Salon’s TV Critic Melanie McFarland even laid out a convincing argument as to why Burton should take up the quiz show mantle. 

But despite that obvious – and popular – candidate available, the “Jeopardy!” team put fans through the gauntlet first, subjecting them to an oddly random and ill-advised assortment of media personalities, journalists, and celebrities in a rotating guest-hosting gig for weeks-long chunks of time throughout the 37th season. 

Some hosts that generated the most buzz included Ken Jennings, former “Jeopardy!” super champion who also had to deal with some unsavory past tweets being dredged up, TV daytime host and hawker of pseudoscience Dr. Oz, and even Anderson Cooper, the CNN news anchor. There were also some wildcards, like the Green Bay Packers’ Aaron Rodgers (whose stint led to a ratings spike), as well as TV news anchor Katie Couric, who became the first woman in history to host the show.

All the while, fans bided their time and built up the campaign for Burton online. A Change.org petition titled, “Make LeVar Burton the next host of Jeopardy!” has generated over 246,000 signatures since it was created five months ago.

Burton himself embraced the movement, retweeting fans and sharing memes. In an MSNBC interview with Joshua Johnson, Burton said that, “In many respects, I feel like I have been preparing my whole life for the job . . . should that job come my way, I would be exceedingly glad.”

In the last few weeks, Burton made sure to remind his followers of the goal at hand with a brief but eloquent tweet that called attention to not landing the gig yet.

In a culmination of the Burton-Hive’s efforts (is there an official title for LeVar’s stans yet?), the official “Jeopardy!” Twitter account finally announced Wednesday that Burton would be included in the next round of guest hosts. 

Burton shared his gratitude shortly afterward, tweeting to his fans, “THANK YOU . . . to all y’all for your passionate support! I am  overjoyed, excited, and eager to be guest-hosting Jeopardy!, and will do my utmost best to live up to your faith you in me. YOU MADE A DIFFERENCE! Go ahead and take my word for it, this time.”

Besides Burton (whose name earns a very “Jeopardy!”-friendly exclamation point in the tweet), others taking turns at the podium include “Good Morning America” co-hosts Robin Roberts and George Stephanopoulos (hosting separate weeks), as well as CNBC host David Faber and FOX News sports commentator Joe Buck.

There’s no word yet as to who may be selected for the permanent position, but the hosts’ performances (and ratings) in the upcoming weeks could play a part in swaying producers. And never doubt the power of the Burton-Hive may have something to do with the outcome of that decision.

Anxious about going out into the world post-vaccination? You’re not alone, but there’s help

It’s the moment we thought we were all waiting for…or is it? We were cautiously optimistic about the end of the pandemic in view of increasing vaccine availability and decreasing case numbers after the peak in January.

Then, whether due to variants, pandemic fatigue or both, cases and case positivity began to increase again – throwing into question whether the end was as near as we thought. This is merely one of the most recent of the many reversals.

I am a physician and associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine. In my role as the director of wellness, resiliency and vulnerable populations, I speak with staff and faculty members who may need a sympathetic ear or may be struggling.

Amid the happiness and relief that people are feeling, I also see confusion and some fear. Some people are wary of going out again, and others are eager to throw a party. Some learned that they like being alone and do not want to stop nesting. I think this is all normal from a year of what I call the zigzag pandemic.

Change after change

Awareness of the novel coronavirus for most of us rose between January – when the first cases in China were reported – and March 11, 2020, when the World Health Organization officially declared a pandemic. Since the declaration, daily uncertainty and contradictory information has been the norm.

First, no masks were needed. Then you had to wear a mask. Hydroxychloroquine looked promising and got emergency use authorization, but that was revoked fairly quickly and officials said not only was there no benefit but there was some potential harm.

We were transiently afraid of groceries, packages and surfaces. Then data emerged that surfaces were not as dangerous as previously thought.

In the absence of a coordinated national policy, states began to fend for themselves, creating their own policies regarding shutdowns and masks. Even now, there is state-by-state variability in which businesses may be open and at what capacity and whether masks are required, suggested or neither.

Both inevitable and avoidable factors played into the back-and-forth. Part of the whiplash is due to the “novel” part of the novel coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2. This virus is new and many of its characteristics unknown, leading to policy revisions becoming necessary as more becomes known.

Part of the zigzag is due to the nature of clinical trials and the nature of the way scientific knowledge emerges. Learning about a new pathogen requires time and the willingness to challenge initial assumptions. Part is due to the lack of a reliable source of information trusted to act in our collective best interests and a lack of preparedness.

Given the reversals behind us and uncertainty ahead, we need to examine both individual and societal responses moving forward.

https://twitter.com/LHydrangeas/status/1378154305841139721
 
Different experiences

There is no question that all of our lives have changed. However, the ways in which they have changed has varied widely. The variation depends on our jobs – think of the differences for grocery store, tech and health care workers – our living situations, our underlying physical and mental health, our financial status and our personalities, just to begin with.

For example, some introverts have been fortunate enough to work remotely in comfortable clothes with broadband internet and no children to educate, while their extroverted colleagues have longed for more social connection. Their colleagues with young children and jobs that could not be done remotely have been scrambling. Many have hit the wall and find themselves adrift and unmotivated, while others have seemingly thrived doing long-postponed projects.

Nearly everyone has been affected in some way. A recent systematic review concluded that the pandemic is associated with highly significant levels of psychological distress, particularly in certain higher-risk groups.

As individuals, what can help us get through this?

What we can do for ourselves

First, we can begin by making a fearless assessment of our current reality – the state of now. Sometimes making an actual list of our needs and assets can help us to prioritize next steps. Steps may be visiting a community health center, a virtual therapist, a job fair or even something as simple as carrying a printable wallet card with stress reduction tips.

What might work for you might not work for your spouse, partner or best friend. We need to be doing whatever is known to foster resilience in ourselves and our family members.

This includes making human connections, moving our bodies and learning to regulate our emotions. Looking back at how we handled past difficulties may help us. Mental health concerns have become more common, and evidence on overall impact of the pandemic on mental health is still being collected.

There has been increased public awareness about these issues, and telehealth has eased access for some seeking help. Our society – individuals as well as institutions – needs to continue to work to make it acceptable for people to get mental health care without worrying about stigma.

Deciding which of your normal activities you wish to resume and which to let go of helps you to prepare for the future. So does noting which new activities you’d like to hold on to. These lists potentially include attending family or sporting events, traveling, going to the gym or live worship. You may choose to continue to cook at home or work from home if you have the choice. Of course, all of these choices should be made in accordance with CDC guidelines.

And then there are things we may not want to do. That can include behaviors we learned about during the pandemic that don’t make us feel good or serve us well. That may include watching too much news, drinking too much alcohol and not getting enough sleep. And yes, maybe there are some relationships that need changing or reworking.

Then, we need to to think about what we can do on a level larger than the individual.

Societal and governmental changes

For many people, it feels futile to address individual resilience without addressing what feels like a rigged system.

The pandemic hit at a particularly politically polarized time and a particularly unprepared time. This was unfortunate, because fighting a common adversary – such as polio or a world war – can unite a population.

In contrast, the coronavirus was subject to multiple conflicting interpretations and even doubt about its severity. Rather than rallying together against the virus, our adherence to mandates became a surrogate for our political beliefs.

Now that longstanding inequities have been highlighted by differential infection, hospitalization and mortality rates by race, political and public health officials can begin a careful analysis of the gaps in health care coverage by race.

While examining how to effectively address longstanding disparities is crucial, so is being prepared for the next pandemic. A coordinated nonpartisan, science-based health infrastructure prepared to rapidly roll out emergency responses as well as consistent clear messaging would be vital. However, without a population willing to consider collective good ahead of individual freedom, we run the risk of repeating history.

Claudia Finkelstein, Associate Professor of Medicine, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Matt Gaetz runs to Roger Stone after support from Republican colleagues dries up

Matt Gaetz may not have many of his fellow Republicans in Congress rushing to his defense now that news of a Department of Justice investigation into his alleged sex trafficking of a minor has been made public, but it does appear that the Florida congressman has at least one friend left: Roger Stone.

The longtime GOP fixer and political operative appears in new campaign finance reports showing Gaetz paid Stone and his embattled firm, Drake Ventures, at least $5,000 in “strategic consulting” fees from January through March of this year. Gaetz had never paid Stone or Drake previously, according to an analysis of past filings by Roger Sollenberger of The Daily Beast. And Gaetz received no contributions from his colleagues in Congress, a common occurrence for Gaetz’ past campaigns, during this same period. 

The payment to Stone came on March 24, one week prior to the initial New York Times report on the investigation into Gaetz and just a few days before his father, a powerful Florida Republican himself, reportedly met with a former DOJ prosecutor about the case.

It’s unclear what advisement, if any, the longtime Republican operative and close associate of former President Donald Trump gave to Gaetz regarding the allegations he faces, telling Salon, “I don’t comment on the services I provide to my few clients.”

Though a few weeks after being hired, Stone did offer Gaetz some advice during an appearance on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars broadcast, saying the Florida congressman “should not go hide in a hole, he should be out there, like he was on Tucker [Carlson] last night.”

Stone and Drake Ventures were also the subject of their own headlines last week after the Justice Department sued Stone and his wife, Nydia, in Florida over an unpaid tax bill of nearly $2 million. The lawsuit accused Nydia of using an “alter ego” to shield personal income from tax collectors and alleges the couple used Drake Ventures to “evade and frustrate” the IRS. 

According to prosecutors, the company is “dominated and controlled” by Stone and his wife “to such an extent that it does not exist as an independent entity.”

Stone denied the allegations in an email to Salon, saying there was “nothing ‘shady'” about Drake Ventures or his taxes. “The revenues to the LLC cited in the DOJ complaint have been fully reported in our tax returns for over 20 years,” he claimed, adding: “All appropriate taxes were paid.”

The partnership between Gaetz and Stone emerges as the embattled Florida congressman appears to be losing his staunchest defenders online. In the days following news of Gaetz’ sex trafficking investigation, adherents of various Qanon conspiracies all rushed to his defense — but in recent days have piped down following news that Florida politico Joel Greenberg, a close Gaetz ally and reported fountainhead of the DOJ investigation, is cooperating with investigators, according to Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed.

A mocking billboard even went up in Gaetz’ northwest Florida district recently that read “MATT GAETZ WANTS TO ‘DATE’ YOUR CHILD.” — and organizers say they already have plans for a second. 

Is the post office spying on you? USPS “covert operations” may monitor social media posts

A division of the U.S. Postal Service that investigates illegal mail activities has quietly operated a program that monitors Americans’ social media posts, according to a government document published by Yahoo News.

The Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP), part of the USPS law enforcement arm, is one of seven groups that deal with cybercrime, according to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which says it targets the use of the mail to facilitate black market trade and other illegal activities related to drugs, fraud and violent crime. But that description neglects to mention that the group also tracks social media sites for “inflammatory” posts, including messages about planned protests.

“Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant activity regarding planned protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,” said a March 16 government bulletin marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and distributed by the Department of Homeland Security. “Locations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.”

The bulletin appears to refer to marches surrounding the World Wide Rally for Freedom and Democracy, when demonstrators around the world protested coronavirus lockdown restrictions.

“Parler users have commented about their intent to use the rallies to engage in violence. Image 3 on the right is a screenshot from Parler indicating two users discussing the event as an opportunity to engage in a ‘fight’ and to ‘do serious damage,'” the bulletin said, noting that “no intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of these threats.”

The bulletin includes screenshots of posts from Facebook, Parler and Telegram, including one by an alleged member of the Proud Boys.

“iCOP analysts are currently monitoring these social media channels for any potential threats stemming from the scheduled protests and will disseminate intelligence updates as needed,” the bulletin says.

Post Office Redacted by Yahoo News

Civil liberties experts expressed concerns about the Postal Service’s collection of social media posts.

“I don’t understand why the government would go to the Postal Service for examining the internet for security issues,” Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who was appointed by former President Barack Obama to review the National Security Agency’s metadata collection, told Yahoo News.

“This seems a little bizarre,” added Rachel Levinson-Waldman, deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program. “Based on the very minimal information that’s available online, it appears that [iCOP] is meant to root out misuse of the postal system by online actors, which doesn’t seem to encompass what’s going on here. It’s not at all clear why their mandate would include monitoring of social media that’s unrelated to use of the postal system.”

Levinson-Waldman also raised questions about the legality of the program.

“If the individuals they’re monitoring are carrying out or planning criminal activity, that should be the purview of the FBI,” she said. “If they’re simply engaging in lawfully protected speech, even if it’s odious or objectionable, then monitoring them on that basis raises serious constitutional concerns.”

The USPIS told Yahoo News that its mission is to “protect the U.S. Postal Service and its employees, infrastructure, and customers; enforce the laws that defend the nation’s mail system from illegal or dangerous use; and ensure public trust in the mail.”

“The Internet Covert Operations Program is a function within the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which assesses threats to Postal Service employees and its infrastructure by monitoring publicly available open source information,” the USPIS said in a statement, adding that it collaborates with other law enforcement agencies to “identify and assess potential threats to the Postal Service, its employees and customers, and its overall mail processing and transportation network.”

The report noted that the USPIS is not the only agency monitoring social media posts in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“We know that this threat is fueled mainly by false narratives, conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric read through social media and other online platforms,” a Department of Homeland Security official told reporters on a recent press call.  “And that’s why we’re kicking off engagement directly with social media companies.”

The official added that the department is working with “civil rights and civil liberties colleagues, as well as our private colleagues, to ensure that everything we’re doing is being done responsibly and in line with civil rights and civil liberties and individual privacy.”

Stone said other agencies are better equipped to handle such surveillance than the USPIS.

“I just don’t think the Postal Service has the degree of sophistication that you would want if you were dealing with national security issues of this sort,” he told Yahoo News. “That part is puzzling. There are so many other federal agencies that could do this, I don’t understand why the post office would be doing it. There is no need for the post office to do it — you’ve got FBI, Homeland Security and so on, so I don’t know why the post office is doing this.”

The report comes amid a growing debate about the value, legality and necessity of social media surveillance. Democratic lawmakers have lambasted the FBI and federal law enforcement agencies for missing or failing to respond to public calls for violence at the Capitol on social media platforms ahead of the Jan. 6 riot.

“This information, sitting in plain sight on the internet before Jan. 6, paints a clear picture of a planned and coordinated violent attack,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., told NBC News. “It’s important to understand how much of this the FBI and DOJ knew, when they knew it, and how they decided which pieces of information warranted action.”

The FBI field office in Norfolk, Virginia, did issue a warning to Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police on Jan. 5 that online extremists heading to Washington were prepared for “war.” But the intelligence was not “fully vetted,” acting D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee said at a recent congressional hearing. Neither Contee nor then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund saw the bulletin.

The FBI and Justice Department have stressed that such intelligence is not often actionable and many posts are anonymous.

But since the Jan. 6 assault, the FBI has relied on social media postings to track down hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol. The FBI tracked down one alleged rioter using facial recognition technology that found a photo of him on his girlfriend’s Instagram page, HuffPost reported on Wednesday. Investigators have also used license plate readers and cell-tower location records to track the insurrectionists, according to The Washington Post.

The use of social media and facial recognition has alarmed some civil liberties groups.

“Whenever you see this technology used on someone you don’t like, remember it’s also being used on a social movement you support,” Evan Greer, director of the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, told The Washington Post. “Once in a while, this technology gets used on really bad people doing really bad stuff. But the rest of the time it’s being used on all of us, in ways that are profoundly chilling for freedom of expression.”

Mike Lindell’s new social platform crashes — and MyPillow guy didn’t even notice

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s new social media site, FRANK, crashed on Wednesday morning as “election fraud” experts and Lindell barreled forward with their 48-hour “Frank-a-thon” event, which features both Lindell’s half-baked conspiratorial documentaries about the 2020 election alongside segments in which Lindell berates journalists. 

“We are performing scheduled site maintenance at this time. Please check back with us later,” read a notice on the platform’s website on Wednesday morning.

Salon called Lindell for comment, but an assistant picked up and reported that Lindell was currently on set doing an interview for FRANK, even though his live-streaming platform was down and no one could watch it live.

Lindell later declined to comment by phone but sent Salon a text message saying, “Very happy that we’re have been able to get the evidence of the election crimes out to over 200 million people! Our broadcast has not broke once, and the launch has been amazing!” In fact, the supposed social media platform aspect of FRANK simply hasn’t worked yet: Users still aren’t able to create accounts and profiles as they would on Facebook or Twitter. As The Daily Beast’s Will Sommer stated on The Beast’s “Fever Dreams” podcast: “This is not really a social media site in any recognizable form.” 

Lindell’s loyal fan base is not pleased with the right-wing platform’s continuing failures. “Frank has flopped. Very disappointed in something that was so hyped,” one of Lindell’s supporters wrote on Telegram on Wednesday. “Frank sucks. Mike rocks,” another user commented. “I’ve been trying to get on it since the launch of the initial VIP subscription. That was several days ago, and every day I try, it doesn’t let me in,” a user added.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the site at least acknowledged its problems, posting a notice that read, “Thank you for visiting Frank! With over 2B requests in just 2-days, the Frankspeech experiment is a massive success — For you! Right now, we’re working on new features — keep checking back; we’ll be up shortly!” Lindell now claims the site has garnered more than one billion page views but has declined to show Salon any evidence to bolster such a patently unlikely claim.

The news of Lindell’s site crashing follows the pillow magnate’s pledge to Salon on Tuesday night that he will try to have a British podcaster arrested for pranking him during his Monday programing. The caller played an audio clip of Donald Trump speaking, briefly fooling Lindell into believing that the ex-president had called in live to congratulate him. It’s unclear what aspect of a satirical prank call Lindell thinks may be illegal.

Columbus cop shouts “blue lives matter” at the scene of deadly police shooting of Ohio teen

A police officer told a crowd gathered at the scene where a Black teenager, Ma’Khia Bryant, was killed by police in Columbus, Ohio just minutes before the verdict in the Derek Chauvin murder trial was announced on Tuesday that “blue lives matter.” 

Ma’Khia Bryant was reportedly involved in an altercation with another kid in her foster care home when she quickly rushed to call the police for help saying a woman had a knife, according to her aunt. The teen then reporetedly hung up and rushed back outside.

In a Facebook video taken in the aftermath of the shooting, upset residents can be seen talking about what happened when a nearby officer appears to yell to them: “Blue lives matter!”

One of the residents can then be seen angrily reacting. “Blue lives matter? Crazy. That’s an insult, especially at this place right now.”

https://www.facebook.com/shonnell.kelley/videos/4198299950200742/?d=n 

Ben Crump, the lawyer representing the family of George Floyd, the Black man who was murdered by Chauvin, who at the time was a Minneapolis police officer, tweeted that “as we breathed a collective sigh of relief today, a community in Columbus felt the sting of another police shooting.”

“Another child lost! Another hashtag,” he added.

Bryant was transported to Mount Carmel East, but died as a result of her injuries. 

“She was a good kid. She was loving,” Hazel Bryant, aunt to Ma’Khia Bryant, told reporters. “She didn’t deserve to die like a dog in the street.” 

Columbus Public Safety Director Ned Pettus Jr. urged the public to be patient as the investigation continues, and city officials again called for peace. The Columbus Police Department released body cam footage from the officer, who is on paid leave pending an investigation, the same day as the shooting — a reform that came as a result of last summer’s protests. 

The shooting in Columbus comes after Miles Jackson, a 27-year-old Black man, was killed in an exchange of gunfire with officers at Mount Carmel St. Ann’s medical center in Westerville, Ohio, earlier this month. The Columbus Police Department is also under heavy scrutiny over its handling of a riot near Ohio State on Saturday where nearly 1,000 mostly white students destroyed several cars and set fires as police watched from afar. 

About 100 people gathered in downtown Columbus late Tuesday to protest the shooting. They chanted, “Say her name! Ma’Khia Bryant!” and “Black Lives Matter!” 

Ted Nugent tests positive for COVID-19 after calling it “a leftist scam”

Despite repeatedly calling the pandemic “a leftist scam to destroy Trump,” rocker Ted Nugent tested positive for the novel coronavirus and revealed in a Facebook live video that he thought he was dying.

“I literally could hardly crawl out of bed the last few days,” Nugent said in the video that was posted on Monday. “So, I was officially tested positive for COVID-19 today.” 

Nugent, who remains a vocal supporter of former president Donald Trump has previously questioned whether the virus is a “real pandemic,” according to the Associated Press, and continues to publicly suggest that health experts are inflating the death count from the coronavirus. Health experts have repeatedly disputed this claim, which has no supporting evidence. 

Nugent told his followers that he had flu-like symptoms for 10 days and then chose to get tested after he took a turn for the worse.”Boy I’ve got a stuff up head, body aches,” he said. “My God, what a pain in the a**.” 

Despite his diagnosis — which Nugent referred to as the “China virus,” a racist slur used by Trump to reference COVID-19 — the “Cat Scratch Fever” singer maintained that he would not be getting the vaccine because he claims without evidence that “nobody knows what’s in it.” 

“If you can’t even honestly answer our questions of exactly what’s in it and why are you testing it on human beings and forcing it on people in such a short period of time?” he said. 

While traveling, Nugent also potentially exposed others to COVID-19,  including South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, reported the Daily Beast’s Michael Daly. 

A week ago, Nugent’s wife, Shemane, posted a photo of the couple standing with Noem and Republican donor Greg Mosing and his wife, Donna. They were standing in front of a private airplane. “Thank you for a great trip with Governor Kristi Noem, on Rockstar One (think Air Force One!),” Shemane Nugent wrote.

None of them were wearing masks or distancing. Noem had gotten her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine on April 5 and, according to a spokesperson, is scheduled to receive her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine “very soon.” 

However, the  governor spoke to a crowd of 500 people Tuesday at a prayer breakfast in Aberdeen, where it’s possible she could have exposed others if she had been infected by Nugent.

CNN host throws Ted Cruz’s own words in his face after GOP senator feigns outrage over Maxine Waters

With the defense having rested in former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s murder trial, Rep. Maxine Waters of California was asked how “justice for George Floyd” activists will response if Chauvin is found not guilty. And the congresswoman called for a vocal response if that happens, saying, “We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to let them know that we mean business.” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was among the far-right Republicans who claimed that Waters was advocating violence — and CNN’s John Berman called Cruz out and reminded viewers of the ways in which the Texas senator’s false claims of widespread voter fraud encouraged the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol Building.

On CNN’s “New Day,” host Berman explained, “She didn’t say what type of confrontation. Still, this is not the language that business owners in Minneapolis want to hear or that people calling for calm, including the president or the family of George Floyd (want to hear).”

But he went on to explain why Cruz is the last person who should be accusing a congresswoman of overly incendiary rhetoric. 

Berman told viewers, “House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called it incitement of violence and said he will take action if Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not. But this is how Ted Cruz chose to respond in a tweet: ‘Democrats actively encouraging riots and violence, they want to tear us apart.’ That’s Ted Cruz of the not accepting the election results before or after the insurrection Cruzes, which might lead one to wonder if this a case of the pot calling the kettle violent.”

The “New Day” host went on to show a clip of former President Donald Trump giving his “Stop the Steal” speech on January 6 hours before a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol Building as well as clips of Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani using inflammatory rhetoric while promoting bogus election fraud claims. Giuliani said, “Let’s have trial by combat” — and Berman pointed out that Cruz had no problem with that rhetoric.

“So, I don’t recall the Republicans-encouraging-violence tweet from Ted Cruz after that,” Berman told viewers before airing an inflammatory “Stop the Steal” speech from Cruz.

Berman said, “It’s not like this guy is some peaceful prophet of gentility. This is the man who wants to do unspeakable things to books that say mean things about him, asking his supporters to vote on whether we machine-gun John Boehner’s book, take a chainsaw to it or burn the book and light cigars. Where does that rank on the they-are-tearing-us-apart meter?”

Watch the video below:

“Racist, unconstitutional, and anti-democratic”: FL passes anti-protest law ahead of Chauvin verdict

After Florida’s Senate Republicans on Thursday passed an undemocratic anti-protest bill—expected to be signed into law by its chief proponent, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, as early as next week—the state’s ACLU chapter condemned GOP lawmakers for “aiming to shut down political speech they disagree with in a direct attack on the First Amendment and at the cost of Black and Brown people.”

House Bill 1 “is racist, unconstitutional, and anti-democratic, plain and simple,” Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement.

Kubic said the bill—first proposed by DeSantis last September in response to nationwide protests against police violence and passed last month by Republican lawmakers in the state House—”was purposely designed to embolden the disparate police treatment we have seen over and over again directed towards Black and Brown people who are exercising their constitutional right to protest.”

“It is no coincidence,” Kubic continued, that HB1 and its companion bill, Senate Bill 484, “were introduced by politicians who harshly criticized” millions of Floridians and Americans for demanding “racial justice and police accountability.”

“This bill is a disgrace to our state,” he added.

DeSantis described HB1 as his legislative priority even though, according to the ACLU of Florida, 95% of the protests in Florida last year were peaceful and required no police intervention whatsoever. The bill heads to the governor’s desk as people in Minnesota and Illinois take to the streets to express opposition to recent police killings of unarmed individuals of color.

Characterizing the measure as an attempt to “chill and criminalize” people for exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully advocate for social change, the ACLU of Florida explained the full ramifications of the legislation:

By redefining “rioting,” the bill grants police officers broad discretion in deciding who could be arrested and charged with a third-degree felony at a protest and fails to provide protection for people who have not engaged in any disorderly and violent conduct. In Florida, a felony charge strips people of their voting rights.

This bill would also hinder local governments from determining how to allocate law enforcement resources to address critical needs in their local communities. It allows the Governor, with the Cabinet, to usurp control of a city budget and amend it to their liking at the appeal of any county commissioner or state attorney, regardless of whether local elected officials approve of changes made in the budget. It would also shield violent counter-protesters from civil liability for killing a peaceful protester or demonstrator with their vehicle, and make pulling down a Confederate flag a punishable offense for up to 15 years in prison.

As March For Our Lives Florida, a student-led group fighting to end gun violence, noted in a statement, “This bill emboldens and protects white supremacists who seek to injure peaceful demonstrators, threatens peaceful protestors with a felony, and penalizes local municipalities that choose to divert funds to Community-Based Violence Intervention/Prevention Programs.”

Progressives have been sounding the alarm that Republican lawmakers in multiple states are exploiting the deadly attack on the halls of Congress by a mob of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters to push for anti-protest bills, which critics say have nothing to do with stemming the tide of far-right extremism and everything to do with suppressing left-wing dissent and quashing protests against police brutality, fossil fuel pipelines, and more, as Common Dreams reported earlier this year.

Since the right-wing insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, “at least 13 states have taken up legislation to crack down on protests,” NBC News reported Thursday. “In addition to Florida, legislators in Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington” have introduced bills that critics say use the violence at the Capitol to justify the repression of Black Lives Matter and other social justice demonstrations.

In Florida, Trump ally DeSantis promoted HB1 and SB484 on January 6, “the same day insurrectionists were storming the Capitol,” as journalist Christopher Cook pointed out earlier this year. Journalist Iliana Hagenah wrote at the time that DeSantis used the riots in Washington, D.C., attended by several neo-Confederates, as a pretext to “make taking down Confederate statues a felony” in Florida.

The Intercept’s Alleen Brown and Akela Lacy have argued that the GOP’s push for new anti-protest bills around the country reflects an attempt to “rebrand” earlier anti-democratic efforts to crack down on civil disobedience, taking advantage of outrage over the far-right coup attempt to undermine demonstrations for progressive causes.

Florida’s anti-protest bill remains highly unpopular. According to a poll conducted last month by Florida Politics, 63% of the state’s voters view the legislation unfavorably. 

HB1 has also provoked opposition across the nation. Last month, in a letter addressed to state House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R-65) and state Senate President Wilton Simpson (R-10), more than 100 law professors throughout the country denounced the proposal, characterizing it as unconstitutional and “morally unconscionable.”

And yet, as March For Our Lives Florida pointed out, Republican lawmakers passed the bill anyway, and DeSantis said in a statement that he “looks forward” to signing it.

“Despite opposition from a wide coalition of survivors of police violence, religious leaders, community leaders, business owners, students, and law enforcement agencies, the legislature prioritized the passage of this bill while millions of Floridians are still waiting for a living wage, Covid relief, affordable housing, and healthcare,” the group said.

“Instead of serving the people of Florida, the governor has chosen to serve Trump, the far-right wing of his party, and violent white nationalists in their efforts to silence Black and Brown voices calling for racial justice,” the group added. “March For Our Lives Florida, our members, chapters, and supporters condemn the passing of HB1 and the failure of our lawmakers in Tallahassee to listen to the needs of their constituents.”

According to the Miami Herald, “Senate Democrats on Thursday called on major Republican political donors to pressure Gov. Ron DeSantis to stop ‘anti-mob’ legislation they deem racist, unconstitutional, and partisan.”

In a call to grocery store chains, amusement parks, and utility companies that tend to make significant contributions to Florida Republicans, state Senator Perry Thurston (D-33) said: “Don’t sit on the sidelines, do something. Take a position.”

The making of a right-wing martyr: Conservatives treat Derek Chauvin’s conviction as an act of war

Throwing Derek Chauvin under the bus should have been a no-brainer for the “I’m not a racist” crowd. The pretense behind “blue lives matter” has been that it’s not that conservatives are racist but that Black Lives Matter goes “too far.” They argue that most police killings are unfortunate accidents to be tolerated in the name of greater social safety and that the “few bad apples” who do it on purpose can be held to account without widespread reform.

It was always nonsense, of course. But Chauvin’s conviction on three counts for murdering George Floyd provided conservatives a golden “hey, at least we’re not that guy” opportunity. The evidence against Chauvin was overwhelming. The video of the murder showed the world the nonchalant determination on Chauvin’s face as he snuffed out Floyd’s life. Police officials testified against Chauvin. Prosecutor Steve Schleicher gave conservatives an out by saying, “This wasn’t policing, this was murder.” Conservatives could have easily clung to Chauvin’s conviction as an “exception that proves the rule” situation, insisting that because they condemn him, no one should call them racist. It would have been a lie, but occasionally cutting loose the worst members of their tribe has long been a winning strategy for the right. 

But nah, instead they’re turning a dead-eyed murderer like Chauvin into a martyr. And in doing so, they’re removing the last shred of plausible deniability that “blue lives matter” and the criticisms of Black Lives Matter was ever about anything but stone-cold white supremacy. 

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

Insisting that Chauvin was the hill to die on made the leap from the unapologetically rancid fringes to the Fox News talking heads in a record amount of time. Shortly after the verdict was announced on Tuesday, far-right Twitter cranks like Paul Joseph Watson and Matt Walsh were insisting Chauvin was the real victim here and that the jury was “intimidated” by the “mob.” Minutes later, that line was already being broadcast on Fox News, as Greg Gutfeld, with his usual unfunny “humor,” was pretending to be “glad” Chauvin “was found guilty on all charges, even if he might not be guilty of all charges,” because “I want a verdict that keeps this country from going up in flames.”

Obviously, Gutfeld’s not glad at all, so much as making the same bizarre argument as the Twitter fringes were: That the verdict is unjust, Chauvin is a martyr, and that the “woke mob” is to blame for this conviction. You know, instead of Chauvin’s own choice to murder a man in broad daylight in front of a dozen witnesses and a cellphone camera. 

The “Chauvin is a martyr” narrative was enshrined into the right-wing common wisdom later that night on — where else? — Tucker Carlson’s infamous but popular prime-time Fox News show. Carlson, whose own white nationalist leanings have gradually become less cloaked in euphemism in recent months, had a complete meltdown over Chauvin’s conviction Tuesday night. 

“The jury in the Derek Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict this afternoon: ‘Please don’t hurt us,'” Carlson raved on his show, which is usually at the top of the ranks of cable news shows, with 3 million viewers. He painted the verdict as “an attack on civilization” — as if there was anything “civilized” about Chauvin’s behavior — and threatened that “decent, productive people will leave” the country rather than tolerate the current situation. 

While pretending “I’m probably not that qualified to weigh in on” the verdict, Carlson — who previously compared Chauvin’s having to endure due process to “lynching” — made his feelings about the verdict quite clear, shutting down a guest when he realized that guest was about to say that Chauvin’s behavior was wrong. 

Turning Chauvin into a martyr of the “woke mob” is not just sociopathic, but seems like it would be bad political strategy. It’s like trying to turn Ted Bundy into some hapless victim of a castrating feminist mob.

Indeed, it seemed there were still some in right-wing media who grasped that this is one of those moments where admitting Chauvin is a bad guy would go a long way towards propping up the illusion that it’s conservatives who are fair-minded and evidence-driven, and that liberals are the ones who take it “too far.”  Fox News host Laura Ingraham, for instance, went with the more traditional strategy of painting Chauvin’s behavior as nothing more than an individual failing, and arguing that liberals who say otherwise are overreaching. 

“They want to reprogram all of America to believe that justice isn’t served when just one individual pays for criminal wrongdoing — for them, punishment has to be wide-reaching and never-ending,” she argued, claiming that systematic racism is a “big lie” and that the guilt belongs solely to Chauvin. 

Strategically condemning the worst people so they can look better by comparison has long been an effective strategy on the right. For instance, Fox News heavily covered the sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein, which gave them cover to pretend they care about sexual abuse, even as they largely ignored similar allegations against former Fox host Bill O’Reilly or Donald Trump. 

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

In the past year or so, however, a mentality of total war against the left has permeated throughout American conservatism. It’s become unimaginable to many on the right to admit liberals could ever be right about anything, ever, including fairly obvious ideas like “we should try stop the COVID-19 pandemic,” “the winner of the election should be the next president” and “shamelessly murdering a man on camera is bad business.”

The valorization of Kyle Rittenhouse was an earlier indicator. Like Chauvin, Rittenhouse is one of those indefensible creeps that past conservatives would have known better than to rally around. Whatever comes out in his trial, what is indisputable is that the 17-year-old was only in the position to shoot three people — killing two — because he went out looking for trouble when he armed himself and crossed state lines to rumble with protesters he could have left well enough alone. If he had shown any sense or decency and stayed at home, he would be a free young man and two of those protesters would still be alive today. 

But rather than sensibly wash their hands of a such an obvious fool, the right rallied around Rittenhouse, funding his defense and turning him into a noble victim of supposed liberal overreach, as if the anti-murder laws he is being accused of violating were only recently invented by the “woke mob.” It was an early sign that, as far as the MAGA right is concerned, there is nothing a white man can do in the name of anti-liberalism that is a crime. The same attitude went towards fueling the Capitol insurrection and the astonishment many of those rioters experienced at realizing that they might actually face legal consequences for trying to violently overthrow the government. 

Outside of the funhouse mirror counter-reality of right-wing media, the grim truth is that the Chauvin conviction, while welcome, is only further proof of how far the U.S. has to go to fix a broken culture of policing. As Jason Johnson of MSNBC said Tuesday afternoon, “in order to get a nominal degree of justice in this country, that a Black man has to be murdered on air, viewed by the entire world.” The sensible, reality-based view is that Chauvin’s guilt was obvious and that it’s a tragic sign of how racist our country is that there was real fear he would not be convicted — and that so many many other police still get away with similar crimes.

This “total war” attitude on the right is likely fueled by Donald Trump’s “concede nothing, lie constantly, fight everyone at all times” mentality, of course. But it’s also the result of the American right understanding that they’ve lost the political debate on pretty much every front. Unable to win an argument on the merits, they’ve quit trying and now are permanently on the attack. And that’s how someone like Chauvin, who common sense indicates is not a person worth an ounce of sympathy, is being turned into a right wing martyr. 

Trevor Noah’s wit is an effective weapon against white supremacy and defense of police violence

On June 12, 2020 Netflix released Dave Chappelle’s “8:46,” a standup show recorded in the wake of the death of George Floyd and subsequent protests. At the center of his monologue is the number 8:46, which at the time was thought to represent the amount of time that Derek Chauvin kneeled on George Floyd’s neck. Chappelle explains that 8:46 has a personal reference for him: “I can’t get that number out of my head because it was my time of birth on my birth certificate,” Chappelle said. “I was born at 8:46 in the morning and they killed [Floyd] in eight minutes and 46 seconds.”

The special went viral. It wasn’t just the sharp, moving and insightful way that Chappelle described the death of George Floyd as both inconceivable and predictable; it was the basic outrage that Chappelle channeled in solidarity with protesters. Perhaps more importantly, the special stood out for the way that it did not use the signature, deadpan irony Chappelle famously tends to use when discussing race and racism. Noting the shift in his own tone, at one moment, Chappelle states, “This is not funny at all.”

Buzzfeed noted that “Chappelle tends to be subdued, dispositionally cool and observant” when discussing race, making the way that “8:46” displays “the full height of his anger” even more powerful. 

Chappelle’s “8:46” was an important cultural moment in the Black Lives Matter movement: this is true not only because it was viewed almost 30 million times, but also because it reminded us how hard it has been for comedians to use their art to discuss racism and police violence.

If you think about it, it makes sense. How exactly does one use comedy to address the core issues of the Black Lives Matter movement? There is nothing funny about Black people being killed by police and there is nothing funny about the lack of accountability and justice. There certainly was nothing funny about the trial of Derek Chauvin, the officer convicted for the murder of George Floyd.

The prevailing attitude is that Black Lives Matter supporters should be angry or somber or respectful or righteous, but not snarky or sarcastic. Sure, we had Michael Che’s 2016 special, “Michael Che Matters,” where he does an especially powerful bit on how ridiculous it is that some people bristle at the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” but that pre-dated the death of George Floyd.

Protests around the world increased after that. The sheer gravity of how frequently police kill Black people has demanded a grave and determined call for justice, one that seems totally out of step with any sort of comedy. Some critics even took issue with the idea that protesters would have any fun whatsoever at BLM protests.

And that’s where Trevor Noah comes in. Since he first took over for Jon Stewart as host of “The Daily Show,” Noah has used his satirical wit to cover race relations in the United States, and his insight only grew sharper in the wake of George Floyd’s death. What Noah does is use satirical wit, sarcasm and ironic commentary to show how most anti-BLM chatter is not just racist; it’s also stupid. He dissects their arguments and shows that they literally make no sense whatsoever. 

At the core of Noah’s satire is his harpooning of white supremacist hypocrisy and the totally idiotic arguments those on the right make to support these views. The same year that Michael Che did his “Black Lives Matter” bit, Noah interviewed Tomi Lahren, then of the conservative outlet TheBlaze.

That interview offered deep insight into the very specific ways that Noah uses satire to dismantle right-wing critiques of Black Lives Matter. As Vox explained, “Noah interviewed Lahren less to argue with her views than to reveal them.” 

One of the real highlights of the interview was the moment when Lahren stated she didn’t think Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the national anthem was “the right way” to send a message. This was the perfect opening for Noah, who then asked, “What is the right way, I’ve always wanted to know,” Noah said gently, “for a Black person to get attention in America?”

As Lahren sat there and fluttered her eyelashes, it was clear that the unspoken answer was that there is no “right way.”  It was also clear that the right-wing habit of claiming that the “real” problem is that protesters are just not protesting the right way — whether they are marching or taking a knee or organizing a rally — is really cover for their not-so-subtle racism.   

Since that interview Noah has amassed a long list of similar interventions, all of which have in common the fact that he questions the premises and the core assumptions that ground most white supremacist ideology. It is a brilliant reminder of the special comedic charge of satire, which, in this case, is not after laughs but rather after using wit and reason to expose the faulty logic, BS and irrationality of those defending police violence.

Recently, for example, during the Chauvin trial, Noah posted a segment in which he asked where all the good apples on the police force are. Similar to his exchange with Lahren, he doesn’t dispute the core idea that grounds the bigotry. In this case he concedes the point: OK, let’s say there are “bad apples” on the police force. If that is true, he then muses, then logic suggests there have to be good apples. Where are they? After walking us through the fact that the stories of good apples simply don’t line up with the bad apple theory, he then concludes, “We’re not dealing with bad apples, we’re dealing with a rotten tree.” 

In another signature Noah move, he went after the absurd excuse that the Minneapolis police gave in the wake of Daunte Wright’s death on April 11, 2021. Using a similar WTF expression to that which Jon Stewart made famous, Noah began his monologue by pointing out the stupidity of the excuse given by the police:

“A man was killed at a traffic stop because the police officer mixed up their gun and their taser. Is that even supposed to be a legitimate excuse? Like, we’re supposed to watch that and go, ‘Ah, OK, one time I used sugar instead of salt so I can relate.’ Look, I’m not saying that tragic mistakes will never happen, but what I am saying is that maybe if the police weren’t so quick to draw any weapon then maybe people wouldn’t die.”

What Noah exposes here is the question we really should be asking: Why are cops constantly pulling weapons on Black people? But then he takes his satirical wit to an even smarter irony: Why is it that cops always think everyone else has guns in their hands, but don’t seem to know when they actually have a gun in their own hand?

“Don’t you find it amazing that cops think everything is a gun — except their own gun? If you have a cellphone in your hand, ‘Oh, that’s a gun!’ If you’re holding a wallet, ‘Oh, that’s a gun!’ Their own gun? No, not a gun, not a gun.” 

Noah remarked how ironic it was that BLM protesters had to hit the streets to protest yet another death of an unarmed Black man at the hands of the police at the exact same time that the murder trial for Chauvin was underway. 

He then discussed the recent case of Second Lt. Caron Nazario, a Black and Latino U.S. Army officer, who was pepper sprayed by police while in uniform in Virginia. Noting that the man was holding up his hands and dressed in his fatigues, Noah asked, exactly what does a Black man have to do to not be harassed by the police — sing the national anthem while being arrested? In a tragic display of ironic wit, Noah exposes the basic idiocy of much white nationalism, which tends to value empty symbols more than the lives of fellow citizens. He suggests that cops would likely respect someone singing the anthem more than someone who defends the nation.

In the aftermath of Derek Chauvin’s conviction, “The Daily Show” team posted a “If You Didn’t Know, Now You Know” segment that focuses on “Being Black in America.” The segment was perfectly timed to show that, as satisfying as the guilty verdict may be, police violence is only one part of the problem of racism in the United States. From unequal access to vaccines to housing to unemployment to mental health support to discrimination in corporate America, Noah’s piece reveals the ongoing ways that U.S. culture is hostile to Black lives. Singling out the fact that many corporations think that tweeting in support of Black Lives Matter is enough, Noah makes it clear that if these corporations really think Black lives matter, they will do a better job in the workplace, from increasing hires to reducing microaggressions.

Going after the faulty logic of much white supremacist ideology is Noah’s special skill. And this is why his comedy offers such an important complement to the Black Lives Matter movement. There is no question that the constant cases of police violence against Black people call for anger and energy and taking to the streets, but those well-founded emotional responses also need the biting insights of satire.

Real change needs not just trial convictions; it requires a shift in how these issues are discussed and debated and defended. And satire is exceptionally good at reframing narratives and exposing hypocrisy and hubris. By outwitting the stupid arguments that attempt to justify police violence, Noah helps offer his viewers a critical, cognitive defense that is an essential tool in the fight for Black Lives Matter.

Chauvin will be heading to prison for the murder of George Floyd, but we can be sure that the arguments used to defend his actions are not going away along with him. Luckily, we can count on Noah to keep using his ironic wit as the judge these racist ideas deserve.

America’s biggest jails are frontline environmental justice communities

For more than half a century, 441 Bauchet Street has been the address where Los Angeles’ most stark social and environmental inequalities converge. It’s the location of L.A.’s Men’s Central Jail, the largest facility in the most populated county jail system in the country. On any given day, about 5,000 people are incarcerated there.

A block south from the jail is the 101 freeway, one of the most traveled highways in America, which generates dangerous levels of air pollution linked to a slew of birth defects. A block east is the L.A. River, home to at least 20 different pollutants, from feces to oil, at levels that violate federal standards. Another 100 yards east is the SP Railyard and Union Pacific Transportation Center, which operate at all hours, receiving big rig diesel trucks that spew an estimated 40 tons of particulate matter into the air annually.

According to data compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice screening tool, those detained inside Men’s Central Jail are situated closer to toxic wastewater and hazardous waste than 96 percent of the country. Their lifetime cancer risk from the inhalation of air toxics is in the 100th percentile, meaning there is virtually no place in the country where it’s higher. 

Men’s Central’s proximity to extreme toxicity isn’t an anomaly. A Grist analysis of the 11 jails in the three biggest county jail systems in America — Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago — found that people residing within or surrounding eight of these facilities are in the 90th percentile or higher for pollution-related cancer risk, respiratory hazards, and diesel pollution exposure. Nine of the facilities are located closer to toxic wastewater than at least 97 percent of the country, and all 11 are in the 90th percentile or higher for proximity to hazardous waste.

None of this is accidental. New York City’s biggest jail, Rikers Island, was built on a former landfill. Now, its inmates reside in closer proximity to hazardous waste than 97 percent of Americans. Chicago’s Cook County Jail, located in the middle of Little Village, one of the most polluted communities in America, is home to more diesel pollution than virtually anywhere else in the country. 

While formal research on toxicity and prisons has typically focused on more permanent detention facilities, such as state prisons, little has been done around jails because they’re seen as temporary holding facilities for people awaiting trial. But data show that it is common for some people, and particularly poor people, to spend months and sometimes years in county jailbefore ever being convicted of a crime. Cash bail requirements mean that people who can’t afford to put up enough money to be released on bail are often effectively serving a sentence while nominally awaiting trial.

For this reason, jails could be an emerging focus of the environmental justice movement. This is because environmental justice advocates focus on so-called “frontline communities” — places that shoulder a disproportionate burden of a society’s waste, contamination, and pollution. Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” for example, hosts many of the nation’s petrochemical plants, and its majority-Black residents see the effects show up in their health.

David Pellow, director of the Global Environmental Justice Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, argues that those incarcerated in county jails constitute a frontline community equally worthy of the movement’s attention. But historically, Pellow says, those cycling through the detention system have been ignored in the environmental justice movement because they’ve been “viewed as populations who just do not matter.”

“Their fate is linked to ours, from the water systems that we are all drinking, to the air that we all breathe, to the land that we all live on,” he told Grist. “A jail wall is nothing but a wall — not much more.”

Indeed, patterns of incarceration lay bare the relationship between race, poverty, and pollution. We know that a history of discriminatory housing policies, like redlining, forced people of color to undesirable and often toxic parts of cities. Today, those same communities are more likely to be over-policed and in poverty, making people of color more vulnerable to pollution and criminalization. This social and environmental harm is then intensified when members of these communities are moved out of the toxic environments in which they live and into toxic facilities where they are held against their will.   

“Black and brown and poor white folks in prisons and jails are clearly coming from communities where they are at greater risk for these social and environmental threats,” Pellow said. “Then they are being siphoned off, extracted, taken hostage by the state, and locked up in cages in the belly of this beast.”

Some research suggests that mass incarceration creates environmental harms that reach well beyond these marginalized communities. A 2020 study on how mass incarceration contributes to climate change found that increasing state-level incarceration rates between 1997 and 2016 were correlated with increases in industrial emissions and the use of toxic chemicals, because of the expansion of industrial prison supply manufacturing operations.

At the local level, some organizers in California have had success combining anti-detention and environmental justice organizing. Golden State organizers were able to block the construction of two jails in San Francisco in 2016 by framing the facilities as toxic burdens on the surrounding communities. In 2019, the Los Angeles-based Youth Justice Coalition and other community groups were able to stop a new jail after claiming the new building would worsen the community’s air pollution and potentially contaminate the surrounding soil and nearby water sources by disturbing two underground chemical storage tanks. 

Through its “all jails are toxic” campaign, the group argues that jails “worsen things like traffic pollution and the degradation of natural resources,” leading to greater environmental racism in local communities, according to Youth Justice Coalition’s Emilio Zapién. The coalition contends that the money dedicated to incarceration could better be spent on measures to disrupt the need for jails, such as education, food, and jobs programs.

With a focus on sites of incarceration as points of environmental harm, Pellow hopes the environmental justice movement will be redefined to emphasize the collective need for transformative interventions for the most marginalized.

“Focusing on these carceral spaces allows us to expand the realm of how we define not only environmental justice concerns, but also environmental justice activism and leadership,” Pellow added.

Right-wing media erupts in incoherent rage after Derek Chauvin is found guilty

With nationwide emotions running high following the conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder George Floyd, right-wing media reacted in opposite fashion to the general public, attempting to infuriate followers and lash out at the verdict. 

Many on the right, both in media and politics, invoked conservatives’ word of the year, suggesting that the trial was “rigged” or impacted by “mob rule.” Other, more “mainstream,” conservative figures complained about the remarks made by President Biden and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who praised the verdict and called for a broader push for racial justice. 

Some of the most shocking remarks came late on Tuesday night during Fox News host Laura Ingraham’s program, where right-wing YouTuber Brandon Tatum made an incoherent case for a sinister conspiracy, suggesting that the media aims to have Black people confront police in order to be shot in exchange for a large payoff.

“And these political pundits and these political talking heads, they want you to fight the police, they want you to be killed so they can make all this money, they can promote it on the news, they can get a payout with the family, and you’re going to be dead as a doornail,” Tatum stated, who is currently himself at war with fellow Black conservatives. 

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, hours after the verdict, opined that the jury’s implicit statement amounted to “please don’t hurt us.” 

“Everyone understood perfectly well the consequences of an acquittal in this case,” Carlson said. “After nearly a year of burning and looting and murder by BLM, that was never in doubt.”

Carlson then proceeded to ask rhetorical questions, addressing Chauvin’s potential sentence of 40 years in prison. (Chauvin’s actual sentence will not be decided for about eight weeks.) “Is that a fair punishment?” the Fox News host demanded. “Is the officer guilty of the specific crimes for which he was just convicted?” 

Later during his Tuesday evening program, Carlson cut off a guest who pointed out that Chauvin, according to several law enforcement witnesses at his trial, had clearly used excessive force in restraining Floyd. “I just think that it was excessive, and it shouldn’t have happened,” said former New York City corrections officer Ed Gavin, who was about to move on to another point before being interrupted by Carlson.

Evidently impatient with this argument, Carlson remarked, “Yeah, but the guy that did it looks like he’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison, so I’m kind of more worried about the rest of the country. Thanks to police inaction, in case you haven’t noticed, [it’s] like boarded up. That’s more my concern.” Gavin attempted to continue, but Carlson said: “Nope! Done. Thank you.” 

Other right-wing pundits online also attempted to sow discord. “Is the Foot Locker safe tonight? Should be, right? Justice, right? No need to steal in the name of George Floyd anymore, right?” Fox Nation personality Tomi Lahren remarked. Responding to a comment from CNN’s Don Lemon that “justice has been served” in the case, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro responded that “we all know he would never have said this had the reverse verdict been reached.”

Newsmax host Rob Schmitt claimed that the jury decided to “sacrifice” Chauvin to “the mob.” One America News (OAN) correspondent and neo-Nazi sympathizer Jack Posobiec, after the verdict was released, said that “jurors may have feared for their lives,” baselessly speculating there might have been “jury tampering.”  

Ex-President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, during Steve Bannon’s “WarRoom” podcast on Tuesday afternoon, suggested that the case “was subverted by the media.” 

Even further to the right, personalities such as young white nationalist “groyper” guru Nicholas Fuentes were angered by the verdict. He tweeted, “Rigged System.” Far-right Gateway Pundit blogger Cassandra Fairbanks wrote on Twitter, “Poor Chauvin. This is awful. He is a political prisoner. Nobody can change my mind on this,” but later deleted the tweet. 

As Salon’s Jon Skolnik noted Tuesday upon the verdict being read to the nation, “Floyd’s death, caught on tape as he repeated the words ‘I can’t breathe’ 27 times in the first four minutes and 45 seconds of the incident, caused protests to erupt across the world last summer. Chauvin had faced three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Chauvin is now heading to jail for the first time since his initial arrest.” 

Some right-wingers appear to pin their hopes of overturning the verdict on the supposed effect of remarks by Democratic politicians calling for justice. Legal experts suggest that is unlikely to be a successful argument for reversal. “If you’re relying on that for your appeal, that is not a hopeful situation,” defense attorney Ken White told Law & Crime. 

Derek Chauvin verdict: How the crack in the blue wall of silence should be exploited

30 years ago last month I was watching the 11 o’clock news in LA and a grainy black and white video came on that shocked me and shocked the conscience of the entire world. It showed a group of policemen, bathed in the harsh glare of their vehicle headlights, viciously tasering and beating a Black man on a deserted street while several others stood by and watched. There had been police beatings on television before, of course. We saw many of them during the civil rights and Vietnam War protests. But this was different. This video showed what the police did when they thought no one was looking, validating their victims’ accusations of police brutality, which were routinely dismissed as the complaints of combative criminals who resisted arrest.

We soon knew the name of the victim: Rodney King, a name which will go down in history because of that awful incident and everything that happened afterward. The Los Angeles Times chronicled the escalating horror as the nation grappled with what we were seeing and the reaction from the leaders of the community was swift. The mayor, the city council and even the police chief, a notorious fellow named Darryl Gates, all called for the cops to be prosecuted, an unusual response to say the least. That videotape put into doubt the officers’ initial account of what happened that night in which they described a wild man they suspected of being on PCP, spitting and violently resisting arrest. Rodney King got out of his car and almost immediately laid face down on the pavement. A witness said, “the officers were all laughing and chuckling, like they had just had a party.”

The four cops who meted out the worst brutality on King were put on trial in a suburban enclave known for being the home of half of the LAPD. The blue wall of silence was strong and the cops on the scene defended their colleagues’ actions, insisting that King was resisting and the accused were justified in their actions. The defense made the case that you cannot believe your eyes when you see something on video by slowing it down, offering alternative explanations for their clients’ actions.

The sympathetic jury found the cops not guilty and everyone knows what happened next. All of us who were living in LA at the time have stories to tell about what the next few days were like. Let’s just say the city exploded and nobody in it was shocked except the police.

I’ve been thinking about that time ever since George Floyd was murdered almost a year ago in Minneapolis. Once again we only know what happened that day because the incident was videotaped by a bystander and we were able to see and hear exactly what happened. The police report was just as dishonest as the report in the Rodney King case three decades before and even more inexplicable since the cops in Floyd’s case knew their actions had been recorded. They must have believed they were immune from the law they were charged with upholding.

This time the reaction to the tape sparked global protests against police brutality, following the precepts of the already established Black Lives Matter movement. The authorities took quick action and indicted Derek Chauvin, the man who stared at the camera with dead eyes as he ground his knee into George Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, snuffing the life from him. The police reform movement took on new urgency as this grotesque display of authoritarian brutality, echoed by dozens and dozens of previous such incidents filmed by witnesses and police body cams, seemed to be the last straw.

But when I thought of the Rodney King beating and everything that happened after, I had to wonder whether we’d made any progress in that time other than providing witness to the violence, sort of the way people used to gather to witness executions by the state (or lynchings by the KKK). Yesterday, I think we got an answer. Yes, there has been a little progress after all.

The trial of Derek Chauvin was impressive. They managed to seat a jury that accurately reflected the community. The defendant had professional counsel. The judge was fair and the prosecution did its job which is often not the case in cases where police are on trial since prosecutors and cops see themselves as being on the same team. Perhaps most importantly, the blue wall evaporated and police testified against Chauvin with clear compelling testimony, declaring that what he did was unacceptable. (If only one of the cops on the scene had raised those objections and knocked Chauvin off of Floyd’s neck, the man might be alive today.)

In other words, we saw a fair trial of a police officer. And instead of the video being used to create reasonable doubt as the defense successfully did in the Rodney King case, the video was the star witness and it convicted Derek Chauvin.

Crowds gathered all over the country last night upon word of the verdict. Rather than the days of rage we experienced in 1992, this time people were able to hug each other in relief that a little bit of justice was done for once. They could hold candlelight vigils and silent marches for George Floyd and instead of feeling impotent in the face of this ongoing struggle for equality and dignity for Black Americans they could feel a little hope that maybe it’s just possible that things can change.

But nobody in those crowds felt this verdict meant that the job was done. President Biden and Vice President Harris both gave eloquent, heartfelt speeches promising to take up the mantle of police reform. Civil rights leaders and politicians pledged to keep the pressure on. But most impressive were the people in the streets yesterday telling the media that they planned to keep protesting, keep filming, keep demanding that this country finally live up to its purported ideals and create a system of justice in which all people are treated equally and fairly. None of them think it is going to be easy. But they are not going to stop trying.

People gathered at the scene of the outbreak of the Rodney King uprising in South Central Los Angeles yesterday too. And they said some things were better:

It shouldn’t have taken 30 years to get there but considering it’s a centuries-old problem, at least it’s a start.

Snag a vaccine appointment, then face the next hurdle: how to get there?

The airport says a lot about Cortez, Colorado: The single-engine planes that fly into its one-room airport seat nine passengers at most. The city of about 9,000 is known largely as a gateway to beautiful places like Mesa Verde National Park and the Four Corners Monument. But covid vaccines have made Cortez a destination in its own right.

“We had a couple fly in to get their vaccine from Denver that couldn’t get it in the Denver metro area,” said Marc Meyer, director of pharmacy services and infection control for Southwest Health System, which includes clinics and a community hospital in Cortez. Others have come from neighboring states and as far away as California, Florida and the Carolinas. “They all come back for their second dose,” he said. “Because it’s so hard to get in the cities.”

With vaccines now becoming available to the general public in much of the country, the privilege of easy access is coming into sharper focus. On the most extreme end, vaccine tourists with means can nab inoculations, as Forbes has reported, in places such as Israel, the United Arab Emirates and even Cuba, where ads offered “mojitos and vaccine.” On the flip side, some people have found it hard to get to a vaccine appointment a few miles away.

In fact, around the same time people were flying into Cortez to get their shots, Meyer said, some locals couldn’t get to vaccine locations. That was particularly true for people who are homebound or homeless.

So Meyer and his colleagues came up with a vaccine SWAT team of sorts, composed of paramedics and a handful of ambulances stocked with vaccine vials. The team visited about 40 homebound people. For 30 or so people who are homeless in the area, Meyer snagged leftover doses of the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine from a nearby county.

But he said he doesn’t know if his team got to everyone who wanted vaccines. “The problem with health disparities in rural areas is there’s no data,” he said. “It would be really helpful to know how many people have transportation issues.”

A KHN analysis of Colorado health department data shows that by the end of March about 43% of Coloradans who had received their first doses, and had addresses on file, got those shots outside of their home county. At least 60,000 Coloradans — about as many people as live in Grand Junction, the biggest city in western Colorado — got their first vaccine dose 50 or more miles away, as the crow flies, from their home ZIP codes.

And the state vaccinated more than 20,000 people from out of state — tourists, traveling nurses, cross-border dwellers and others whose primary residence is elsewhere — about 1% of the total number of people who had received first doses by April 1 in Colorado.

Other states have noticed similar migrations. Missouri, for example, saw an exodus of urbanites to rural areas in search of vaccines, leading critics to say doses had been misallocated in a way that neglected cities such as St. Louis.

But traveling for a vaccine requires money, flexibility with one’s time and a vehicle. Transportation was a health issue even before the pandemic, said Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Researchers writing in the American Journal of Public Health found that, in 2017 alone, 5.8 million people in the U.S. delayed medical care because they lacked transportation. This group was disproportionately poor and had chronic health conditions.

Access issues, Freeman said, are likely being mischaracterized as vaccine hesitancy. Even some who live in cities with robust public transportation and ride-hailing services have found themselves jumping through hoops to get to a vaccine appointment.

Bob McIntyre, 81, lives in Denver in an apartment close enough to a major highway that the traffic “sounds like ocean waves in the distance.” But he doesn’t have a car. “It’s just too expensive,” he said. Before the pandemic hit, McIntyre could walk or take public transit. With the coronavirus circulating, though, he’d rather not be closed in a box with a bunch of strangers. “So, I’ve been hermitized.”

Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft have offered free rides to vaccine appointments, but McIntyre doesn’t feel safe using those services. He eventually learned of A Little Help, a nonprofit that offers everything from free yardwork to rides for covid vaccine appointments. Volunteer drivers took him to both of his vaccine slots, which were about 15 minutes from his home but otherwise would have remained out of reach.

Maggie Lea, director of programs at Mile High Connects, worries others may not be as lucky. Her organization believes more affordable and accessible transportation is key to achieving a racially and economically equitable Denver — especially right now.

“There are people who may or may not be motivated already to get the vaccine,” she said. “If they don’t have access to transport, or it’s particularly expensive for them to get over there, or burdensome for them to get to a vaccine site, we’re noticing that they just won’t go.”

Transit systems can use federal covid relief funding to help people get their vaccines, said Amy Conrick, director of the National Center for Mobility Management.

In West Texas, the SPARTAN public transit agency offers free rides to covid vaccine appointments, including many at its headquarters.

In Oxford, Ohio, older adults can get vaccinated by nurses aboard buses that accommodate oxygen tanks and wheelchairs. The city set up a hotline for residents to schedule their vaccine and transportation in one call.

“We live in a rural community where some people just don’t have internet,” said Assistant City Manager Jessica Greene.

Transit systems need to talk to public health officials, Conrick said. “Now is the time,” she said. “Well, actually, yesterday was the time.”

But many places lack decent public transit. For them, Freeman of NACCHO imagines covid shots waiting anywhere people congregate, even at NASCAR races, once the supply increases. “You should be able to just turn in any direction and be able to get a vaccine,” she said.

For now, demand is so high that vaccines go into arms as soon as they are available, Freeman said, but soon public health officials will have plenty of vaccine but a shrinking group of people who want to bother getting it. “We will hit a hard stop where we’re looking full face onto the universe of people that do not want to get the vaccine.”

Then, she said, it will be even more important for vaccination to not only be possible, but for it to be easy.

MyPillow man Mike Lindell’s new social platform does not have optimal launch

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s new alternative social media platform FRANK — which (somehow) is supposed to stand for “Free, Forthright, and Sincere Expression of Speech” — was originally scheduled to welcome fearless pro-Trump and pro-pillow users last Thursday at midnight. That deadline came and went with no successful launch, and another was scheduled for Monday at 9 a.m. Eastern. That one didn’t happen either.

Instead, the bedding magnate, whose company filed a $1.6 billion dollar lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems on Monday — precisely matching Dominion’s defamation suit against Lindell and his company — remained in his familiar domain, hosting a disjointed live stream described as a “48-hour Frank-a-thon,” interrupted by prank callers and an impromptu interview with a Salon reporter. (This one.) 

Thursday’s “VIP” launch of FRANK had been endlessly hyped by Lindell during numerous appearances on Steve Bannon’s podcast and guest shots on about every far-right YouTube channel under the sun. Early adopters could supposedly get onto the platform ahead of others and seize a golden opportunity to learn how FRANK worked. But the launch on Thursday night never got off the ground, leaving many of Lindell’s most loyal fans asking each other hopeless questions and missing out not on a good night’s sleep.

“Launch is a fail, but that’s forgivable; not communicating isn’t,” one supporter of Lindell’s wrote on Telegram. “Can someone call Mike?” another user asked the group. Many people in pro-Trump forums and followers of Lindell’s Telegram account stayed up into the early morning hours on Friday, waiting for the platform to go live, which did not happen. When Salon spoke to Lindell about Thursday’s failure during our live conversation Monday night, Lindell described the complaints from his fans as a bunch of “bots.”

Over the weekend, there was no communication from Lindell to his supporters online about the status of FRANK, but the pillow maven did appear at the far-right “Health and Freedom Conference” in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, where he delivered a cookie-cutter stump speech with conference-goers. 

With Thursday, FRANK’s for-real was still set for Monday at 9 a.m. The clock ticked past that hour with Lindell’s website displaying error messages. The new era of “free speech” was embodied, at least for the moment, by a “502” page. 

Lindell finally responded to his unhappy would-be users on Monday by claiming on Parler that his site was “having a massive attack against it.” He added, “We are working to get it up ASAP! Thank you for your patience.”

Things did not improve from that point, as Lindell’s live Frank-a-thon was disrupted by a series of prank phone calls, including one that opened with an audio clip of Donald Trump saying, “Hello, everyone.” Lindell appeared overjoyed by the prospect that the former president was calling in to congratulate him and responded, “Ah, we have the president here ― our real president, everyone. Hello, Mr. President!” 

Those high hopes came to nothing, as the caller yelled: “MacronShow.com, bitches!” before hanging up. He later identified himself as Ron Blackman, host of the British podcast “The Macron Show.” 

Lindell did not seem to take the prank calls in stride, declaring at one point: “We were under the biggest attack in history for a website.” Pressed about the supposed “attack” during his conversation with Salon on Monday night, Lindell maintained it was the work of a “hacker.” “My phone has been hacked,” Lindell said. “I have guys here; we have protection; we have cyber guys. Yes, it was hacked, and yes, we have proof.”

In a follow-up interview on Tuesday, Lindell seemed to recognize that he had trolled by a prankster on Monday, suggesting that he hoped to pursue criminal charges against Blackman. “We found out who the guy is, and we’re going to try to get him arrested,” Lindell told Salon. “It’s the same guy! We’re investigating him!” When asked why police or the justice system would be interested in a prank caller, Lindell hung up.

Lindell’s long and difficult Monday culminated with the on-air 30-minute conversation with this reporter, which left the sleep entrepreneur fuming. When Salon asked about Lindell’s refusal to drop his unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, he referred to his two-hour “documentary” that recycles a number of discredited and sometimes contradictory claims. “I have put out ‘Absolute Proof’ — what part of that didn’t you believe?” Lindell declared. “What part didn’t you believe when you say ‘unsubstantiated’? What do I gotta do? I’ve spent millions of dollars!” 

After that Lindell kept interrupting this reporter with a seemingly random stream of thoughts, at one point offering this reporter a job at FRANK if Salon were to publish an article entitled: “Why wouldn’t Dominion show us their machines?” 

Later in the long night, Lindell turned his wrath to The Daily Beast, along with other journalists who have documented the pillow CEO’s numerous false and misleading claims. “You guys are cowards,” Lindell told viewers, rhetorically addressing Daily Beast reporters Asawin Suebsaeng, Justin Baragona and Adam Rawnsley.

Jared Holt, a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab who studies extremism and far-right media, told Salon on Monday that he suspects people in conservative circles are willing to indulge Lindell’s obsessions because of the financial backing he can provide. 

“Mike Lindell is being had by the people around him,” Holt said. “All the various products and ventures Lindell has going on, whether it’s a pseudo-documentary film or a social media platform, are very expensive endeavors. Someone is taking Lindell’s money from him to produce this stuff. I’ve always gotten the sense that what Mike Lindell has to say goes as far as his ability to write checks” to fellow conservative pundits and influencers. “In the case of Dan Bongino or Diamond and Silk,” Holt added, “it’s worth considering if either of them has received financial support or sponsorships from Mike.”

Lindell claimed during his Monday interview with Salon that his website had attracted more than 90 million unique visitors. Since it was broken for much of the day, that seems implausible. By 5 a.m. Tuesday, the Frank-a-thon had come to an end well short of the 48-hour mark, and Lindell’s video channel was re-running programming from Monday’s day of blunders.

You can watch the full interview Salon had with Lindell here: Part 1 and Part 2.

A sweeping study shows how humans changed the environment over 12,000 years

One environmental narrative, common to dystopian science fiction, goes like this: humans start to colonize the planet, and slowly take up more and more space until there’s nothing wild or untouched on Earth. Humanity’s infectious spread over the globe slowly eats the planet’s resources alive. 

As it turns out, this narrative is all wrong — at least for the past 12,000 years, according to a new study. Humans, researchers found, occupy roughly the same amount of land on Earth that they always have in that span. That means that our planet’s myriad environmental problems aren’t exactly the cause of human societies spreading, but rather the way that we misuse resources that exist. Evidently, humans roamed about the same places they always had on Earth without stirring up too much trouble, at least until the advent of industrial capitalist societies. 

The article, which was rooted in a deep understanding of our history as a species, was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In it, researchers reported that human mismanagement of resources is the main cause of environmental problems — more so than the spread of human societies into the so-called “wild.”

The scholars — who ranged across disciplines and came from the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia and many other countries — determined this by combining recent data about land use and population sizes with archaeological information on land use throughout the millennia. They calculated how much of the planet’s land mass (excluding Antarctica) was inhabited by people over the last 12,000 years. That number, intriguingly, hasn’t changed that much: Roughly 27% of above-water land was “untouched” 10,000 years ago, a number that has only fallen to around 19% today.

The main difference in that span is not in how much land has been inhabited by people, but how those inhabitants cared for the land. The authors found that many ancient cultures were careful to preserve biodiversity hot spots, such as those found in the Amazon and the Congo, and as a result minimized or prevented ecological problems. The tipping point wasn’t the massive growth in the human population but rather how we shifted our land use. Since the industrial revolution in the 19th century, urbanization, deforestation, factory farming, mining and other irresponsible land uses have put our planet in danger.

“With rare exceptions, current biodiversity losses are caused not by human conversion or degradation of untouched ecosystems, but rather by the appropriation, colonization, and intensification of use in lands inhabited and used by prior societies,” the authors write. “Global land use history confirms that empowering the environmental stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities will be critical to conserving biodiversity across the planet.”

Notably, the “red flag” in this story is not that humans have somewhat expanded the areas of land that they inhabit. It is that we now know that people have lived on more than two-thirds of the globe’s non-Antarctic land for more than 10,000 years. The problem is not that lands are pristine until any human being decides to live on them, but rather that certain cultures exploit the land — and often the indigenous communities who resided on it — in ways that are ecologically unsustainable, to say nothing of inhumane.

There are other “red flags” that have recently emerged in terms of the health of our planet. In September the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released a paper revealing that population sizes of “mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish” have fallen by 68 percent since 1970, constituting an “unprecedented” decline in Earth’s biodiversity. They added that people are overusing the planet’s biocapacity by at least 56 percent, writing that “a key problem is the mismatch between the artificial ‘economic grammar’ which drives public and private policy and ‘nature’s syntax’ which determines how the real world operates.”

Elizabeth Kolbert, staff writer for the New Yorker and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “The Sixth Extinction,” has identified the mass extinction of species as an alarming factor. (The book’s title refers to how there have been five major mass extinctions in the last 500 million years.) She pointed to coral reefs, which are bleached white due to climate change, as one example.

“This is happening more and more as our impacts become greater and greater and the consequences become larger and larger,” Kolbert told CBS News about human intervention in the natural world. “We’re increasingly faced with situations where the options aren’t great.”

Climate change — or the warming of the planet because of greenhouse gasses emitted through human activity that gets trapped in our atmosphere — is a big culprit here. Last year scientists at McGill University revealed that the threshold for dangerous global warming is likely to be reached between 2027 and 2042. The World Health Organization estimates that, between 2030 and 2050, roughly 250,000 people will die every year because of factors related to climate change. If climate change goes unchecked, experts agree we will see massive population displacement due to rising sea levels, droughts as food supply chains are disrupted, a surge in extreme weather events and large sections of the planet rendered uninhabitable.

There have also been red flags in terms of plastic pollution. Virtually every corner of the ocean has some amount of plastic in it, and the overuse of plastics has been linked in various studies to a dangerous drop in human sperm counts. Since the 1970s human sperm counts in Western countries have dropped from 99 million per milliliter to 47 million per milliliter, with 15 million sperm per milliliter is considered a low sperm count. If this continues unabated, and if it exists outside Western countries (there is not enough data about non-Western countries), humanity could face a mass infertility crisis within the next few decades.

These are hardly alone among red flags. As Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) recently wrote, we are destroyed one-third of the planet’s forest cover in the last two centuries, overfished one-third of the world’s fish stocks and watched as carbon pollution is warming and acidifying the oceans.

“We do not exist independently of nature,” NRDC explains on their website. “Humans need pollinators to grow fruits and vegetables, freshwater streams and wetlands to supply and filter drinking water, fertile soils to meet our agricultural demands, forests to provide medicines, and oceans to provide food. A million pending extinctions is a huge threat to our own quality of life on this planet—and our continued existence on it.”

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

A quarter of the U.S. population is vaccinated. So why are COVID-19 cases still rising?

On Monday, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), warned that the country’s seven-day average of COVID-19 cases hit 67,440 cases day. That was a marked increase from a month ago — when, as Walensky noted, the seven-day average was “just over 53,000 per day.

“Sadly, the seven-day average of daily deaths are now increasing, with six consecutive days of increases, to about 695 deaths per day,” Walensky said. 

The slow rise in COVID-19 cases around the country might appear incongruous with another basic public health fact: in the same span of time, tens of millions more Americans have been fully vaccinated against the novel coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. According to CDC, more than 50 percent of U.S. adults 18 and older in the U.S. have received at least the first dose of the vaccine; nearly 25 percent of the population is fully vaccinated. As Walensky noted on Monday, that means more than 84 million are fully vaccinated; and of the vaccinated, the U.S. has had less than 6,000 “breakthrough infections” in which fully vaccinated individuals tested positive for COVID-19.

Given the rapid rollout of vaccinations, the news about a rise in cases might seem very peculiar. Indeed, shouldn’t cases start to decline as more people get vaccinated? 

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, said the reasons for this are related to demography — specifically, who has been vaccinated, and who hasn’t. 

“If you look at the demographics of the cases that are occurring, they’re often in that twenties to thirties age group which has largely not been vaccinated,” Adalja said. “I think it’s going to take some time for cases to go down as the vaccine penetrates into that population.”

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

Indeed, until this week, availability in all states was based primarily on age brackets; only now are COVID-19 vaccines available to people in their 20s and 30s. And indeed, younger adults appear to be the ones being infected. Last week, the Conway Daily Sun in New Hampshire reported that younger people were accounting for nearly half of the new COVID-19 cases in the state. Young people are also believed to be driving surges in states like Michigan, where young people are getting hospitalized.

Adalja said he thinks the U.S. will see cases fall when more of the population is vaccinated — perhaps around 40 percent, which he says may be an inflection point.

“All you have to do is look at a country like Israel where they’ve been able to vaccinate a huge proportion of their population, and once they got to around 40 percent or so, you started to see cases fall,” Adalja said. “It’s hard to know exactly when we’re going to cross that threshold because the threshold will be crossed by a combination of natural infection, as well as vaccine-induced immunity.”

Adalja noted that “one of the biggest obstacles now is going to be vaccine hesitancy.”

According to an Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last week, 30 percent of those surveyed said they were either “not likely at all” or “not very likely” to get vaccinated when it was possible. 20 percent of those surveyed said “I won’t get the vaccine” after the vaccine becomes available to them.

Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon it is hard to make sweeping generalizations about this trend across the country because of how the pandemic varies around the country. “It’s like there are almost 50 different pandemics going on across the country,” Gandhi mused. 

Gandhi noted that 50 percent of new cases are coming from a few states: Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania. One metric Gandhi keeps her eye on is what she refers to as the “hospitalization per case rate,” which tracks the number of cases that lead to hospitalizations.

“They’re starting to delink, and what I mean by delink is that the same number of cases are not leading to the same number of hospitalizations that we used to have,” Gandhi said. “I think that’s from vaccinating our older individuals first.” In other words, fewer COVID-19 cases are leading to hospitalization, which is a good sign.

Gandhi said, however, that large numbers of younger people getting infected will lead to an uptick in hospitalizations, too. Gandhi also pointed to Israel as an example of how the U.S. could expect to reach a turning point.

The spread of highly transmissible variants might be playing a role in the increase in cases across the country, but Gandhi said it’s likely not the only reason why. The COVID-19 strain known at B.1.1.7., which was first identified in the United Kingdom, is believed to be 40 to 70 percent more transmissible.

“I’m sure that I’m sure in places where B.1.1.7 is circulating, and that was true in Israel as well, it does seem to have increased transmissibility and I’m sure it is contributing,”  Gandhi said. “However, that cannot be the only reason, because there are places that have equally high percentages of variants and do not have the surges.”

Gandhi said another contributing factor to the rise across the U.S. could be the propensity for people to gather, along with the degree of natural immunity in a state’s population. But she said she’s hopeful could be nearing the “inflection point” where cases start to decrease nationwide.

“I think we’re very, very close,” Gandhi said.

Watch the first trailer for “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings”

Captain America is retired. Iron Man is dead. Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is over, and it’s time for a new generation of heroes to take the place of the old. 2021 will be a big year for that, as Marvel Studios sees if fans are interested in watching now that Thanos is dead and buried snapped out of existence.

There are still some legacy movies on the way, like the solo “Black Widow” film and “Thor: Love and Thunder.” The new kids on the block include Eternals, which comes out in November, and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” which hits theaters a couple months earlier.

Marvel dropped the first teaser trailer for the latter today. Simu Liu plays the title character, a martial arts master trained to be an assassin by the villainous Ten Rings organization. He’s since tried to make a normal life for himself in San Francisco, but soon enough must confront his past, and also ninja-like fighters and lions. Check it out:

The movie also stars Awkwafina, Tony Leung, Fala Chen, Meng’er Zhang, Florian Munteanu, Ronny Chieng and Michelle Yeoh.

“Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” comes out on Sept. 3.