Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

RNC HQ locked down after suspicious blood vials delivered

The Republican National Committee’s Washington D.C. headquarters was briefly locked down on Wednesday, after two vials of blood were received in the mail.

The vials, which were reportedly addressed to Donald Trump, spurred a response from Capitol Police’s Hazardous Incident Response Division before being cleared. Business resumed midday on Wednesday, and the RNC went straight to work trying to pin the blame on left-leaning political actors without evidence, per CBS News.

“Staff has resumed their office duties because we remain unintimidated and undeterred in our efforts to elect President Trump to the White House,” RNC chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement.

Capitol Police have yet to release information on potential suspects or motives, but calls for violence against political bodies and representatives have become increasingly salient following the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesperson for the U.S. Secret Service, confirmed in a statement that the vials were addressed to “a Secret Service protectee,” adding that the vials were being tested.

“Agents of the U.S. Secret Service Washington Field Office responded to investigate the potential threat. The package contained vials of liquid suspected to be blood, and the packaging and contents were collected for further testing,” the statement on X read.

The RNC and DNC headquarters were previously targeted with pipe bombs, prompting lockdowns on January 6th. That case remains unsolved.

The Republican National Committee, which has taken on an undemocratic tone in recent months, will officially nominate Trump at its July convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Advocacy for political violence and intimidation has taken an increasingly prominent seat in the Trump campaign, while White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemned the vials.

“We are going to do what we consistently have done from here, condemn any political violence, threats or intimidation that has no place in any community and certainly in our political discourse,” Jean-Pierre said.

Uvalde victims’ families reach settlement with city

Nearly two years after the harrowing shooting that claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas — and the subsequent investigations into police inaction — the families of victims are getting a sliver of justice.

In a $2 million settlement with the families of 17 of those killed announced Wednesday, plaintiffs hoped to seek justice without leaving the town in financial ruins, attorney for the families Josh Koskoff said. Parents, still grieving from the shooting, said that they’ll turn their focus toward other groups in their fight for accountability.

“No amount of money is worth the lives of our children. Justice and accountability has always been my main concern. We’ve been let down so many times, that time has come to do the right thing,” Javier Cazares, father of 9-year-old victim Jacklyn Cazares, said at a news conference, per CNN.

City officials expressed gratitude for the settlement, which will keep the community afloat and pay out a sum from insurance. The group of family members announced plans to take Texas Department of Public Safety officers and school district officials to court.

Koskoff said that it was Texas DPS who "blamed the least-equipped" Uvalde officials and law enforcement, and made "shocking and extensive failures" in its own response. 

Lawsuits against Uvalde officials and police, who took over an hour to stop a shooter who killed nearly two dozen, alleged that a lack of urgency in response led to several of the deaths, a claim which a Department of Justice report backed up.

“Cascading failures of leadership, decision-making, tactics, policy, and training . . . contributed to those failures and breakdowns,” the report said. Per Koskoff, families may sue federal law enforcement at a later date for a botched response on their part.

Prosecutors blast “garbage” motion to dismiss Trump classified documents case

After Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to stall Donald Trump’s classified documents handling case, a prosecutor on special counsel Jack Smith’s team called a motion to toss the already-delayed proceedings “garbage” on Wednesday, per the Associated Press.

The motion, which argued that prosecutors unfairly targeted Donald Trump’s valet Walt Nauta for refusing to cooperate with their investigation, was the former president’s defense team’s latest attempt to halt the case.

The 40-count charges, stemming from the discovery of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left office, have been stuck in limbo since Judge Cannon indefinitely pushed back a trial earlier in May. But today’s motion on the status of Nauta as a co-defendant could’ve ended a bid for a trial altogether.

“There was a campaign to get Mr. Nauta to cooperate in the first federal prosecution of a former president of the United States and when he refused, they prosecuted him,” Nauta’s attorney Stanley Woodward reportedly argued. “That’s a violation of his constitutional rights.”

As prosecutors noted, it’s common to offer a deal to would-be defendants in exchange for their testimony, and there was no sign of vindictive prosecution. According to an AP report, prosecutor David Harbach called the argument “garbage,” adding that “there is not a single bit of evidence of animus toward Mr. Nauta.”

Cannon, who has fielded several motions for dismissal before, and tossed many of them, faces her own scrutiny over her handling of the case. A Tuesday filing suggests that the case could’ve seen a trial already if it weren’t for Cannon’s moves. 

The classified documents case added yet another layer earlier in the week, as a newly-unsealed legal filing from the Trump defense which describes the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago led to Trump making claims that President Joe Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out." The FBI refuted the claim, and Jack Smith’s team refuted the motion itself, arguing that the investigation was measured.

Lauryn Hill, Beyoncé, Kendrick Lamar and the Beatles are among Apple Music 100 best albums

Lauryn Hill has clinched the No. 1 spot in Apple Music's 100 best albums.

The hip-hop star's only solo album "The Miseducation of Ms. Lauryn Hill" which came out in 1998 beat out Michael Jackson's "Thriller" for the top spot on the music list. Hill is the most recent Black woman and first rapper to win the coveted album of the year award at the Grammys in 1999.

In a statement to Apple Music, Hill said, “I appreciate the acknowledgment, I really do, but I’d be remiss not to also acknowledge all of the music and artists who informed and inspired me. The leaders of community and movements that sparked me, the social dynamics and music scenes, both older and current at the time that intrigued and inspired me to contribute."

Following Jackson's No. 2 spot on the list is "Abbey Road" by The Beatles, "Purple Rain" by Prince & The Revolution and "Blonde" by Frank Ocean.

Artists like Beyoncé, Kendrick Lamar, NirvanaStevie Wonder and Amy Winehouse also made the list's competitive Top 10, which culminated a week of breadcrumbing of the previous 90 items on the list. The list has taken social media by storm with memes and heated debates and discussions since its initial launch on May 13.

Out of the 100 albums compiled by Apple Music, hip-hop was the dominating genre, with 22 albums making the list. R&B followed with 19 albums. Alternative and rock tied with 15 albums from each genre. Other genres like country, Latin and reggae only had one album place on the list, with artists Kacey Musgraves, Bad Bunny and Bob Marley representing their respective genres. However, some have taken issue with how few albums from these genres had made the cut.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C7RfiLbxdvO/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The Diddy video fallout: Women are coming forward with their own stories of domestic abuse

A new chapter in the Diddy saga has unfolded. 

The rapper and former CEO of Bad Boy Entertainment, known as Sean Combs, has felt the fallout of a bombshell lawsuit filed by his long-time ex-partner Cassie Ventura last year. While the lawsuit that alleged a decade of pervasive sexual assault, drugging and sex trafficking was settled a day after it was filed, the former music executive has been subject to a multitude of subsequent lawsuits detailing similar claims. However, just last weekend, a video of Combs physically assaulting Ventura in 2016 was widely circulated.

The video explicitly showed Ventura in the hallway of The InterContinental Hotel in Century City, Los Angeles. As she attempted to flee Combs, he followed her down the hallway and knocked her to the ground. The video also showed Combs kicking Ventura and dragging her to the floor back to their room.

While Ventura declined to comment on the video, her attorney said, “The gut-wrenching video has only further confirmed the disturbing and predatory behavior of Mr. Combs. Words cannot express the courage and fortitude that Ms. Ventura has shown in coming forward to bring this to light."

As a result of the violent video's wide circulation, it has ignited larger conversations with survivors of domestic abuse speaking to their own experiences. People like "The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin and Tony winner Kristin Chenoweth both shared how the Combs video has triggered the memories of their own experiences. 

During a conversation with other "The View" hosts about Diddy's video and the painful, complicated dynamics surrounding abusive relationships, Griffin said that she wanted to speak to the question people ask of women in abusive relationships: "Why didn't she leave?"

"I once was a victim of domestic abuse in a prior relationship," Griffin said. "It happened once. I was one of the lucky ones where the power dynamics were in my favor — where I could leave, I could walk away, I could remove myself from him. In the vast majority of cases, that is not the case."

Griffin continued, "[Abusers] use financial abuse to keep you, emotional manipulation, and add to that that this is a multi-millionaire, incredibly powerful, incredibly well-connected person."

Another person, who also publicly shared her story was Broadway-winning talent, Chenoweth. She took to X to reveal that the video of Combs was "bothering me so much." The actress received backlash in her replies for saying, "The main thing I need to do is pray for him." 

A reply to her post also highlighted a person's own experience with domestic abuse: "I survived 5 yrs of relentless violence by an ex. Once, he heard me praying for him, and it enraged him. No prayer can change evil. I began praying to be delivered from his evil. March 29, 2021, was my day of deliverance. Plz pray for victims' deliverance, not for evil abusers."

Chenoweth replied in a post that has now been viewed a million times. She stated that she "Never wanted to come out with it, but here we go.

"Several years ago I was severely abused. It took me therapy and prayer to understand I deserved better. I was deeply injured physically and spiritually. The only thing I knew to do when I got out was pray. Pray for myself. Pray for him as he grew up abused. So. There y'all go," she said. 

We need your help to stay independent

Additionally, she said, "A victim has to handle it however [she/he/they] needs to and is best for them." She shared that in talking about her experience, "maybe it helped someone."

However, despite the initial reluctance to share her experiences, Chenoweth said, "I think it happening organically was a Godsend. In some weird way I’m relieved." Countless people supported the actress including actors like Uzo Aduba and Brittney Johnson. Others also felt comfortable enough to share their experiences as well.

For Combs, legal experts have stated, "His career is effectively done." Moreover, after the release of the video, another lawsuit was filed by a model Crystal McKinney on Tuesday in New York. In claims similar to the handful of lawsuits filed against Combs earlier this year, McKinney said in the lawsuit that Combs said she “was going to make it big one day" as a model before allegedly drugging and assaulting her. She said she was introduced to the music mogul when she was 22 and he was 34. 

Second human bird flu case linked to dairy detected in Michigan. Public threat remains low, CDC says

A second dairy worker has tested positive for H5N1, the influenza A virus known as bird flu. The confirmed case involves a Michigan farmworker, the Michigan Department of Health announced on Wednesday. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the risk to the public remains low and that the patient recovered with mild symptoms.

The farmworker in question was regularly exposed to dairy cows, which have been catching the virus as it has spread through dairy and poultry farms throughout the United States the last several months. Bird flu can be fatal, although it is usually treatable; its main symptoms include fever, cough, sore throat, diarrhea, vomiting, muscle aches and fatigue. For the most part the disease is limited to animals like chickens and cows, as well as wild animals such as seals, although the infected Michigan farmworker is the third confirmed human patient in America since 2022 and the second that is related to the dairy industry.

“Michigan has led a swift public health response, and we have been tracking this situation closely since influenza A (H5N1) was detected in poultry and dairy herds in Michigan," said Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, Michigan's chief medical executive, in a statement. "Farmworkers who have been exposed to impacted animals have been asked to report even mild symptoms, and testing for the virus has been made available. The current health risk to the general public remains low."

Australian health authorities also announced on Wednesday that a human bird flu patient has been confirmed for the first time in their country. The case is not related to dairy farms and authorities have said it originated in India. The patient, a child, recovered without spreading the disease to others.

The biggest difficulty in containing the bird flu outbreak is that many states do not thoroughly regulate their agricultural sectors. Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan of the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Ark., told Salon last month that testing is still mostly voluntary. Rajnarayanan urged comprehensive guidelines on what both cattle ranchers and ordinary citizens needs to know.

"Mandatory tests for cattle that are transported is a welcome move. I'd strongly recommend them to include a period of quarantine and retesting before integrating them into the existing herd," Rajnarayanan said. "The recent data about commercial milk samples testing positive for H5N1 fragments suggests a much wider spread of H5N1 among dairy cattle. Several cows are asymptomatic [but] they still spread the virus to others.”

“Fabricated rantings”: Legal experts shred Trump’s “repulsive” attack on Judge Juan Merchan

Legal experts say Donald Trump’s remark urging the public to “look where” the judge in his Manhattan criminal trial “comes from” is the latest instance of the former president working to delegitimize the judiciary while relying on the specter of racism and xenophobia.

As he left the Manhattan courthouse Tuesday, Trump told reporters that Judge Juan Merchan "hates" him.

“Just take a look,” Trump said. “Take a look at him. Take a look at where he comes from. He can’t stand Donald Trump. He’s doing everything in his power.”

Stephen Burbank, emeritus professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, said Trump’s comments are reflective of his tactic of trying to inflame his base and the wider public with "racism" and "phobia."

“‘Take a look at where he comes from’ of course raises again the specter of racism, phobia, a phobia about people of Hispanic origins,” Burbank said. “Simply by the name of a judge it appears he assumed that he would be anti-Trump.”

“He’s doing everything in his power to provide a fair trial to Mr. Trump,” Burbank said. “It’s really quite repulsive, in my view.”

Merchan, who was born in Colombia and immigrated to the U.S. at the age of six, is presiding over Trump’s criminal trial, where he faces a potential four-year prison sentence if found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. 

Charles Geyh, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said Trump’s comments on the judge are aimed at urging his supporters to believe the prosecution is political and sowing distrust in the American justice system.  

“What he's doing here is, in effect, trying to discredit the court as a way to maintain his constituency and preserve their confidence in him by by discrediting the court,” Geyh said. “If and when he loses his case, he can blame the judge, blame the court proceeding, blame the state judiciary, blame the administration of justice that has fallen into liberal hands and so on. That's what I think is going on here, certainly. The business of trying to delegitimize every judiciary, or every court that has his ruling against him is a pattern that we've seen in prior cases.”

Russell Wheeler, a non-resident senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said Trump has a history of criticizing judges he views as unfair. 

“These statements are nothing more than Trump’s fabricated rantings about any judge who makes any ruling that displeases him,” Wheeler said. “He's kept up to the present day, unmoored from reality and with no concern about the threats of violence that they provoke.”

We need your help to stay independent

Geyh said Trump’s statements about Merchan are a “carbon copy” of comments he made in 2016 about Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican background. 

During a civil fraud case against Trump University in 2016, then-candidate Trump called Curiel a "hater" because he was "Hispanic" and "Mexican." 

Trump maintained in interviews that because of Curiel’s ancestry, he was biased against him for wanting to build a border wall. Curiel was born in Indiana, went to law school at Indiana University, and, like Merchan, is an American citizen.

Geyh said he thought there was an argument for Trump to be cited for contempt in the Trump University case: “Because I think of that disrespect for the court’s order and rulings, and that fundamental impartiality was at stake.”

Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., at the time disavowed Trump’s comments, which he called “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Ryan said he still supported then-nominee Trump.

Almost eight years later, Trump has yet to receive public pushback from top Republican allies.

Salon reached out to current House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., but his office did not respond to that emailed request for comment by Wednesday afternoon. Trump’s campaign also did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

In 2016, Trump issued a statement saying: "I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial."

Trump has a gag order limiting what he can say about his Manhattan trial – but it does not include comments about Merchan. 

“The gag order was very carefully crafted to protect the people who don't have a power to protect themselves,” Burbank said. “Judge Merchan obviously doesn't suffer from the extraordinary insecurity of Mr. Trump. Which is one of the reasons why, but not probably the most important reason why, he didn't include himself in that gag order. He doesn't have any problem taking care of himself.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Merchan did expand the gag order to bar Trump from making statements about family members of the judge and prosecutors. 

He referenced the chilling effect on the criminal case — as prosecutors' called Trump's language "dangerous" and "violent."

Merchan said that Trump's "pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose. It merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well, are 'fair game' for Defendant's vitriol. It is no longer just a mere possibility or a reasonable likelihood that there exists a threat to the integrity of the judicial proceedings. The threat is very real."

That came after Trump falsely claimed that Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, used an image of him behind bars as a profile picture on X. But a court spokesperson said that X account had not belonged to Merchan since she deleted her handle a year earlier. 

Burbank noted that Trump is now “evading” the gag order by having his surrogates stand outside the courthouse levying claims about witnesses, jurors and Judge Merchan’s daughter. 

HuffPost reporter Andrew Rice said on MSNBC that he saw Trump editing statements for his Republican allies to say.

The gag order also bars Trump from directing others to say statements

“Judge Merchan could have initiated an inquiry into whether that violated the gag rule or namely, if Trump was responsible for violations of the gag order,” Burbank said. “That would be a circus. And that's just what Trump wants. He wants chaos… The way Judge Merchan has run these proceedings is he's just not going to allow it to be turned into a circus.”

Trump has so far paid $10,000 in fines for contempt in his Manhattan trial – and was fined thousands for violating a gag order in his civil fraud trial. 

Geyh said that Merchan is in a tough place when it comes to enforcing the gag order against a presidential candidate. 

Judges traditionally take “steps necessary to preserve the integrity of their proceedings and respect for the solemnity of their proceedings, and for the perception of traditional impartiality that they're struggling to preserve," he said. “Letting him go and do what he's doing erodes that respect for the court. But if they go ahead and cite him and pursue a contempt kind of route, they will simply create other problems. In other words, it will exacerbate the feelings of a large segment of the public that the people are out to get the president and that this isn't a fair proceeding. And so it really does underscore just how tense and intractable the situation is.”

Geyh said that Trump’s recurring complaint that judges from another political party could never give him a fair shake are highly troubling – and not enough to get any judge disqualified in the U.S. judicial system.

“The idea that no person with a Democratic background could rule on a Republican litigant or no Republican judge could rule on a Democratic litigant would be impossible,” Geyh said. 

And he said Trump’s comments are reflective of a common tactic by individuals fearing a loss in court.  

“This does happen in some cases, where a litigant reaches the point of concluding that he's basically losing on the merits,” Geyh said. “And so he starts saying things about the judge in order to basically claim now 'the judge doesn't like me, because of the things I've said.' In other words, you insult the judge, bait the judge, anger the judge. And then when it works, you basically say, ‘See, the judge is biased against me, because of the stuff I've said.’”

Trump envoy to Arab-Americans flops at Michigan meeting, talks about Gaza’s real estate potential

Joe Biden's continued support for Israel is tanking his approval ratings among Arab-Americans, but Donald Trump's attempt to divert some of that support into his corner ended poorly on Tuesday when his chosen envoy flopped and offended at a meeting with about 40 Arab-American leaders in Michigan.

A source that attended the meeting told NOTUS, a nonprofit media outlet, that Trump's outreach lead was Richard Grennell, the former Trump administration official who The Washington Post refers to as Trump's "shadow Secretary of State." He did not impress, the source said, describing him bluntly as "clueless on the Middle East."

The meeting took place at an Italian restaurant in Troy, Michigan, a swing state  with an Arab-American population of more than 200,000  that Biden won in 2020 by 250,000 votes. According to sources at the dinner, Grenell fixated on what Arab-Americans could do for Trump without seriously offering anything Trump could do for them, all while expressing little sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.

Grenell even doubled down on comments made by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, that Israel should remove Palestinians from areas that could be developed as "valuable waterfront property," according to an attendee. “He repeated Jared Kushner’s statement about beachfront property, which I think floated like a lead balloon in the room,” the person said.

Grenell also boasted about Trump's role in the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and some Arab countries. Otherwise, the sources observed, Grenell just said "typical Republican things" about the Israel-Hamas war. Republicans have generally encouraged Israel to prosecute its war in Gaza with even more vehemence than their Democratic counterparts.

Trump, for his part, has said that Israel should "finish what they started."

The Arab-American participants told Grenell that they had three conditions for supporting Trump: support for an immediate ceasefire; funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the primary source of humanitarian aid in Gaza; and passing the Leahy Laws, which prohibit the U.S. from funding foreign military forces that violate human rights laws.

Grenell, who came to make the case for Trump, did not commit to those conditions, and both sides left the meeting unsatisfied, sources said.

That the meeting would take place was reported by The Washington Post on Monday. The outlet said it was scheduled after Grenell contacted a Syrian-American doctor, Yahya Basha, who said he hasn't yet decided who he will support in November.

"It's too early to say Trump is the one," Basha said earlier in the week. "That's the reason we are hosting an event for his representative, to see how he views the community and what kinds of things he will do."

Billions of people cook over open fires. Are gas stoves the solution?

Could changing the way you cook help fight global warming? If you've considered this question and you live in a rich country, you've probably been thinking about whether to ditch your gas stove for an electric or induction cooktop. But for nearly a third of the world's population, even that gas stove would be a big step up from the preindustrial cooking methods still in wide use across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Some 2.3 billion people regularly cook their meals over open fires or on makeshift stoves using fuels like wood, animal dung, charcoal, and coal — methods that generate deadly local air pollution and are far more carbon-intensive than the electric and gas stoves enjoyed by the relatively wealthy of the world.

The lack of access to these "clean cooking" technologies is responsible for 3.7 million premature deaths annually, due to the harms of breathing smoke from cooking fires (which often accumulates indoors), according to a report from the International Energy Agency, or IEA. Fortunately, the total number of people without access to clean cooking is falling, largely due to progress in Asia and Latin America. But in Africa, that number is trending in the opposite direction, as campaigns for clean cooking have not been able to keep up with massive population growth in sub-Saharan Africa. In an effort to address this, representatives of 55 nations convened in Paris last week for the Summit on Clean Cooking in Africa, organized by the IEA. The marquee announcement of the conference was a $2.2 billion pledge by governments and the private sector to increase access to clean cooking in Africa.

While cooking disparities have been recognized for decades as a health crisis and driver of gender-based inequality in the world's poorest regions — given that women are typically responsible for cooking in these households and thus most directly exposed to indoor air pollution — the climate crisis has given the issue additional urgency in recent years. Darby Jack, a professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University, attended last week's summit and told Grist that "there was a fair amount of focus on clean cooking as a low-hanging climate fix," in contrast to the issue's longstanding framing as primarily a public health crisis.

Smoke-spewing cookstoves and fires are responsible for around 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — roughly equivalent to the carbon contribution of global air travel. But besides being an easier problem to solve than the notoriously difficult-to-decarbonize aviation sector, universal access to clean cooking would bring a litany of attendant health and welfare benefits, and help preserve ecosystems and biodiversity threatened by unsustainable wood-harvesting methods.

At the summit, a host of signatories including countries, civil society organizations, and corporations issued a declaration "making 2024 the pivotal year for clean cooking." But conspicuously absent from the declaration was any mention of what Jack described as a "perennial debate" among advocates of clean cooking: the question of what kind of stoves count as appropriate improvements on preindustrial methods and, in particular, the role of liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, in addressing the crisis.

"Is it smart, is it ethical, is it good for the Earth to promote a fossil fuel, when in other domains we're trying to move away from fossil fuels?" asked Jack, whose own answer to this question, and that of many other experts, is yes — for now.

"Long term, we want to electrify everything and have renewable energy, but that's a long way away," Jack added.

In the U.S., Jack's work has involved advocating for moving people from gas to electric stoves, but he believes Africans can't afford to wait for the infrastructure and investment necessary to avoid using LPG as a "transition fuel."

"The ideal thing would be cooking with electricity from a clean grid, and that's just really far away in Africa. It'll take billions of dollars to get the grid ready for electric cooking, and further billions to get the grid clean," Jack told Grist. And in the meantime, he noted, the industrialized world is busy building out natural gas infrastructure. "The idea we should tell Africa they can't use gas for environmental reasons, while we're not just using it but further developing it, is a profound hypocrisy," he added.

Other researchers disagree. One of them is Daniel Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Although he considers Jack a friend with a reasonable position on the issue, Kammen contends that the adoption of LPG stoves "slows down the process for us to switch to electric cooking" in Africa, and he argues that the rapidly increasing cost-effectiveness of electric cooking is underappreciated by health researchers.

Kammen told Grist that he sees the enthusiasm for LPG stoves as stemming from their role as "a lifeline being thrown to the fossil fuel companies — fossil fuel companies want to keep them on the agenda."

Indeed, the Paris summit was heavily attended by gas companies, and despite the lack of official recognition of LPG in the event's declaration, some in the industry celebrated the attention as a "turning point" for the fuel. At the conference, the Dutch commodities trading multinational Vitol announced $550 million worth of clean cooking investments in Africa, partly in the form of LPG infrastructure. The interest in clean cooking as a climate solution has also given rise to a growing carbon credit market in which polluters such as airlines buy "cookstove credits" that pay for some portion of the transition from older to newer forms of household cooking — though a study Kammen co-authored this year showed that such credits often dramatically overestimate the emissions reductions that the new stoves achieve.

                 

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/equity/clean-cooking-summit-gas-stoves/.

                 

                 

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

                 
                

“I love just unabashedly pop music”: How “Idea of You” songwriter crafted August Moon’s catchy sound

If you didn't have a boy band phase in your past you may have missed out on a crucial part of being a teenager: obsession with fandom, pop music and superstardom. But don't worry — August Moon is here for all of us even the ones who missed out on this experience.

The catch is that August Moon is a fictional band whipped up by the minds behind the rom-com "The Idea of You" starring Oscar winner Anne Hathaway and the internet's new every boyfriend Nicholas Galitzine. Prime Video's romantic comedy has captured the hearts of boy band fans across the world and smashed the streamer's records with nearly 50 million worldwide viewers in its first two weeks of release. According to the studio, it has become Amazon MGM’s No. 1 romantic-comedy debut of all time.

Its popularity may have something to do with the central characters Solène (Anne Hathaway) and Hayes' (Nicholas Galitzine) steamy, loving age-gap relationship. Solène is a 39-year-old art gallery owner in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Los Angeles who's also a recent divorcée and a mother to a teenager. Her life does a full 180 when she has a meet-cute with Hayes, the 24-year-old frontman to British boy band August Moon. 

The movie's popularity could also be chalked up to August Moon's perfectly infectious pop music — reminiscent of the firm pulsing tunes that One Direction had with early hits like "What Makes You Beautiful," "One Thing" and "Live While We're Young." Behind the magic of both One Direction and August Moon is prolific songwriter Savan Kotecha. With more than 300 hits in his music catalog, the music powerhouse has written for Ariana Grande, The Weeknd, Britney Spears, Sam Smith, Justin Bieber and so many more recognizable pop acts. If you have a radio, Spotify or Apple Music — at some point in your lifetime you have heard a song Kotecha has written. 

This time, Kotecha uses his mighty songwriting pen for the "Idea of You" soundtrack, writing seven original songs for August Moon that consists of Galitzine's lead vocal and Kotecha as a supporting and backing vocal. Kotecha also acted as an executive music producer for the movie's soundtrack, his second venture into music for movies, after receiving an Oscar nomination for his work on Netflix's 2019 comedy "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga" soundtrack. Kotecha tells me in an interview for Salon, "[Moviemaking] was always sort of my plan. Or the dream." 

He also talks about the working relationship he built with Galitzine and his secret recipe for writing a great love song. Read more of our conversation below:

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length

You've had such a prolific songwriting career working with music acts like One Direction, Ariana Grande and Britney Spears and so many more. So how does "The Idea of You" and being a part of the movie-making business land in your lap? 

"It's hard to get going really until we know what voice we're playing with."

I started getting into it around 2019. I always loved it. It was always sort of my plan. Or the dream. When I started writing songs I would write songs from watching "Dawson's Creek" and writing from the character's point of view because I had a very strict upbringing so I didn't really have much experience. It's all something I wanted to do and I did that "Eurovision" movie with Will Ferrell, and sort of caught the bug. It was such a fun thing to be a part of. Then we got the Oscar nomination. I took a few years off from my pop star songwriting and took time, moved to Sweden and also just took time developing, selling films. So while I was doing that, I also told my people like, "Hey, if there's another movie that needs an executive music producer the way 'Eurovision' did, I would love to — if I find the right script, I'd love to do it again." Someone called me saying, "Hey, Amazon wants to talk to you about this 'Idea of You' movie." They told me the premise and they sent me the first draft of the script and I really literally loved it. I love me a good rom-com. So I spoke to the producer Cathy Schulman, and we talked about the character Hayes (Nicholas Galitzine) and how to make it feel authentic. So had a great conversation with her. And then another conversation with her and Michael Showalter, the director. They were like, "We'd love to be a part of it." We saw things the same way. 

The Idea of YouNicholas Galitzine in "The Idea of You" (Alisha Wetheril/Prime Video)What were the discussions for what August Moon's soft pop-rock sound would be like? Were there any references that you looked back on, to take inspiration? Or was it kind of like a clean slate when it came to August Moon?

It was pretty much a clean slate. I told them that it's hard to get going really until we know what voice we're playing with. They were really great and sort of kept me abreast on the casting process and would send me people's auditions. The last one they sent me —  there were some great actors that auditioned but then when Nick's came in, I think it was Cathy said to me, '" think we found him. What do you think?" You could just tell right away the chemistry between him and Anne. Then I heard him sing and I was like, "Oh, thank God. That's great. He's got a really great voice." That sort of led me to going more guitars rather than like rhythmic, dance-y and or more like R&B. It was more it felt like authentically to his voice, we had to go this direction. 

Are the songs created out of new material rather than previous inspiration from previous artists that you had worked with?

Absolutely. There was one that was based on an old idea and then one that was a fully written song and the fully written song was "I Got You." That was sort of a song that myself, Ilya and Babyface had, that I kept in my back pocket. I really loved it and just didn't know what to do with it. But I wanted that in my head. I felt like that song should be an August Moon song and it should feel like that was one of their first songs. So when you hear it on the radio, it should feel like the record company signed this boy band and went to a bunch of big writers and they wrote a song regardless of what the band was. I wanted the whole thing to be like an authentic thing.

Even the August Moon original version of "Closer" has a line that Hayes changed on stage for Anne's character. So that "I know you're a little bit older" is the line that he changed and there was actually an original line before that. So I really went like super meta. I want it to feel as real as possible.

This would be a really, really really poppy first single like that they got off the shelf from professional songwriters and then "Taste" would be the next one for the next album. But then the boys would want more control and they'll have more guitars and things like that. That's what "Guard Down" was and "Closer" and then "Dance Before We Walk" because in the first earlier drafts of the script, it was Hayes was leaving the band. There was a scene where he was talking about how the record company doesn't take his songs like seriously when he's like I tried to write songs and it was all about him finding his voice and leaving the band. That's why the lyric is "off the moon and hittin' the ground like a rocket." I did my best really in my brain to treat them like a real band. The challenge was how do you make the journey of a real boy band so when you meet them it's that you have to believe they're a big band? But also they have had to have been around long enough for Izzy (Ella Rubin) to say they're so seventh grade. That's perfect because it feels like when you're in it, you're gonna love it and then two years later, you're gonna be like, that's so seventh grade.

As someone who has written so many pop hits about love and relationships — what is the recipe to crafting a universal, warm love song like “Closer?”

Gosh, I think everything should come from honesty and this seed of honesty.  And I think having you know, which "Closer" has is a really great melody really helps. Yeah, those are the two: melody to me is the universal language. If you have that. I think you're most of the way there.

Boy bands go through all these different phases but they ultimately never die. There's so many different iterations of boy bands across the decades. How do you pay homage to them but also do something new for an audience that you know, is craving a new sound or new music without copying the past?

I've had a lot of experience with different boy bands, not just One Direction. That's music I love. I love just unabashedly pop music that's not trying to be cool. That's sort of my comfort zone. What I liked about it and what I wanted to do, which I hope we achieved is when boy bands come on the scene, if you really think about it, it usually comes out of nowhere. In the sense that it doesn't sound like anything else. The ones that work are the ones that don't sound like anything else at the time. I remember when we did One Direction, that first album, everyone was doing this rhythmic Rihanna, Chris Brown dance-pop that was happening. So we went the total opposite.

"Dealing with the pitfalls of fame — that's what really 'Guard Down' is."

I remember growing up, New Kids on the Block didn't sound like anything else on the radio. This boy band Westlife in Europe stayed to a certain sound no matter how they were around for years. No matter how trends came and went, they stuck to their sound. That's always been my theory with these things is that you don't try and make it of the time. You just try and make it countering what's happening on its own. Right now everything is, especially male singers, very urban and rhythmic and where hip-hop is right now. OK, we'll kind of just do the opposite.

I think it's successful because I can't get "Guard Down" out of my head. It is definitely one of those earworm songs. What was the thought process for it being chosen as this Coachella song that August Moon perform?

From the songs we had, we knew that the Coachella the one had to have a certain energy to it. So that just fit exactly what it felt like it needed to be and it also it felt that that is their current song that they have out now. In my brain, it was like this was their third album. They're probably wanting to add some guitars and make it a little different. And make it feel a little more sophisticated. Hence the Police influence. The lyrics are looking within. It's really all about dealing with the pitfalls of fame — that's what really "Guard Down" is. Whether it's drugs for women or whatever, now they've got experience. When you read the lyric, it's about being seen as like, "Had me up inside the temple/I did not choose." It's really like you're worshiping me and I just auditioned for this [band.] So it's all internal rather than singing to a girl. It gave them maturity because it's their third album, and just the energy of it felt the right feel. I think Michael was like "OK, this is the one for Coachella," based on what they wanted to shoot. So it's been fun. To be honest, I thought 'Dance Before We Walk" was going to be the one that went but looking at everything right now it seems like "Guard Down" we just released a video for "Guard Now."

I literally just saw it before the interview. It's so reminiscent of "Best Song Ever" by One Direction.

I just really love it because when I saw it I was like, "This is going to be so nostalgic." The way it doesn't take itself too seriously. Yeah, I'm excited. Let's see if that's the one I see it all over TikTok.

As you mentioned, "I Got You" was written by the legend that is Babyface and another prolific songwriter Ilya. What was that like for you as a as a fan of music and a songwriter to be working with two powerhouse musicians to come together to make this song?

"There's people making August Moon merch."

Ilya and I have written a lot together. We had his first hit with "Problem" for Ariana. So he's been sort of my partner in crime and in a lot of songs over the years. Mostly all the Ariana stuff and "Love Me Like You Do" [Elle Goulding] and Sam Smith's "How Do You Sleep." I'd always been nervous to call Babyface because he's genuinely my hero. He's my songwriting hero. As a teenager living in Austin, I remember there was an article in the gossip column of the paper that he was vacationing in Lake Travis with his family. I literally went and knocked on every door of rental condos looking for Babyface. When I broke in as a songwriter, I was always too intimidated to ever call him and ask him to do something. So that song means so much to me because it was the first time I called and asked if he would want to write, and he was so gracious and totally lived up to the hype. He's such an amazing, an amazing, talented person.

It's even like double fun for me because I'm the second voice for the boy band. So on the second verse, it's me. My high school boy band called Forte, I got a message from one of the guys that was in my high school boy band, who's still so pretty good friends with and and we were just like texting about like, "Oh my gosh, that's so crazy." Imagine 16-year-old me singing on a Babyface song that's out in the world.

What was it like building the narrative for August Moon as a band and eventually the transition with Hayes’ solo music? How did Hayes’ sound evolve? 

Amazon has been amazing. We've had this idea of let's make the band real. Let's make it live outside of the movie as much as possible. Let's get them a TikTok account and Instagram account. Let's repost fan accounts. Let's make this real in our minds, and in the record labels' minds. This is really a band. Even on socials when people are like, "I wish this band was real." I reply like, "No, they are real people." It should feel real, and it's been fun because I feel like everyone's come along for the ride. They actually have fan accounts, and there's people making August Moon merch. So that's been really fun.

For the Hayes songs really it's same thing about how "Guard Down" was. The idea was to make them feel a little bit more adult a little bit more about his journey like "Dance Before We Walk" Even though it's a really poppy song, it's really about Hayes' journey, his decision on leaving the band. It's not clear now in the movie that he actually left but that was sort of the intention of the song. "Idea of You" was the final song, and it's all about his love song to get to Solène. "I'll take a lifetime or two with the idea of you" is supposed to summarize their journey together and their relationship. So trying to make it a little bit more organic. Like "Go Rogue," obviously is on acoustic guitar and just tried to make it feel more mature and organic. Hopefully, we achieved that.

Nicholas Galitzine is a star. He mimics a lot of boy band frontmen, namely Harry Styles — but he’s an actor and shaping him into a performer requires a different skillset. How adaptable was he in this role as an actor, singer and performer? How did his specific qualities fit with the solo songs?

I can't say enough about what a great guy he is, but also just what a gifted human he is. What I love about him is that he's curious. He took it really seriously. We took long walks to the studio and chatted about the character and the experience and shared stories of my experience with people in bands. He really took it seriously and he has a lot of integrity. That also shows in Hayes' character. In earliest talks with me, Michael and Cathy, when they were asking me about from my perspective what these kids could be going through, what they could be feeling, I gave some thoughts.

Hayes' actor is very similar to Hayes the character in the sense that they both have a lot of integrity. Like the Hayes character, he says in that scene in on the bed that he didn't want to be a joke. That's the worst fear for him. He knew that he auditioned for this thing, and it was in a machine and it got big. But he wanted to also earn it. That's why he started playing guitar and playing piano and writing songs because he didn't want it to be just handed to him because he's like a cute boy. He wanted to earn it. From what I've gotten to know with Nick, they share that trait where Nick could have obviously taken the easy way out in doing this character, but he gave him so much integrity because Nick has so much integrity. I thought that was just really admirable.

Ultimately, how did it feel watching the finished movie with your songs?

It felt really special. I saw different edits of it, but the real one where it hit me was when we saw with an audience that was like, "Wow, this is like something beyond." When you read different types of scripts and you see different parts of the movie, it is still a work in progress; you're so in it. But when you see it through the eyes of other people you realize how special it is.

I'm so I feel so honored to have been a part of this. Because like I said, I love those like Richard Curtis romantic dramas. "Notting Hill" and all those things. I genuinely feel Michael got this so on point. I've been in so many rooms where this is what people are talking about. This movie really struck a chord and connected with culture and something within the zeitgeist, and it feels like the songs have as well. I just hope it grows and continues to grow. I really hope the people that love the movie listen to the songs and feel the feels of the movie. That's a way that they can sort of go back to what they felt by watching the movie by listening to songs. I think I've done my job.

The Idea of YouBoy band August Moon (Prime Video)Now that August Moon dropped the official music video for “Guard Down,”  can you reflect on how your career has come full circle?

I feel like I've come home again in a way. My first song ever released was with a boy band called Plus One but weren't quite as big as like Backstreet Boys and all them but they did OK. And then Westlife in the U.K. and Europe, they were massive. That was my first really big break. I do love just like I said, just pure pop music like this. And it's been a while since I've been able to. I took some time off. I'm so blessed with this type of work with the artists I've worked with. Those artists you're in service to their vision which is awesome. It's such a blessing to have been a part of and to go back to doing something like this to me, it was so fun and made me remember how much I love pop music and how you know there's nothing like when you when you're part of a boy band or breaking a boy band or a part of you know even back in the Westlife days when it's pandemonium. It's what I love about pop music.

There's nothing better writing-wise than that. When you're a part of something like that just explodes and it feels like I got to be a part of that again with this movie. Even though again, it's a fictional band, it's not fiction. You're starting to see people just enjoy pure pop music for the sake of it not because "Oh this is cool or this isn't cool." They're just like, "OK, I'm just gonna give into it." I see a lot of that on those TikTok videos. With "Guard Down" people are just like, "I'm in my late 20s and I am over boy bands," and then the chorus comes into like, "Oh s**t, yeah."

Being able to be a part of songs like that, that's what I love about music. So I just felt really lucky, lucky I got to do it. My old friend Carl Falk, one of my closest friends and close collaborators over the years. It's the first thing we had done together in a while because I moved to Los Angeles for eight years and then just moved back to Sweden. So it was fun to do something with him. We haven't done [anything] together since "One Last Time" [by Ariana Grande] which was over 10 years ago. So it was great. We finally were in the same place working on something. And now Albin Nedler, we wrote some One Direction songs with back in the day in the second album. It was just fun to be back with my friends and do music.

What are you listening to these days? Anyone you can put Salon's audience onto?

I won't get to just specific artists necessarily. I don't want to give too much away but I've been looking at India a lot and listening to a lot of artists. I'm Indian but what the top part of India right now is pretty phenomenal. It's gonna take over the world.

Do you have any dream collaborations that you still haven't worked with? Because I know you have such a catalog of artists that you've worked past.

I've been super lucky. I think that my dream collaborators aren't alive anymore. The dream is be lucky enough to work on great things that feel like it will matter and that will matter to people. That's the dream, it's always searching for, "OK, what's the next thing?" That's a challenge that I'll have fun with but also that will feel will matter.

More movies potentially. Who knows?

I'm gonna have a bunch of films and developments that I'm producing. Definitely looking for another film to do as well. I think I just enjoy it so much. Such a fun process.

“Gravity is never going to go out of style”: Steven Wright on the secret to comedy longevity

“I'm just trying to make them laugh,” says Steven Wright. “I don't focus on emotion.” The 68-year-old comedian and actor, who’s built a career on setting the bar for the definition of “deadpan,” has for decades been known for his observational humor that rarely treads into the kind of personal storytelling that’s marked other comics of his generation. But when he sat down to write his debut novel “Harold,” Wright found himself tapping into a new side of his psyche.

“There's a lot of sensitivity in there,” Wright admitted during a recent “Salon Talks” conversation. “It is more emotion than the stand-up.” Told from the perspective of a third grader over the course of one December day in the mid '60s, “Harold” has plenty of the author’s trademark surreal wit (Harold, for example, muses that all art was modern at one point), but it also brims with a depth and a wistful melancholy that will catch Wright’s fans unexpected. "This was way more going into what I really think about all things,” Wright said.

Yet the comedian, who Rolling Stone has called one of the greatest stand-ups of all time, isn’t going back on what comes most naturally to him. “I made my own rules up when I started to stand-up,” he recalled. “One of the things I did to myself is I didn't want the joke attached to time. If time was like a clothesline, I wanted to do it for as long as ever.” As he put it, “The speed of light is never going to go out of style. Gravity, lint, signs, time itself, is not going to go out of style.”  Watch my "Salon Talks" episode with Wright here on YouTube.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

A lot of the reviews of “Harold” say, “It's odd and wonderful.” “It’s weird and wonderful." If you were to describe it in four words, what would those four words be, Steven?

I would say, surrealism and innocence.

Tell me about Harold. This is a story of a third-grader. He is a unique, special boy.

I just write anything that comes into my head. I drink coffee, and then my mind goes crazy. One day I wrote, "Harold was in third grade, Harold . . ." For no reason, things come into my mind, and I just write them down. And then, I started going longer, and then I didn't do it for a while, and then it went a little bit longer, and a little bit longer, and I thought, "Maybe this can be some kind of a story," not thinking I'm going to write a book. Then it just kept going, I would work on it, not work on it. Then it got to a length where I thought, "I'm going to see how long this can go." Still not thinking it was a – and then it just kept going, going and going. And I started to be taken into this world I was creating.

I liked the world I was creating, and I like to go visit it every day. It was like reading a book, you know, when you read a book, you go into that world. It was like that, except I was making the world up. And in my history of stand-up, if I think of a joke, it's because I saw a sign or I heard a word, or I was reading a book and a word . . . I love words. Words will just jazz me, like a word that has an odd sound and a meaning, like "electrolysis." I have a whole joke, because I saw the word "electrolysis" written down.

But the jokes float. I don't sit down to write jokes. I just go through the world, and there's just stuff. Like, from the minute you wake up to when you go to sleep, thousands of pieces of information go past you. The world is like a mosaic painting, and some of these squares can be connected that weren't connected before. They can be connected by the word, or it has two different meanings. And so this was different, because I started to daily, on purpose, sit down to try to see what else could happen with him.

And you didn't start it out in a notebook or on a document. This book began its life in kind of a unique place.

Yes, on my phone. I wrote the whole book on my phone.

Not just on your phone, but on the platform formerly known as Twitter, right?

Oh, that was the very beginning. Yes. That was why I even wrote anything. Thirty years ago I wrote a story for Rolling Stone called “The Beach.” It was a fairy tale about how the beach was invented. And every few years I would read it, and I would think I should write something else, but I never would. And then I got the Twitter thing, and then I read "The Beach" again, and I thought, rather than jokes on Twitter, let me try to write a story. 

"It’s a childlike thing just to notice the world."

Because to me, a joke is an alive thing that should be experienced with people in a group, said by a person. To read a joke, didn't interest me. I mean, I know people do that, that's fine, but for me it doesn't go like that. So I was writing it on Twitter, and then I just stopped. And then a year later, I thought, "I'm not going to write it on Twitter anymore. I'm going to see how long I can go." And then I would focus. 

My routine is I drink some coffee, then I exercise, bicycle, then I go somewhere with more coffee. And my mind goes crazy. I have a window, an hour and a half, where my imagination is heightened. And then that's when I would try to write this. It was different than the stand-up just floating into my head.

I thought of things that I would've never thought of if I hadn't tried to sit like that. I've never disciplined before. The other stuff just came into my head, but I found things in my mind that I never would've had, had I not sat down like that. And I did write it on my phone. I started it on my phone, in the note section. Then I went to Micro Word, whatever it is, and then I would send . . . Because I couldn't write in a room. You've written two books, right?

Yes.

How did you like writing your books?

It's what they say about writing — you just sit down and open a vein. I can't imagine writing fiction. Steven, one of my favorite genres is books that are from the perspective of a child.

Really?

Or a teenager. It's truly among my favorites. And this book has been compared to “Catcher in the Rye,” “A Prayer for Owen Meany,” Calvin and Hobbes. For you, a man in his 60s, to take on the worldview of this eight-year-old child . . . What was it about Harold that brought you to that place where this was a story you wanted to tell and in this moment in time in American history too?

Well, I've always said that the stand-up is seeing the world like a child, like everything is new to a child. You don't understand, "Why is that . . ." And I would see the world as a child in any way. But I can use words as an adult, assemble my comments as an adult. But it's a childlike thing just to notice the world.

I said Harold was in third grade for no reason . . . .now it kept going, now I'm going to try to write a book. I didn't have to adjust, how would a seven-year-old think? I didn't have to do that, because I automatically think like that. There was no adjustment. 

"The world is complete madness. And then there's all these rules to try to contain the chaos that everyone is trying to do."

In the jokes, I tell a couple sentences. It's a very narrow window of creativity, I think. I'm not complaining, I'm just describing it. It's like it has to have a few sentences said, that hopefully makes a group of people laugh out loud. Is a very narrow window. But I had stuff in my mind besides what would go through that window. So when I started doing this, I realized what I could do, is I'm going to put a funnel on Harold's head, and I'm going to pour into his head. What I think about life, in joke form. And I could get all this history and evolution, and the universe. And everything, I'll just pour right into his head. I didn't have to adjust what would a seven-year-old think. It's automatic.

But it's different. As someone who's followed you for decades, Steven, there is a poignancy to seeing those observations, reading them in a book and reading them from the voice of a child, then hearing them on a stage from a guy with a microphone. Even though it might be the same observation about the world, about what's on the other side of a blackboard, that feels different coming from the voice of a child. Throughout your career, you have been very clear that you don't like to tell personal stories, you don't like to talk about your family. You try to avoid those kinds of topics. But reading this, it makes me think, is this a way into a different side of yourself and telling a more personal story?

Yes, it is. There's a lot of sensitivity in there, when he was going through school, and how he feels about the girl in the class. Yes, yes. I never thought of that, but it is more emotion than the stand-up. It just happened. 

I was in Wildwood School, and some of the things, the people, I use their names, and some of the things really happened, but very rarely. Like the grandfather I made. That’s a big part, of the relationship with him and his grandfather—that’s all made up. But the house on Moosehead Lake is a real place that I went to when I was eight, nine, 10, 11. The neighbors owned this house on Moosehead Lake. But you're right, his relationship with the – there’s a lot of stuff. 

I don't know why I don't do that on stage. I'm just trying to make them laugh. It's like, I don't connect to – I don't focus on emotion. So this was way more going into what I really think about all things.

It’s funny, but it's also sad. It's lonely. It’s emotional. There's a lot about it that hits in a different way. The book has been out now for a year, you have a built-in audience, you have people who read you and follow you, and I'm sure picked up this book because they like your comedy. I'm curious what their response has been from readers, to this very unique work from you.

A lot of people liked it. Even though everything is so different with the emotion and the kid and everything, it's still questioning the world. The world is madness. The world is complete madness. And then there's all these rules to try to contain the chaos, that everyone is trying to do. But it's so much unexplained. 

They liked it because it was the same sensibility of the stand-up, but it was more than the stand-up as far as people interacting, in their feelings, their inner feelings about many things. I mean, it covers everything almost: the universe, babies, death.

Alcoholism.

Oh. Who's that, in the mother?

Yes

Oh yeah, yeah, the mother is nuts.

As many of our moms are, Steven. Reading this, it’s hard for me to switch between thinking of this as in the voice of a child, but also thinking of it in this voice that we know. You have a very famous presentation in the way that you talk. You do a lot of voice work. You are known for your voice. You are known for your delivery. There is one word in particular that is almost always ascribed to you. When you Google you, it's the first word that comes up. The word is deadpan.

Oh, yes.

You're like, "Please don't let it be . . ."

Sociopath.

So what does that word mean to you? What does it mean to you to be “deadpan”?

I mean, I agree. I was doing comedy in Boston for a year and there was a newspaper called the Phoenix, an independent paper, and someone wrote a review, they saw me, and they said, " . . . a monotone, deadpan." And I went, "Oh. Oh, oh, yeah. Oh." I never connected that word. No one ever said that word about me, but I agreed. But I was like, "OK," but I don't really think about it. It's just how I talk.

"It was like going through a magical door. Everything changed. My career, my whole life — from that one night."

You have said that some of that was exaggerated, particularly early in your career, because you had stage fright. The idea that you wanted to do this so badly, get up in front of people, and yet were afraid. All of us have things that we're afraid to do, and don't say, "I'm going to make that my career." I want to know what kept you going, through particularly those early years — when it was the scariest.

Because I started watching “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson when I was like 14, 15 years old, and I became addicted to it. I had never seen stand-up comedians before. So a guy comes out and he talks about life in this hilarious way, and then he sits down and talks to Johnny Carson. Richard Pryor and David Brennan, Robert Klein, George Carlin, of course, one of my heroes, and I thought, "Wow, look at this. That's something I would really like to do. I think I would like to do that.”

After watching it for a couple of years, my desire to do it was very powerful, but I knew it would be like a kid wanting to be an astronaut or a baseball player. I knew maybe it wouldn't happen, probably wouldn't have happened. But when I heard about the comedy club in Boston, when I was 23, I thought, "Well, there's one here now. I don't have to move to New York or Los Angeles. I could try it out here.” So I saw the show, and then I went to the open mic two weeks later. 

To answer your question, public speaking is one of the main fears of people. It's like over death. And I was like that — I was horrified. But I wanted to try it so bad that I forced myself to do it, because I wanted to try it. And I mean, I already talk like this, so then I'm on there and I'm afraid, it’s even more like this. I'm trying to say the joke the right way. I'm thinking, "What is the next joke?" I have no emotion at all, but I'm not doing that for a reason other than I'm horrified, and I'm trying to remember it. But just by luck, it went well with these abstract jokes that I'm saying. It connected by accident to this particular way of doing it.

It's funny.

Yes.

Before people went viral, you went viral. Your first appearance on Carson changed your life in a way that I don't know if that can happen for a comic now. Talk to me about what that moment was like in 1982. What changed for you after that?

Everything changed. I mean, I've been doing comedy three years, and Peter Lassally from the “Tonight Show” came to Massachusetts to look at colleges for his kids and he saw me in this half Chinese restaurant, half comedy club, the Ding Ho Comedy Club. He knew of it because someone wrote an article about it, and it was in the LA Times. So when he came to Massachusetts, he remembered the article, and he saw me in there. 

Three weeks later, it's a miracle, it's like a fairy tale. I have a lot of accidental things in my career that just flukely lined up. That's the biggest one. Peter Lassally saw me and he put me on, and then I went on. Now I'm 26, and I started watching it when I was 16. So here I am with my hero, on the show at the set, Johnny Carson. It was surrealism to me. I was so nervous that I wasn't nervous, then I kind of got numb, like you know when they show something that's underwater and you don't hear the sound?

At the time, it was like going through a magical door. Everything changed, my career, my whole life, from that one night. So I mean, Johnny Carson changed my life twice, because the first time was from me watching the show, thinking, "Look at him. Look at how funny he is, look at all these comedians. I would like to be that.” To get that in my head, was one thing — a goal, a fantasy. And then I'm really on the show, and then everything changes. I'm a very lucky, very lucky person. It's not like, let me try to think an odd way. This is just how I think. This is the tone of my voice. I'm very fortunate and I appreciate it.

As you said, you have a unique way, you have a unique style. I want to ask you one more thing. Because of that, and because you don't really do topical, you don't really do political, you don't really do personal, and the thing about that is, Steven, there are jokes of yours or lines of yours, that I feel like 40 years later, you probably could get up on a stage and do tonight. There are jokes in this book that feel like they could have been written in any time because they're in the voice of someone who was in the mid '60s, and yet they feel as fresh today. Is there a line that you feel like that's the one I'll be remembered for, that's the one that's going to be in my obituary?

What is this?

I want you to think about your death now, Steven. I want you to get really dark.

All the interviews in my whole life, no one's ever said that. And here's this woman, a very nice woman. Oh, I don't know. Maybe, "It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."

That's the one I think about every time someone says it's a small world.

Yeah, that one, that's maybe the most known one. But the thing about saying they could be written at any time, I made my own rules up when I started to do stand-up — what to do, what not to do. And one of the things I did to myself, out of conservation is I didn't want the joke attached to time. If time was like a clothesline, I wanted to do it for as long as ever. 

I didn't want to think about whatever, something current like a TV show or a current famous person, or a current fad or something. Because then I could just keep doing it. I didn't want to joke to, "Oh, now I can't do that anymore." The speed of light is never going to go out of style. Gravity, lint, signs, time itself, is not going to go out of style. So it was almost, I don't know if it's laziness, but just, "Oh, I can do it.” That’s why.

I can do lint jokes ‘til the day I die.

“Lint in the Universe,” starts Friday.

What's next? Are you writing another book?

I don't know. I would like to sometime, but see, I didn't think about, I'm going to write a book about a little kid. It just started happening. So I want something else to happen without thinking, "Oh, what?" But I write stuff every day. Mostly now jokes, but every day I drink coffee and write stuff down. But someday I would like to write another one. I just don't know what it would be.

“Women like that get passes”: Meghan McCain says she faces cruelty unlike “people like AOC”

Meghan McCain sat down with former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard for the latest episode of her "Citizen McCain" podcast to discuss each of their respective public images as well as Gabbard's little-known struggles with fertility. 

Gabbard, a longtime U.S. Army Reserve officer and former representative for Hawaii's second congressional district from 2013 to 2021, made waves in October of 2022 when she announced her departure from the Democratic Party. McCain, a self-proclaimed anti-MAGA conservative and the daughter of late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced Gabbard as "one of my closest friends."

The pair began the chat by claiming that their friendship, tinged with periods of political and ideological disagreement, has remained solid across many years as a result of some of their disparate perspectives. 

"Our friendship is an example of what’s possible and what should be the norm in American politics — where we can have disagreements, some minor, some strong, on different policies or whatever," Gabbard argued. "And we can have those conversations with each other, and still love and care for each other in a very deep and meaningful way.”

“I don’t want to be friends with someone I agree with all the time," McCain said, before telling Gabbard that her "perspective on the world has illuminated so many things for me.”

The former co-host of "The View" then began to segue into a conversation about the alleged "stereotypes" she and Gabbard have been respectively branded with over the past several years; McCain stated that she has been dubbed a "warmonger," while Gabbard has been called a "Russian asset," a nickname that derives from former presidential candidate and first lady Hillary Clinton in 2019 claiming that the Kremlin was "grooming" Gabbard to be a third-party candidate. 

“The thing I didn’t realize when I was younger is this s**t comes at a cost. If you want to be in this ring and do the kind of things that we do, you’re going to lose friends and people are going to be really cruel to you in a way that they are not to people like AOC," McCain said, referring to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. "Women like that get passes, and women like you and I are going to be raked over the coals forever.”

We need your help to stay independent

McCain then delved into the crux of the episode's subject matter — Gabbard's struggles with starting a family. Gabbard articulated her decision to enlist in the U.S. military following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. "It changed everything for so many people," she said. "It certainly changed everything for me. I hadn't ever thought about joining the military before that. It hadn't ever crossed my mind." 

Gabbard's stint in the service would ultimately place an inordinate amount of strain on her first marriage, however, as she spent 18 months away from home with 12 of those months in Iraq; in 2006, she divorced her first husband, Eduardo Tamayo.

McCain then contextualized the depth of her friendship with Gabbard even further, observing how the former Democratic representative and her current husband — Abraham Williams, whom she married in 2015 — are the godparents to her first daughter. McCain also acknowledged that she had suffered two miscarriages, a fact that she and Gabbard had been able to bond over. 

Gabbard, who was in her "mid to late 30s" at the time she married her second husband, spoke about the complicated medical rhetoric around trying to conceive a child past a certain age. “The doctor says, ‘well if you get pregnant it’s a geriatric pregnancy’ — how is that word allowed to be used?" she asked. "In the same breath, they tell you, ‘Don’t stress out, just relax.’”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Between the logistical issues of traveling back and forth from Hawaii to Washington, D.C., and the challenges presented by natural conception, Gabbard and Williams elected to move forward with in vitro fertilization (IVF) in D.C, a "rollercoaster" process which she called a “very difficult experience, no matter what happens," citing the litany of administered injections and hormonal supplements that are required. 

“I don’t understand why it works for some people and not for others," McCain said to Gabbard, as the pair became emotional while discussing the latter's diagnosis of unexplained infertility. 

“A lot of women go through this but feel a sense of shame about it when there really shouldn’t be, and so I’m glad that we’re having this conversation," Gabbard said. “There aren’t always explanations. For me, the doctor was like, ‘Well, you are one of the women who has a diagnosis  of unexplained infertility.’ Which is hard to hear because at least if something is diagnosed you think, ‘Maybe I think I can do something about this.’ But the whole unexplained infertility thing was difficult.” 

Instead, Gabbard said, the whole ordeal was simply "heartbreak over and over again.”

Once Gabbard decided to enter the 2020 presidential campaign — a process that began for her as early as 2018 — she was forced to put her dreams of motherhood on pause yet again. “Our hopes to start our own family — we have to put those aside because of how we feel so strongly about the sense of duty that we have to serve our country and to try to make that positive impact," she said. “It comes at a cost.”

What Americans get wrong about French food

For many, French cuisine is typified by indulgence, richness and a certain nose-in-the-air type of stuffiness.

Expensive bistros, hifalutin food and immensely heavy, cream-and-butter-laden dishes, with cheeses and wines galore to round out meals (when I wrote this, I admittedly pictured Kenan Thompson's "Pierre Escargot" circa "All That.")

Now, while there is certainly lots of dairy and wine, French food is done a disservice when it's looked at through this lens — oftentimes by Americans unaware of all of the nuances and intricacies inherent in the country's food. 

Carrie Solomon, an expat by-way-of-Michigan who has lived in Paris for the past 20 years,  explains to Salon Food what "Boheme cooking" means to her, what Americans actually get wrong about the classic cuisine, dispelling these preconceived notions and much more.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Bohème Cooking: French Vegetarian Recipes by Carrie Solomon coverBohème Cooking: French Vegetarian Recipes by Carrie Solomon cover (Photo courtesy of Carrie Solomon / Countryman Press)

For those who automatically ascribe rich, heavy, butter-and-cream dense flavors to French food  which, yes, is somewhat true in certain cases  how would you dispel that notion? 

Yes, it is true, but when you use the good stuff, you need less of it.

I often cook with whole milk, so I need less cream and butter.  And of course, when you’re cooking without meat, you’re already avoiding all of the [saturated] fat especially present in beef and pork. 

And as vegetables are naturally virtuous, it  does make sense to occasionally serve a richer condiment with them: It’s all about balance in the end. Especially when those richer condiments or sauces are homemade, I find that I use less of them.

Take my aioli recipe for example: It’s so flavorful, and yes it’s dense, but I think you’re likely to use less of it than you would an industrial mayonnaise. Not to mention that it uses a whole egg, making it less calorie-dense than a classic mayonnaise recipe and it also comes together with an immersion blender in just minutes. 

Is there a lot of vegetarian cuisine in classic French cuisine? Or is there usually an animal protein in most instances? 

Already, classic French cuisine has evolved a lot over the past twenty years, but even before then — when perhaps main dishes did include more meat, there were always the starters and side dishes that were very vegetable-focused. 

Do you have a favorite recipe in the book? 

Buckwheat galettes are probably the recipe I find goes the furthest — if you make one recipe from the book, make this one — because you’ll actually get two (maybe even three!). You can make a savory crêpe with egg, cheese and asparagus and you can also make oven-baked buckwheat chips. 

The latter often graces my kitchen counter at apéro hour  with so much flavor and crunch, they are better than chips and the best vessel for all sorts of dips, whether tapenade or seasonal tartinades. I have even layered them up to make a quick millefeuille dessert with chantilly and fresh fruit. 

We need your help to stay independent

What stands out for you as a formative moment that got you into cooking or food at large? 

My first restaurant job when I was 14: My friend's mom was the pastry chef at what was then the coolest restaurant in town. For a Midwest restaurant at the time, it was by far ahead of the curve, with European cheeses and many vegetarian options. She got her daughter and I both summer jobs there. I tasted many things for the first time there. 

What was the development process of the book like? 

I took the development with me in everyday life. As I did most of the photos myself, I didn’t have to organize with a photographer. There are recipes and photos from different pop-ups, my kitchen counter, our family house in the south of France and more.

Stuffed eggplantStuffed eggplant (Photo courtesy of Carrie Solomon / Countryman Press)

How did your love of French food influence your career before culminating in this cookbook? 

It’s the reason I moved to France! It was for love  love of good food. And it has taken me from cooking for an avant-garde French family when I was 22, to the vegetable garden of Michelin-starred chef Alain Passard, to writing for the food pages of French ELLE, to writing cookbooks for a French editor, cooking and consulting in Paris restaurants and to creating vegetarian menus for French school kids.

So a few years ago, I started to feel that this story and the recipes along the way might be of interest to others. 

I know you've lived in France for 20 years. Do you remember, 21-plus years ago, what you had anticipated about the food prior to moving (and now living there for two decades?)

I remember thinking that I could pretty much subsist on baguette, cheese and wine. I knew there was a lot out there to explore — but already the thought that three of my essentials could be had on a student’s budget — I’m not kidding, for 10 euros you really can have all three. And I’m talking about a bottle, not a glass!


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


How does "brasserie" style cuisine show up in this cookbook? 

Two of my go-to brasserie or bistrot plates have always been “oeuf mayo” eggs with mayonnaise and “poireaux vinaigrette” leeks with vinaigrette. They are favorites of mine not just because they are vegetarian, but because they reflect the focus on quality ingredients.

Both are enduring bistrot staples that can be served simply or can be more constructed with additional ingredients, pickles, infused oils, crispy toppings such as toasted hazelnuts, toasted buckwheat groats — I often find myself coming back to buckwheat! It’s such an incredible ingredient texture wise, flavor-wise, [etcetera].

Oeuf sandwichesOeuf sandwiches (Photo courtesy of Carrie Solomon / Countryman Press)

There's an interesting contrast between classic French fare and more imaginative, modern offerings  how would you say the book straddles that line? 

I think I gave space to both without really really thinking about it, to be honest. In the past 20 years, both offerings easily occupy menu space here in Paris — that’s something that the French are quite good at, in my opinion. On the same menu, you can have a humble leek vinaigrette next to more elevated truffle-esque offerings. 

I read that the book is a "manifesto for Boheme lifestyle" that blends "rustic charm with elegant fare," mirroring your own journey, personally, professionally, and culinarily. Can you talk a bit about that? 

I don’t think one ever intentionally writes a manifesto  at least not a bohème manifesto!

I never would have imagined ending up in Paris working as a chef and food writer. It all kind of happened somehow by accident and somewhat not, like much of life, I guess. I always worked restaurant jobs to take me to the next step: As a teenager, those jobs paid for my movie nights; in college, they helped me pay rent and trips to Paris. And once here, they helped me learn French, translating recipes from French ELLE as an au pair.

As a side note — while not the case in the U.S., in France, Elle comes out weekly and includes 4 recipes per week on the last page in a sheet card print-out. Most of my French friends tell me their grandmothers had recipe card boxes in which they saved the recipe cards. So when I started writing those recipes on a biweekly basis for the magazine  the significance and weight as an American writing these recipes for a French public, let’s just say, it wasn’t lost on me. 

But to come back to how I feel bohème translates to me these days is a little more nuanced. I didn’t have a dinner table after my divorce. Pre-divorce, we entertained often, big dinner parties, a full table, sometimes me alone in the kitchen wanting so hard to get it right. But then divorce threw that all upside down.

I found myself hosting my girlfriends last minute, our kids making a mess on the living room floor and us huddled around the kitchen counter — and enjoying it. So much more so than those stiff dinners for which I’d cook for hours and not even have time to finish my plate before I’d jump up and head back to the kitchen to prepare the next course. 

Now it all happens at an arms reach or around my constellation of coffee tables for what the French call apero – dinatoire. 

You were selected to design the menus at the Roland Garros site in Paris for the Olympic Games this coming summer. How cool — congratulations! How did that come about and how have you been preparing for that? 

Yes, that’s true! I am still quite awestruck that I have a role to play in this event. 

Carrie SolomonCarrie Solomon (Photo courtesy of Carrie Solomon / Countryman Press)

There's reference to sustainability and environmentalism throughout the book, of course, in tandem with the vegetable-forward ethos. How does that influence your cooking at large?

For me, cooking with vegetables is an important decision, the sustainable decision for the future, and one that I feel France, for all of its nose-to-tail ethos, is taking very seriously. School kids now eat twice weekly mandated vegetarian lunches  of which, after some hard nudging from one of my daughters, I’ve participated in some of the recipe development.

As a little side note, in French public schools, you don’t have the option of bringing your own lunch. And aside from severe allergies, everyone eats the same hot lunch, and what always shocks foreigners is the pomp about it. It’s a three, and on some days, even four course affair  starter, main, cheese or yogurt, and then fruit or dessert. And what I find particularly touching in the lower grades is that it’s served communal style!

For those who are spooked about a dearth of animal protein in their meals, how might they interact with (or even enjoy) this book? What's the best way to "adapt," for a particularly carnivorous diner? 

I’m not saying that I would want this book to be seen a collection of side dishes for a carnivorous diner, but I do think that vegetable-focused recipes can go much further in terms of texture, acidity and balance. So whether you eat vegetarian or not, I’m hopeful my recipes might broaden some perspectives

What are the top three ingredients a beginner should have on hand if they are looking to get into French food?

A hard cheese for grating  a little bit can go a long way, Buckwheat, whether flour for aperitif snacks, sprinkles of it simply toasted, mountain-style pasta or savory brunch crêpes.  Herbs — ideally fresh, but if not, flavorful dried herbs are great, as well. 

CORRECTION: The original interview included an error on animal trans fats, which Salon has corrected.

In racist rant, Trump claims his hush money judge “hates” him: “Look at where he comes from”

Donald Trump's hush money trial wrapped up for the week on Tuesday, capped off with an appearance by the former president outside the courtroom in which he insinuated that Judge Juan Merchan "hates" him because he immigrated to the U.S. from Colombia.

As part of what has become an end-of-day ritual, Trump, addressing reporters outside the Manhattan court, read aloud analyses from sympathetic pundits such as Fox News' Gregg Jarrett, who has made a habit of inventing legal doctrine to justify Trump's alleged criminal actions. This time, Trump echoed Jarrett's line that Merchan and prosecuting attorney Alvin Bragg "loathed" him, before proposing his own theory.

"The judge hates Donald Trump, just take a look," he concluded to the assembled reporters. "Take a look at him. Take a look at where he comes from. He can't stand Donald Trump. He's doing everything in his power."

Merchan was born in Bogotá, Colombia, and moved to Queens, New York at the age of six. After attending Baruch College, he received a J.D. from Hofstra University School of Law.

In Trump's telling, judges with Mexican ancestry also hold a grudge against him. During a civil fraud case against Trump University in 2016, then-candidate Trump called Judge Gonzalo Curiel a "hater" because he was "Hispanic" and "Mexican"; because of his ancestry, Trump maintained, Curiel was biased against him for wanting to build a border wall. Curiel was born in Indiana, went to law school at Indiana University, and, like Merchan, is an American citizen.

But Trump has been unstinting in his praise  for another judge born in Colombia. That judge, Trump appointee Aileen Cannon, is presiding over his classified documents case, and has been widely criticized for breaking legal norms in favor of the former president.

Newsmax accused of “evidence destruction” in lawsuit over 2020 election lies

Smartmatic, the firm that produced voting machines for the 2020 election, is accusing Newsmax of destroying key evidence in their ongoing defamation lawsuit against the right-wing network for claiming that Smartmatic helped "rig" the votes for Joe Biden, NBC News reports.

In a court filing, Smartmatic's lawyers allege that Newsmax deleted emails and texts between high-ranking executives that would have incriminated them as making those claims for viewership and profit, despite knowing that they were untrue. Smartmatic says that the deletions occurred even after the right-wing news outlet was ordered by the court to preserve evidence.

Newsmax said it "categorically denies" the accusation, which they have characterized as an attempt by Smartmatic to distract from in an alleged bribery scheme involving an election official in the Philippines.

The trial at the Delaware Superior Court is scheduled to begin in September.

Smartmatic's filing refers to a series of text exchanges between Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy and Trump attorney Sidney Powell, who frequently appeared on Newsmax to falsely accuse Smartmatic of enabling voter fraud. Smartmatic says that although Ruddy deleted the texts from his phone, other witnesses retained the evidence and submitted it to the plaintiffs.

“Newsmax’s misconduct goes beyond falsely accusing Smartmatic of rigging the U.S. election; it also attempted to conceal evidence of its actions and failed to follow its own journalistic standards," Smartmatic attorney J. Erik Connolly said in a statement, as reported by NBC. "Smartmatic’s motion details numerous instances of evidence destruction, including incriminating emails and texts from Newsmax executives, indicating intentional spoliation.”

The lawsuit is one of several cases filed by Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems against media organizations and individuals for parroting Donald Trump's false narrative of a stolen election. In 2023, Fox News paid Dominion a settlement of $787.5 million just before opening arguments were due, leaving One America News Network, Newsmax, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell, and Powell on its docket. Smartmatic settled with OANN earlier this year, but Newsmax, Fox, and the three Trump-aligned individuals appear content for now to take the case to court.

“Stain on the judicial system”: Legal experts slam Judge Cannon after damning Trump ruling released

In an 86-page ruling last year, D.C. federal judge Beryl Howell went through the arguments from Donald Trump’s lawyers in his classified documents case and took them apart, barely concealing her disdain for defense claims that the former president – charged with taking national security secrets with him to his Florida resort and not giving them back – is a victim in all this.

First, a relatively brief recap: In June 2022, an attorney for Trump signed a document certifying that their client had handed over all classified documents in his possession. In August 2022, the Department of Justice, believing that certification to be false, carried out a court-authorized search at a Mar-a-Lago, recovering boxes full of top-secret documents, including information related to nuclear programs. Then, in December of that year, Trump’s attorneys, conducting a search of their own, found even more material – including folders in the former president’s bedroom.

In an effort to downplay their findings, Trump’s attorneys “misleadingly” characterized the bedroom documents as “low-level ministerial documents,” Howell said in her ruling, which rejected defense arguments that lawyer Evan Corcoran should not have to answer questions before a grand jury about the case. The former president’s attorneys failed to make “any explicit mention” about those documents, including White House schedules, having “classification markings.”

“Notably,” Howell continued, “no excuse is provided as to how the former president could miss the classified-marked documents found in his own bedroom at Mar-a-Lago.”

An appointee of former President Barack Obama, Howell also said there was evidence to suggest Trump had further attempted to obstruct justice. She pointed to an approximately nine-minute phone call on June 24, 2022, between Corcoran and Trump, in which the Republican candidate was informed that federal investigators had subpoenaed surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutors argue that the call “reflects the former president’s realization that the removal of the boxes from the storage room before [redacted] search was captured on camera – and his attempts to ensure that any subsequent movement of the boxes back to the storage room could occur off-camera.”

That is, after being informed that the government could observe their comings and goings, Trump appears to have directed his staff to avoid cameras going forward. Indeed, per Howell, the government "has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the June 24, 2022 phone call may have furthered the former president’s efforts to obstruct the government’s investigation.”

We need your help to stay independent

Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney, said the unsealed ruling drives home just how needless the delays in the case have been. Cannon, a Trump appointee, has entertained a host of defense arguments that would likely have been dismissed by others – including that Trump had the right to take any documents he wished and post-facto claiming them as presidential records – and recently decided to indefinitely postpone a trial, some 11 months after she was assigned the case. She also unsealed Howell’s ruling because it was cited by the defense team as part of an effort to assert prosecutorial misconduct.

“If the classified documents case had been indicted in DC … and Judge Howell was the assigned judge, it would be on an entirely different, more appropriate track, that would have protected speedy trial rights,” Vance argued.

Bradley Moss, a criminal defense attorney specializing in national security issues, likewise argued that Howell’s ruling showed how relatively simple the case against Trump is compared to the others he faces, including another brought by special counsel Jack Smith related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

The classified documents case “was and will always have been the cleanest, most straightforward criminal prosecution of the four against the former president,” Moss wrote on social media. “That the public won’t see it brought to fruition before they go to the voting booth is a stain on the judicial system.”

“Top Chef” shines as it highlights indigenous and Native approaches to cooking and eating

Savannah hive, rise up! It's a good week to be a Savannah stan. Unfortunately, it's not a good week to be a Kevin stan, but we'll get to that later.

This was a wonderful episode prioritizing Native and indigenous cuisine, as well as eschewing the usual ingredients like wheat flour, sugar and dairy, plus pork, chicken and beef, which allowed for some chefs to truly shine —like Savannah, plus Dan and Soo — while others struggled (pretty much everyone else).

Danny also continued his outright dominance in the Quick Fire  I figured he'd win the instant I saw him juicing cranberries  and I think the shift of Gail and Tom now joining and judging all Quick Fires going forward, which will factor in all elimination decisions, was a long time coming. It only makes sense. At this point in the competition, there should be a cumulative aspect to important decisions like that.

Without further ado, here are the other biggest takeaways of this week's episode. 

We need your help to stay independent

01
 

 

The cranberry QuickFire was great. I loved how Savannah used cranberries in so many different iterations in her dish, as well as Danny's aforementioned juiced cranberry component.

 

Also, the amount of money Danny has already accrued from his multiple wins is outrageous.

 

In addition, the whole challenge reminded me so much of the cranberry challenge in the Boston season, which was inexplicably hosted by Tiffani Faison? Good times! 

02
 

Hooray for some introductions this week! I've complained ad nauseam about editing not showing Kristen's introductions of guest judges and diners — or perhaps her never doing them — so I was very happy to see those return this episode. 

 

Also, I loved everything about Elena Terry and Sean Sherman. Had a bit of a Regina George moment, admittedly, after Savannah said she had just read his James Beard-award winning cookbook. It's now on my list!

03
 

I am always so inspired by Native and indigenous ingredients. Berries (I so want to try an aronia berry now), beans upon beans, fish, sprouts, rose hip, wild rice, mushrooms, corn, chokeberry, maple, sumac, wild hyssop — the list goes on and on. There's something really compelling about the essence of going "back to the land," like this episode's title suggests. 

 

I'm so intrigued by the crossover of dairy-free, gluten-free, sugar-free lifestyles overlap with these Native approaches to eating. Someone, I think Dan, said something like "everything is from the ground" as far as the ingredients in that challenge. It's such a great approach — and of course, "ultra-processed foods" couldn't be further from this type of diet. Something to noodle on! 

 

Interestingly enough, as reigning champ Buddha points out in his PEOPLE recap, all of the winning dishes were also vegetarian! 

04
 

I loved seeing Savannah's asking clear, pointed questions regarding baking and desserts made with Native and indigenous ingredients, which of course, then resulted in her wonderful dessert. It was so exciting to Kristen react in such a physical, encompassing manner. It was like she was literally unable to contain her excitement after tasting the dessert. Her describing it a combination of pumpkin pie and gingerbread also made it sound stupendous. 

 

Sleeper contestants, come-from-behind resurgences, dark horse “growth arcs” are my favorite things on reality TV, and I had a feeling about Savannah from jump. I'm loving Savannah’s momentum right now, too  peaking at the right time, especially with Danny’s rare caul fat stumble, Michelle’s inconsistency and Manny’s apparently becoming monotonous for the judges.

 

It also seems as if whenever Savannah tackles desserts, she inevitably winds up in the top  or even wins the challenge. Could she soon join the ranks of Brooke, Mei, Buddha regarding top tier desserts? I hope so.

 

Lastly, I’d love a clearer shot of her mirror of amazing ideas! Some eagle-eyed viewers over on Reddit have noticed that Savannah apparently had fish boil written on her mirror, so she did her due diligence and research … hopefully that bodes well for next week’s challenge


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


05
 
How cool was Soo's come-from-behind success? His turn-around was so exciting. Good for him for reconceptualizing his dish — and then taking Gail's advice and not calling them gnocchi, which I thought was such a funny, unprecedented moment. We almost never see judges tell cheftestants to re-title their dishes. Also, I'm always fascinated whenever someone cooks with huitlacoche. It's the wildest ingredient!
06
 
How incredible was Dan's treating a sunflower as you would an artichoke? I thought that was brilliant. I find his outright confidence so appealing and refreshing. He "wasn't surprised" that he did really well with his dish and he was upfront about that with the judges. He's so unvarnished about his talent and it's really cool to watch, especially at judges' table when some cheftestants can sort of shrink or become unnecessarily modest. 
 
It was great to see Kristen's appreciating the intentionality of Dan's foam, which, as she put it "serves a purpose because it melts into the sunflower." It's such a stark difference from the way foams were derided and sort of made into a joke on this very show 15 years ago. They can be wonderful! I will never forget the one I had at Tuome in NYC, which was a part of the most amazing chicken liver mousse dish I'd ever tasted. 
07
 

I liked how Manny said he wants "to be in the conversation" when it comes to the contributions of Mexican-American chefs in the industry at large. I think he most certainly deserves that and more.

 

Speaking of Manny, I didn't love the sudden energy from the judges as if he's a one trick pony? His apparently becoming monotonous for the judges (we were specifically shown two to three mentions of how his dishes have become predictable, which …. Isn’t good and doesn’t bode well) struck me as odd. He's gotten such rave reviews for every one of those dishes, so it seems peculiar to me to now act as if they're all predictable and unexciting when they were certainly winning dishes at the time he made them.

 

He even won the first elimination challenge — to be fair, though, that was a pozole and not a protein + sauce/puree dish, but still.

08
 

Mise en place relay race! Why only in Last Chance Kitchen and not the competition proper? 

 

I got such a kick out of how Kevin kept saying everything three times throughout the challenges? It cracked me up. He was probably my favorite behind Savannah, so I'm bummed to see him go. I was super happy with the end of episode itself, not thrilled with end of LCK. 

 

I loved the sound of Laura's dishes with the dual sauces of yellow harissa and an aji amarillo combination. It can be tricky to balance, but I love dishes with multiple sauces, especially when they have a sort of unique flavor/texture/color interplay. So cool

 

Regarding, Laura's edit: The show needs a villain, and in many instances, they try to pigeonhole someone who doesn't, in any way, fit those criteria. Laura may have made some mishaps with budget and perhaps been a little oblivious to certain things, but in no way was she actively villainous. She was quite resourceful and imaginative with her dishes, too, even earning a Quickfire win back in episode 2. She got a raw deal, I'd say. (Also, how cool was her knife bag? )

 

But who knows, maybe she'll pull off the win in LCK, which apparently is next week? That was quick.

 

Amanda performed very well in LCK, but I do have to note that she's always had such a dry, deadpan tone in all confessionals, but it veers into downright sleepy in LCK confessionals; I think her eyes literally closed at one point! I wrote a few weeks back, though ,that she has a real dark horse energy, so I would never count her out. Her demeanor belies her outsized talent and creativity. 

09
 

You knew production/judges really wanted to use that double boot in one of the episodes, it came up so much. Both Amanda and Laura were towards the bottom in both QF and elimination, so it made sense. I do wonder if Michelle may have gotten the boot had the judges not loved her QF dish so much?

 

I think Dan, Danny and possibly Soo could be our front runners, but you know I'm betting on Savannah, who I don't even think is much of a hidden or under-edited dark horse anymore. She's a clearly formidable contender now. Michelle is very inconsistent and Manny seemed to be sort of brushed off this episode with those somewhat disparaging, joking comments about his dishes all being very similar.

 

And we shall see about LCK! We're getting down to it.

Along came Robert Costello: Trump’s crime boss maneuvering blows up in court

On the last day of testimony in Trump's hush-money trial, a dozen or so grasping Trump sycophants dressed in the official elite MAGA uniforms of a red tie and blue suit (the troops wear the red hats) all gathered in the Manhattan courthouse to show their solidarity with their Dear Leader. The group included Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who weirdly excoriated "the ruling class" of which he and Donald Trump are very much members. "Saturday Night Live" alum Joe Piscopo showed up, as did former White House physician and current oddball congressman Ronny Jackson. Donald Trump Jr. was there for the first time as well, apparently inspired to attend as a MAGA follower rather than a family member in support of his father. It's become a daily self-abnegation ritual for those yearning to be on the inside of Trumpworld and that apparently includes his own son.

If it weren't for the boring blue suits and red ties, the daily tableau would be more reminiscent of a criminal gang than a political party. The groveling for the attention and approbation of "the Boss," the willingness to do absolutely anything for him (under threat of excommunication or worse), and the macho posturing and preening for each other and the public all look like mobbed-up behavior. In fact, one member of the group was an ex-con named Chuck Zito, founder of the New York Nomads chapter of the Hell's Angels, which was linked to the Gambino mafia crime family. He obviously felt quite at home. He showed up two days in a row.

Trump himself has often drawn comparisons of himself to mob bosses, proudly declaring that he's been indicted more than the "the late, great Alphonse Capone" all over the campaign trail. At his rallies, Trump often makes the point that Capone "was seriously tough" as if to say he's even tougher. Tim O'Brien, one of Trump's biographers, has said that Trump openly admires figures such as New York crime boss John Gotti and he's now it appears he's using some of Gotti's tactics in court

The thing he respected about Gotti was that he … sat there in court and he looked at the jurors and he looked at the judge with a big F-U on his face.

He's selling that mug shot F-U on t-shirts which the MAGA faithful have turned into their version of the Che Guevara shirt. 

Underlying all this is something serious, however. The threats to judges, prosecutors, witnesses and jurors are very real and the courts where Trump is being tried are all having to put in place protections, including a gag order, to keep the former president from threatening people. He was sanctioned 10 times for violating the order in his current case until he came up with the novel tactic of having his red-tied capos do the threatening for him. He even got the Speaker of the House, Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisana, to go before the cameras and personally put the judge's daughter in the cross hairs.

Tuesday marked the end of the presentation of evidence in the Trump hush money trial. All that's left is the summations, scheduled for next Tuesday and then deliberations will begin. Trump had boasted repeatedly that he was going to testify but, of course, he didn't. He hasn't explained why just yet but I'm sure he'll come up with an absurd excuse eventually. In reality, even he knows it would have been a terrible idea because it would have required him to studiously prepare and he can't do that. So he did the next best thing. 

Along came Robert Costello to turn the whole thing upside down by making Michael Cohen seem like a nice honest fellow by comparison.

Last week he no doubt saw a lawyer by the name of Robert Costello testify before a hastily called hearing before the House subcommittee on the "Weaponization of the Federal Government." Republicans brought in Costello to slam Michael Cohen, who was in the midst of a days-long examination in Trump's trial. He claimed that he was Cohen's attorney for two months and that "virtually every statement he made about me was another lie.” 

At the time, most people didn't believe the defense would call Costello because the lawyers knew he would be a terrible witness but after his bravura performance, it's fair to guess that Trump pushed them to call him. It would be the next best thing to having Trump on the stand himself. Unfortunately for Trump, just like the goombahs in the red-ties, Costello was preening for the boss and Trump couldn't tell the difference. As with his good friend Giuliani, he's just an out-of-his-depth tough guy way past his sell-by date. His performance on the stand this week was a disaster.

We need your help to stay independent

Costello insulted the judge and caused a scene, almost getting cited for contempt. He was rude to the prosecutor, ordering her to speak into the microphone as if he was in charge of the courtroom. The judge even cleared the courtroom briefly to admonish him.

Trump probably thought he did great though and showed them who was boss. But the consensus is that Costello did very serious damage to the defense with his testimony. Trump's lawyers had done a pretty good job of dirtying up prosecution witness Michael Cohen over the course of a grueling cross-examination and the prosecution had rested on a bit of a sour note. And then along came Costello to turn the whole thing upside down by making Cohen seem like a nice honest fellow by comparison. 

Emails between Costello and Cohen were read aloud to leave the indelible memory in the minds of the jurors that Trump and Giuliani were conspiring with Costello to make sure Cohen didn't cooperate with the government. There is even an email from Costello to Cohen saying, "Rudy said this communication channel must be maintained…sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places," and one from Costello to his law partner saying, "Our issue is to get Cohen on the right page without giving the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the President," (which they clearly were.) When Cohen didn't sign on with him right away he told his law partner Cohen was "slow-playing us and the President…What should I say to this asshole? He's playing with the most powerful man on the planet." Didn't he know who he was messing with?

Cohen had testified that he never retained Costello because he didn't trust him. It turns out he was right. By the end of the cross-examination, the prosecution had turned the defense argument that Cohen was just seeking revenge against Trump because he didn't get a job in the White House to Costello seeking revenge against Cohen for refusing to hire him to defend him and make him valuable to Donald Trump. 

Trump the mob boss has always been careful not to put anything in writing and to speak in code to underlings so he never gets caught giving direct orders. Unfortunately, his soldiers aren't quite as careful. This one got him in real trouble by making it very clear that Donald Trump had leaned on Michael Cohen to keep his mouth shut. Why would an innocent man do such a thing? 

FBI followed “standard procedure” in its Mar-a-Lago raid, refutes Trump claim about “deadly” force

In the latest attempt to portray himself as the victim of political persecution, former President Donald Trump posted Tuesday evening on Truth Social that "Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE" in the search for classified documents at his Florida home.

The search, part of a Department of Justice investigation into Trump's allegedly intentional mishandling of government records, including national security information, uncovered over 13,000 files stashed away in his private club.

Trump's post came after a filing by his legal team, made public earlier Tuesday, that highlighted the FBI's authorization to use deadly force in its August 2022 raid. U.S. Judge Aileen Cannon also unsealed documents that provided additional details on the raid, revealing that Trump's attorneys found more classified documents hidden in his bedroom following the FBI search.

Trump's campaign also sent an email to supporters asserting that Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out."

The FBI, which is led by a Trump appointee, issued a rare statement to refute the claim, clarifying that they "followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force … no one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter."

The protocol, posted on the FBI's website, stipulates that agents may use deadly force only "when the agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person."

FBI agents carried out their search of Mar-a-Lago in 2022 without any violence or presence of helicopters and armored vehicles. That fact has not stopped Trump's Republican allies from echoing his false statements, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., claiming that the DOJ and FBI were "planning to assassinate Pres. Trump and gave the green light."

Scenes from a MAGA meltdown: Inside the “America First” movement’s war over democracy

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Standing in a cafe decorated with tiny American flags and antique cabinets as big as bodyguards, Peter Meijer paused as he considered what to say to the man in the “Stand for God” shirt who had just called for his bodily harm.

It was a snowy morning in February. Meijer was the keynote speaker at a coffee-and-donuts meeting hosted by the Republican Party chapter in Kent County, Michigan, the most populous county on the west side of the state. Dressed in a candidate-casual uniform of jeans, a flannel shirt and an outdoorsy blazer, Meijer was seeking the Republican nomination for an open U.S. Senate seat, a race that could determine control of Congress’s upper chamber, in a state that could decide the presidential election. If Republicans wanted to win in November, Meijer told the 40-odd people in attendance, they needed to move on from the past and focus on their shared enemy.

“Is there anyone who thought that Jan. 6th was good for the Republican Party?” he asked. “Did it help us win in 2022?”

“We weren’t gonna win,” someone yelled. “It was rigged.”

“The election was stolen,” another person said. “It doesn’t matter.”

I watched this exchange from a table near the back of the room. Until that moment, the crowd met Meijer’s stump speech with polite nods and gentle applause. But when he brought up elections and Jan. 6th, the mood turned from Midwest nice to hostile.

Not long ago, this setting was friendly terrain for Meijer. For decades, voters here rewarded sensible, pro-business, avowedly conservative politicians. Meijer fit the archetype of a West Michigan Republican when he first ran for Congress in 2020. He was also basically Michigan royalty as an heir to the Meijer grocery store fortune. In one of the state’s most competitive districts, he won his debut congressional race by a comfortable 6-point margin.

At the Kent County event, however, many attendees seemed to feel nothing but scorn for him. That anger flowed from a single decision Meijer had made in Congress: He voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump. In response, he faced a far-right primary challenger who had served in the Trump administration and said Biden’s 2020 victory was “simply mathematically impossible.” Meijer narrowly lost. Now, as a Senate candidate, he was trying to make amends, even pledging to vote for Trump — whom he had once called “unfit for office” — if the former president won the Republican nomination. But to some, he was still a traitor.

“How did you vote to impeach Trump when he said in his [Jan. 6] speech, ‘I want a peaceful demonstration,’” a man angrily asked. “You don’t have to go any further than that to know that he was right and that he shouldn’t have been impeached.”

“I was there,” another man called out. “We were peaceful.”

“No shouting now,” the emcee said.

One audience member accused Meijer of taking a bribe in exchange for his impeachment vote.

Another challenged him to name five “political prisoners from Jan. 6” who were “sitting in prison and falsely accused.” I watched Meijer struggle to complete a sentence before being cut off.

A third person pointed a finger at him as he questioned whether Meijer was actually in the Capitol complex on Jan. 6, 2021, as he’d claimed.

“I have a photo I took in the House,” Meijer said, trying to defend himself without sounding defensive. Mostly, he listened wide-eyed, sipping coffee from a Styrofoam cup.

An older woman asked, in a gentler tone, if Meijer would redo his impeachment vote if he could. Would he at least have abstained instead of voting “yes”?

Meijer responded by saying that when he was in Congress, someone had once joked that they’d throw him off a bridge if he ever voted “present.”

A deep voice rang out on the far side of the room. The man in the “Stand for God” shirt.

“Sorry?” Meijer said, not hearing him.

The man repeated himself: “You should’ve gotten thrown off the bridge.”

The System Falls Apart

What divides the Republican Party of 2024 is not any one policy or ideology. It is not whether to support Donald Trump. The most important fault line in the party now is democracy itself. Today’s Republican insurgents believe democracy has been stolen, and they don’t trust the ability of democratic processes to restore it.

This phenomenon is evident across the country, in Georgia and Nevada, in Arizona, Idaho and Florida. But it’s perhaps the starkest in Michigan, a place long associated with political pragmatism and a business-friendly GOP, embodied by governors George Romney, John Engler and, most recently, Rick Snyder. It was a son of Michigan, former President Gerald Ford, who once said, “I have never mistaken moderation for weakness, nor civility for surrender.”

I grew up in Michigan. My own political education and my early years as a journalist coincided with a stunning Republican resurgence in my home state. Over several decades, Michigan’s dynastic families — the DeVoses and Meijers and Van Andels on the west side, the Romneys and Fords on the east — poured money and manpower into the Michigan Republican Party, building it into one of the most vaunted political operations in the country. They transformed Michigan from a bastion of organized labor that leaned Democratic into a toss-up state that, until recently, had a right-to-work law and put Republicans in control of all three branches of government for eight of the last 14 years. Michigan Republicans were so successful that other states copied their tactics. As Dick DeVos, heir to the Amway fortune and a prolific Republican donor, once told a gathering of conservative activists, “If we can do it in Michigan, you can do it anywhere.”

Several years ago, however, my home state stopped making sense to me. I watched as thousands of political newcomers, whose sole qualification appeared to be fervor of belief, declared war on the Republican establishment that had been so dominant. Calling themselves the “America First” movement, these unknowns treated the DeVoses and other party leaders as the enemy. I had covered the DeVoses and the Michigan Republican Party long enough to know that they were not just pro-business but staunch conservatives who wanted to slash taxes, abolish regulations and remake the public education system in favor of vouchers and parochial schools. Yet the new “America First” activists disparaged prominent Michigan Republicans as “globalist” elites who belonged to a corrupt “uniparty” cabal. That cabal had denied Trump a rightful second term and needed to be purged from the party.

With a consequential election looming, I traveled back to Michigan earlier this year to understand how this all happened. I sought out the activists waging this struggle, a group of people who don’t trust institutions or individuals except Trump and one another — and sometimes not even that. Could they triumph over the elites? I found chaos, incompetence, strife, a glimpse of a future post-Trump Republican Party and, all around me, danger for our system of government and the state of the country.

“We can’t keep going through election after election like this where a large plurality of the country just does not accept the outcome of the majority and refuses to abide by it,” said Jeff Timmer, a former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party who now works with the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “That’s when the system falls apart.”

A Call From God

After Peter Meijer’s event in Kent County, I drove west toward Lake Michigan to meet a plumber named Ken Beyer for lunch. Barrel-chested and with a neatly trimmed goatee, Beyer is in his late 50s but looks younger. He’s disarmingly earnest, the kind of guy who’d offer to help you fix a flat tire in a snowstorm. In less than two years, Beyer had risen from a political nobody to a district chair in the state GOP and a leader of the “America First” movement in Michigan. He is known for his fiery videos, in which he might equate a rival to Adolf Hitler or warn that “the storm is upon us.” Like many of his “America First” allies, he questions whether democracy still exists in this country. “I don’t know if any election is fair anymore,” he said.

Over chicken tenders and iced tea, Beyer, a church-going Christian, told me about a series of what he saw as divine revelations that had delivered him to this point. The pandemic and 2020 election had shaken him. He no longer recognized his own country. He feared that the moment had come, he said, “where freedom and the American dream end.”

His next revelation happened on Jan. 6, 2021. Because he was convinced that Democrats stole the White House from Trump, he had gone to Washington to make his voice heard and show support for the president. Standing on the steps of the Capitol, he encountered a reporter with the conservative outlet Newsmax who needed help carrying gear. Beyer grabbed a tripod and backpack and filled in as a makeshift field producer for one of the biggest events of the 21st century. “What God wanted me to do,” he later said, “was help capture the history of what’s happening and get the truth out of what really was going on there.”

Back in Michigan, Beyer enlisted the help of a young videographer who had produced content for Beyer’s plumbing business, and together they churned out videos about COVID-19 (overblown), election fraud (rampant) and the “truth” of Jan. 6 (“a big prayer meeting”). He read about disturbing allegations about voting-machine software changing votes. He listened to poll workers allege that mysterious suitcases of mail-in ballots had arrived overnight at the state’s largest ballot-processing site in downtown Detroit (a claim that was later debunked). The more he heard, the more he came to believe that his home state had been central to the Democrats’ plan to steal the 2020 election.

In his free time, Beyer urged Republican lawmakers to investigate the allegations of fraud made by Trump and his allies. Most Republicans brushed him off. A few, like Peter Meijer, had openly turned on Trump, voting for impeachment or dismissing Trump’s stolen-election theories. Beyer couldn’t understand it. “Why weren’t they fighting for him?” he said.

According to more experienced people in the party, there was a simple answer: Many of the claims brought forward weren’t true. A long-awaited investigation by a Republican-led state Senate committee found “no evidence of widespread or systematic fraud” in Michigan.

If Republicans wouldn’t act, Beyer reasoned, then they were just as bad as the Democrats. Trump supporters in other states had also encountered Republican indifference in response to Trump’s fraud allegations. What were they supposed to do now?

The Re-Founding Fathers

A solution arrived in the form of the “precinct strategy.” It was a plan promoted by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon to ensure that the political establishment in both parties didn’t “steal” future elections. Precincts are the smallest geographical unit in American elections. In Michigan, there are roughly 4,700 precincts typically made up of a few thousand active registered voters. Each precinct elects at least one delegate as its representative to a county convention, and sometimes three or four. In all, there are upwards of 8,000 delegate positions in Michigan.

If a state political party is a pyramid with a chairperson at the top, precinct delegates occupy the lowest, broadest tier. Until recently, it was an obscure position. Thousands of the seats often sit empty. If enough Trump supporters filled them, Bannon said, they could form a majority within the party, elect allies to leadership positions and, eventually, take control.

Ken Beyer had never heard of a precinct delegate until he stumbled across the website for MI Precinct First, a group inspired by Bannon’s plan. He decided to run. He believed that this, too, must be part of God’s plan for him. “I believe that He’s using people like me throughout the United States to become the re-founding fathers,” he told me.

The precinct strategy proved successful. In Michigan, thousands of new activists, many recruited by “America First” groups, became precinct delegates in 2022. In Ottawa County, a deeply conservative enclave along Lake Michigan, the number of delegates leapt from 170 to 330. The same trend played out in other battleground states. “The Trump apparatus did very little correct except infiltrate the party right down to the precinct level,” said Timmer, the former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party. “Not just in Michigan but all over.”

The first test for the new “America First” delegates came in late August 2022. In Michigan, the voters select most nominees for elected office in a normal primary election. But for two key positions with oversight of elections — attorney general and secretary of state — the precinct delegates decide the party’s nominees at a statewide convention. These conventions were often sleepy affairs, the outcome predetermined. But this time, when the party’s chair, a wealthy donor and former U.S. ambassador named Ron Weiser, took the stage, the cavernous ballroom filled with boos and jeers.

“How many of you believe we can sweep in November?” Weiser asked.

“With the new people!” a woman wearing a “Keep America Great” hat yelled. “With ‘America First’!”

Over the opposition of Weiser and other longtime party operatives, the “America First” contingent nominated two election deniers for attorney general and secretary of state. Matthew DePerno, a combative lawyer who had promoted a viral yet baseless theory about voting fraud in tiny Antrim County, Michigan, vowed to use the power of the attorney general’s office to investigate election crimes. Kristina Karamo, a tall, commanding woman in her late 30s with a breathless speaking style, was the “America First” pick for secretary of state. A community college instructor and live-trivia host, Karamo had come to prominence after she testified before the Michigan Legislature about irregularities involving ballot counting and voting machines she said she’d witnessed as a poll challenger in Detroit in 2020.

As a show of political force, nominating DePerno and Karamo was impressive. As an electoral strategy, it was disastrous. Both candidates were trounced in November, and Michigan Democrats won control of all three branches of government for the first time in more than 30 years.

DePerno conceded defeat right away. Karamo did not. To outside observers, her stance was laughable: She had lost by 615,000 votes, roughly the population of Detroit. But Beyer and many other “America First” delegates saw Karamo’s actions as brave and principled, the opposite of DePerno’s cowardly and hypocritical concession. Several months later, she and DePerno ran against each other to be the next chair of the Michigan Republican Party. DePerno won endorsements from Trump and Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO and a funder of the election-fraud movement. But the delegates rallied behind Karamo and delivered her the victory. In just two years, Bannon’s precinct strategy had gone from a quixotic scheme to a reality.

No sooner had Karamo won than paranoia set in. Standing on the convention floor just before her victory, a well-connected precinct delegate approached Beyer to deliver a message. “He says, ‘Leadership is going to let you guys have this one,’” Beyer recalled. Karamo would be chair, in other words, because party leaders let it happen. Why’d they do that, Beyer asked. “Because they believe that they can make her fail quicker than they can Matt DePerno.”

File Number One

A state political party is like the HVAC unit of American politics. When it does its job, you don’t think about it. It hums away in the background, as unsexy as it is essential. State parties recruit candidates to run for office. They mobilize voters. They raise money that helps candidates spread their message and win elections.

Karamo had other priorities when she took over the Michigan Republican Party. Top of the list: “election integrity.” She created a new “election security operations” team to recruit hundreds of volunteers as poll challengers, dropbox monitors and recount specialists, and to serve on county canvassing boards, which certify the final vote count. To oversee this work, she enlisted grassroots activists best known for filing a lawsuit that accused Detroit’s election clerk of running an “illegal election” in 2022. (A judge dismissed the case, calling it “frivolous” and “rife with speculation.”) Training and embedding “America First” activists in every part of the election process was critical to the future of the party and the state. “Otherwise,” one of Karamo’s advisers told a group of activists, “the big money is going to come right back in and start doing all this for us and selecting all the candidates for us again.”

Karamo’s plan to “secure” elections had two objectives: Not only did she and her team hope to catch future cheating by the Democrats, but they sought revenge against the Republican establishment. To do that, Karamo turned to a lawyer and political outsider named James Copas. He was given a special project: write a new constitution for the state Republican Party that would give as much power as possible to precinct delegates. People like Ken Beyer.

There was no greater priority for Karamo’s team. “If you were to look in my records, I opened 82 different project files,” Copas told me. “The constitution was file number one.”

Karamo showed little interest in the day-to-day work of running the party. Bills went unpaid, emails unanswered. When members of the party’s state committee, in effect the board of directors, questioned her, she ignored them or removed them from leadership positions. Even her allies were critical. “I can tell you unequivocally that there was no chance that Kristina was qualified to be the chair,” Copas said. “So what? She was elected.” (Karamo did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

Near the end of 2023, Copas circulated a draft of his proposed overhaul of the party constitution. The new constitution proposed a radical change: Eliminate open primary elections and replace them with closed caucuses. Under the current system, about a million people voted in an August GOP primary to choose nominees for local elected offices, state legislative seats, judgeships and federal House and Senate races. Instead of those million or so voters casting ballots, fewer than 10,000 precinct delegates — the same precinct delegates who had powered Karamo to victory — would meet behind closed doors and select the candidates.

The aim of this proposal, said Joel Studebaker, who was Karamo’s chief of staff, was to break up the “corruption club” that had ruled Michigan Republican politics for far too long. “We want something that’s pure,” he told me. “The best answer for that is putting power in the hands of the people.” The irony, critics pointed out, was that Karamo’s proposal would disenfranchise far more people than it empowered.

There was another reason the closed-caucus model appealed to the “America First” faithful: It meant there was no need for voting machines, mail-in ballots, high-speed scanners or any of the other technologies that election-fraud believers had spent the last two years railing against. “You’re eliminating cheating in the election system,” Beyer told me.

The backlash was fierce. “Nothing says ‘we respect democracy’ like cutting out millions of Michigan voters,” wrote one prominent Michigan conservative activist.

Karamo’s proposed voting reforms and the party’s dire finances plunged the organization into turmoil with the 2024 elections less than a year away. Even some of Karamo’s own supporters turned against her. Privately, a group of delegates discussed whether to urge her to step down for the good of the party. Karamo had no plans to resign. If her enemies wanted her gone, they would have to try to remove her.

And so they did: On Jan. 6, 2024, a group of anti-Karamo delegates on the Republican state committee invoked party bylaws and voted to remove Karamo as chair. Two weeks later, the same faction elected former U.S. representative Pete Hoekstra to replace her.

Up From the Ashes

By the time Trump walked onstage in Waterford Township, Michigan, in mid-February with his red hat pulled low, the Michigan Republican Party was a national punchline. Karamo had refused to leave office, saying the vote to oust her was “illegitimate.” An unsigned statement issued by the state GOP called it a “political lynching.” Her critics filed a lawsuit in state court to enforce the removal vote, and Karamo said only a judge’s order could make her leave. In the meantime, she urged her followers to travel to Detroit on March 2 for a special convention. There, they would vote on her controversial plan to rewrite the Michigan GOP’s constitution.

At his mid-February rally, Trump waded into the chaotic mess that was the Michigan Republican Party despite his supporters urging him not to. He described Hoekstra as “your new Michigan Republican Party chairman,” a line that was greeted with a mix of cheers and boos. The boos continued as Trump said he’d recommended Hoekstra for the job. “I said, ‘Do you think you could ever get this guy Hoekstra? He’s unbelievable,’” Trump said.

The Trump campaign seemed to recognize that the longer Karamo remained in charge, the weaker the state party was and the less chance he had to win Michigan. For both Trump and Biden, Michigan is arguably a must-win state.

Still, some of Trump’s most ardent supporters saw his support for Hoekstra as a betrayal. “I’m not happy with Mr. Trump right now,” one voter said at a Republican town hall I attended. “I think he should keep his nose out of Michigan politics.” When I asked Beyer what he thought, he said he suspected Trump was playing a double game. “If you know anything about election integrity, you know it’s a rigged program here,” he said. For Trump to win, “he’s gotta join the riggers.” I heard a Karamo supporter say she had read on “Truth” — meaning Truth Social, the social media platform partly owned by Trump — that Trump hadn’t even written the endorsement of Hoekstra that appeared on his account.

Around the time of Trump’s visit to Michigan, I went to hear Karamo speak in Saginaw County, an hour and a half north of Detroit. The event was part of a barnstorming tour of the state meant to rally her supporters and assure them that she remained the party’s legitimate leader. To her supporters, the date of the vote to remove her, Jan. 6, 2024, had taken on a mythological quality — it was the new Jan. 6. Their Jan. 6. The audience sat rapt as Karamo told them that it wasn’t just 2020 and 2022 that were rigged. “Our election system has been corrupted for decades. There’s an entire network protecting the corrupt system.”

At the end of her remarks, she reminded her supporters to go to Detroit on March 2. The date had taken on an outsize significance. Not only would delegates choose which presidential candidate received Michigan’s 39 remaining delegates on the path to the Republican nomination, but they would vote on Karamo’s constitution plan. Hoekstra, who was calling himself the rightful chair, was planning a separate event on the same day in Grand Rapids. The schism in the party would be on full display.

A few days before the dueling conventions, a judge issued a preliminary ruling that Karamo had been properly removed. The Detroit convention was called off, and her constitutional overhaul was shelved for the time being. With Karamo’s event canceled, Beyer, now a regional GOP chairman as well as a delegate, said he would carry the torch for the “America First” movement. In an act of defiance aimed at “Adolf” Hoekstra, as Beyer called him, he and Studebaker announced their own miniconvention.

On the morning of March 2, Beyer picked me up at a Wendy’s on the drive to his breakaway convention. A deluge of text messages lit up his phone as we drove down the highway. Beyer told me that the theme for Hoekstra’s convention was “Up From the Ashes.”

“It’s fitting,” he said. “Because they lit the match. They don’t like the new group of people that have come in over the last two years.” He paused. “They’re burning down the Republican Party to get rid of people like me.”

After Beyer and Studebaker had run their protest convention, they jumped in Studebaker’s truck and drove to Hoekstra’s event in Grand Rapids. There, Studebaker ran into some operatives aligned with Trump’s team in Michigan. Studebaker was furious with them and with Trump for abandoning Karamo and for, as he saw it, thwarting the will of the delegates.

“He’s going to lose Michigan if he keeps doing this,” Studebaker said. The delegates will still vote for Trump, he added, but they’re not going to knock doors and they’re not going to give money. They might tune out of state and national elections and focus on local races.

The operatives were unmoved. “We gotta go,” one of them said. “Trump stuff.”

A Future Without Trump

Not long afterward, Trump disappointed his grassroots followers again. In Michigan’s high-stakes Republican Senate contest, Trump endorsed Mike Rogers, a former representative, all but assuring that Rogers would clinch the nomination in the August primary.

As for Peter Meijer, that throw-you-off-the-bridge exchange in the cafe in February had proved prophetic: His comeback bid was doomed. In late April, he dropped out.

Trump’s endorsement of Rogers left his supporters mystified. Like Meijer, he had been a vocal critic of Trump, once calling the former president “more gangster than presidential.” He had chaired the powerful House intelligence committee, which led Trump followers to label him a member of the “deep state.” A former aide to Trump had tweeted: “Can’t imagine a worse or more dangerous ‘Republican’ candidate for Senate than Mike Rogers.”

Jim Copas, who quit his role with the party shortly before Karamo was forced out, told me he was disgusted with Trump’s actions. “I’ve lost complete faith in the state GOP and I’ve lost complete faith in the national GOP,” he said. Speaking of Trump, he added: “To be honest, I think Don has learned a little bit about being a politician and he’s forgotten his soul.”

Beyer hadn’t given up on Trump. He still “loved” the man, he said, but he wasn’t taking direction from Trump. “I’m not gonna always listen to him,” Beyer told me. “I’m not part of a cult.”

He had his own plans. In one of our last conversations, he laid out a more religious, more uncompromising version of the “America First” movement. He had started his own PAC called Faith Family Freedom and he planned to target the precinct delegates around the state who had opposed Karamo and replace them with “America First” allies in the next round of delegate elections this August. He had already signed up 350 supporters in various counties, he said, to help with his efforts.

If the Republican establishment — the DeVoses and the Meijers, Pete Hoekstra and the people who had voted to remove Karamo — fought him and his compatriots, Beyer stood ready. “They’re not after Trump. They’re not after Kristina,” he told me. “They’re after me. They’re after everybody like me. That’s what this is all about.”

Trump’s courthouse clown show can’t hide it: There’s barely any MAGA support in the streets

Donald Trump does not seem to feel his criminal case in Manhattan is going well for him. For the first few weeks, the defendant in this campaign finance fraud and election interference trial mostly stuck to the advice given to anyone facing a potential felony conviction: Sit still, be quiet, and let your attorneys do the talking. Concessions were made to Trump's narcissism, mainly in the form of letting him rant at reporters going in and out of trial. He played games with the gag orders until the threat of jail time shut him up. But by and large, Trump has kept a lid on the childish MAGA antics, even if that means his defense team lets him nap throughout the trial, much like one does with a toddler you're trying to keep from throwing a tantrum. 

MAGA loves Trump because they think he owns the liberals. When he looks more like he's the one getting owned, they keep their distance.

However, in the past week and a half — ever since adult film star Stormy Daniels offered her devastating testimony — Trump's need to turn every occasion into a clown show has taken over. Trump used to show up with no support besides his lawyers. Now he brings an increasingly obnoxious entourage of bootlickers with him every day. It started off with some of the more annoying Republican congressional members flocking to the courthouse to bark lies into the microphones. It's since devolved into bottom-feeders and actual gangsters like Chuck Zito of the Hell's Angels, convicted felon Bernie Kerik, and indicted co-conspirator Boris Epshteyn.

The purpose seems mostly to be disruptive, as these men talk loudly on their phones in court and wear matching outfits, trying to draw as much attention as possible. During breaks, the Trump surrogates rush to the microphones outside to bellyache more. The goal of the circus appears mostly to weave the illusion that Trump has a groundswell of support. But no matter how many Republican congressmen or identically dressed MAGA influencers march before the cameras, it has not resulted in what Trump clearly wishes for most of all: People in the streets to support him. 

Sure, there's a couple of people who show up to wave Trump flags. But in a city as big as New York you can always find some stray weirdoes. The common folk flocking to the trial are mostly there to hate Trump. Some get to go inside to gawk at him on trial. Some, however, are left outside to jeer the greedy shills whose "support" for Trump is based purely on ambition. 

Trump is so desperate he's returning to his lie that there are hordes of supporters who want to show up but are being mysteriously blocked by police. 

Donald Trump Jr. even made a video claiming that people in Manhattan give him a "thumbs up hidden under their jacket," a fantasy so sad that it's surprising that even the most Fox News-pilled viewers would pretend to believe it. 

These efforts to manifest supporters who aren't actually there come on the heels of new reporting from InsiderNJ that the crowd that attended the recent Trump rally in Wildwood, New Jersey was a small fraction of the size erroneously reported in the Associated Press. The apparently false number of 80,000-100,000 came from a Republican mayor, who admitted that he got it from the Trump campaign, which is known to lie about pretty much everything. Video footage from the actual rally, InsiderNJ notes, "reveals a crowd in the few thousands."

None of this is to deny the frightening poll reality, which shows a neck-in-neck race between Trump and President Joe Biden. Nor does it suggest the MAGA movement is receding in any meaningful way, though they remain a minority of Americans, as they always have been. But it's yet another reminder that Trump's narcissism blinds him to the true nature of his support. Trump runs around describing himself as a perfect person in body and mind, possessing an athletic physique, a genius-level intellect, and an inability to err in any way. He mistakenly feels that's what his voters see, as well, and so is perplexed when they don't flock to defend their orange-hued god from his supposed persecutors. But the MAGA movement has always viewed Trump more as a weapon against their perceived enemies than as a messiah figure. 

No doubt Trump's obnoxious personality and seeming impunity from consequences undergird his appeal to MAGA audiences, but mostly because they want to instrumentalize these qualities for their political ends. They enjoy his criminality when it seems useful to them, such as when Trump was trying to steal an election or illegally deport people they don't like. His rallies draw crowds less because people care what he says — they don't seem to really listen, anyway, which is why they don't notice him babbling incoherently or praising fictional cannibal killers — but more for the typical fascist reason of wanting to display a show of force. 

This trial, however, is something most MAGA people want to think about as little as possible. It's a bummer being reminded their leader is a pitiful man who has to bully women into bed to get laid. It's not inspiring to hear him whine non-stop every time he has a chance. They like Trump when he's making them feel like winners, with his baseless boasting and empty promises. Even with his faithless entourage around him, though, he just feels like a tired old man who won't even admit he had sex with Stormy Daniels, which would at least impress some of his more incel-oriented followers. Anecdotally, I've seen a shift in the social media postings from GOP-voting relatives, who seldom mention Trump now, choosing instead to mostly bag on President Joe Biden.

We need your help to stay independent

It's not just Trump's opponents who are holding their breath, waiting for a verdict. His supporters are, as well. What little information they're getting about this trial, if any at all, can't feel good for them. Trump's caterwauling and lies are reaching unbearable decibels. Even the most loyal redhats have to know he's worried, correctly, the prosecution made their case. Their only hope is a MAGA ringer snuck on the jury to hang it. 

Trump was able to rally a huge crowd on Jan. 6 for two reasons: First, because they felt the riot was about them, not him. Second, because Trump apparently convinced them that an insurrection would actually be successful. His pitch to his followers has always been that he has an uncanny talent for failing up. It's easy to see why they believe it, too. He's bankrupted his business multiple times, committed endless crimes, and ran a terrible campaign in 2016. Somehow he still manages to be a free, rich man and even lucked his way into the White House. Even his detractors often ascribe him near-magical abilities to be untouched by the consequences of his own terribleness. In that light, one can see how his followers convinced themselves he'd be able to steal an election and get away with it, as well. 

His pose of invulnerability seems a little harder to sell these days, even as he continues to enjoy the unfathomable levels of powerful support, such as from the Supreme Court, protecting him from anything close to the levels of accountability he deserves. He lost in the E. Jean Carroll trials and he lost his civil fraud trial. He could very well lose this trial. MAGA loves Trump because they think he owns the liberals. When he looks more like he's the one getting owned, they keep their distance.

How Trump’s hidden Nazi messages help conceal his open antisemitism

One of the most important rules for surviving and triumphing over an authoritarian regime is to always take seriously what the dictator says. They are not kidding. This rule most certainly applies to Donald Trump, who has promised that he is going to be a dictator on “day one” if he defeats President Biden in the 2024 election. With Trump tied with or leading President Biden in the early polls, the American people need to quickly internalize the aforementioned rule for survival.

As leading historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat warned in a recent social media post, “Folks, he is not going to leave office, ever. Know this before you decide not to vote for Biden. It will be worse than you can imagine and a national security disaster. The aim is to destroy America, to the benefit of autocrats around the world.”

Time magazine recently featured an extensive interview with Trump where he outlined, in great detail, his authoritarian plans and vision for the United States if he takes power in 2025. Several days later, the New York Times obtained audio from a meeting at Trump's Mar-a-Lago with his donors. There, Trump lied, of course, and claimed that President Biden leads a “Gestapo” that he is using to persecute his supposed enemies.

Trump’s statements about a Biden-led “Gestapo” are projections and an application of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' command to always accuse the opposition of that which you are in fact guilty of doing. Trump’s Nazi projections are part of a much larger dynamic where today’s right openly embraces antisemitism, white supremacy, and racism.

On Monday, for the latest example, Trump shared a video on his Truth Social disinformation platform that fantasized about his victory in the 2024 election over President Biden including the rise of a "unified Reich."

Dr. Sharon Nazarian, who is a board member of the Anti-Defamation League and a noted expert on global antisemitism, issued the following statement in response to the Trump campaign's "unified Reich" video:

Words like Reich don’t just accidentally end up in campaign videos. This is a message to antisemites and anti-democratic extremists everywhere about what to expect should Trump return to the White House. Donald Trump knows exactly what he is doing. This is part of a long pattern of behavior where he normalizes antisemitic language and behavior and then later claims that he ‘didn’t know’ or it was ‘fake news’, but the extremists know full well where he stands, and we need acknowledge that these aren’t mistakes, he is telling us exactly what he would do in a second term. Donald Trump no longer should be given the benefit of the doubt. He sees antisemitism as a powerful tool to be used towards his own political goals, and those goals are to reshape American democracy and society in ways that will make the lives of Jews unsafe.

Trump's campaign claims that the Nazi references in the video were shared by accident. Given Donald Trump and his propagandists' long pattern of antisemitic and white supremacist behavior, however, such denials have little to no credibility. 

Trump and his propagandists and other agents repeatedly amplify the Great Replacement Theory (white people are somehow being “replaced” by non-whites who are “imported” into the country/West by Democrats and “liberals”) and lies that Democratic Party donor George Soros (he is Jewish and a Holocaust survivor) is the leader of a vast secret cabal to rule America and the world. These are based on old and virulent antisemitic conspiracy theories and lies, most notably the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Trump’s messaging has been very effective: A majority of Trump MAGA people and a large percentage of Republicans now believe in the Great Replacement Theory.

To that point, Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Jewish Americans who support the Democrats and not the Republicans and Israel are “disloyal” and somehow not “real” Jews. Of course, Donald Trump believes that “good Jews” support him. This is textbook antisemitism: Jewish people are individuals and not a hive mind.

Donald Trump infamously said that Nazis and other white supremacists are “very fine” people after the Charlottesville rampage in 2017 that killed Heather Heyer and injured dozens of other people. Trump has repeatedly shared antisemitic images and memes on social media and has met personally with antisemites and white supremacists.

We need your help to stay independent

The first Trump administration created a concentration camp system and set of policies intentionally designed to break up the families of black and brown migrants, refugees, and undocumented residents as a “deterrent." If Trump returns to power he is promising and has planned a much more expansive version of that same cruel policy.

The Trump administration deviated from established tradition and did not properly honor Holocaust Remembrance Day. Instead, it chose to minimize the unique and historically specific crimes that the Nazis inflicted upon the Jewish people during the Holocaust.  

Trump has continued to channel Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, with his threats and promises to purify the blood of the nation by getting rid of human “vermin” and other “pollution” as part of final battle and campaign of retribution and revenge when/if he takes power in 2025. These are eliminationist and genocidal threats of violence against those individuals and groups targeted as other or who dare to resist the regime and its attempt to end multiracial pluralistic democracy. Trump has also threatened, on numerous occasions, while president and afterwards, to have his political and personal “enemies” killed.

Project 2025, Agenda 47, the Red Caesar Scenario, and the other plans that a second Trump regime will use to end America’s real democracy have clear connections to the Enabling Act and German legal theorist Carl Schmitt’s “state of exception” that empowered the Nazi regime and its rise to power.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Writing at The New Republic, Greg Sargent warns of Trump’s eliminationist language and the types of violence and other harm it has and will cause to entire communities of people in the United States. Sargent also highlights the mainstream news media’s repeated failures to properly explain this to the American people.

Trump’s ugly demagogic rants in Michigan, and others like it, deserve to be treated as a national scandal. The cherry-picking of isolated terrible crimes to smear migrants as a class is not something we would tolerate if it were directed toward other groups. Never mind what Trump is attempting to do politically. His deranged, malicious, hateful public conduct should be seen as the real story here. It should be covered that way….

In covering Trump’s Michigan event, some news accounts dutifully noted that fact. But they tended to treat this as a conventional fact-check of typical political rhetoric, rather than treating his heinous smearing of a large class of people as itself being the story.

Trump’s constant use of the deranged “migrant crime” trope provides the hook for doing just that. The Republican National Committee now has an official website devoted to chronicling “migrant crime” and “illegal alien crime,” listed out by state (in some states no “illegal alien crimes” have yet been documented). The casual use of such terms to smear large classes of immigrants is the official party position.

Eight or so years ago, at the beginning of the Age of Trump, warnings that Trump and the MAGA movement were neofascists who were channeling Hitlerism and the Nazis as part of a project to end multiracial pluralistic democracy were mostly met with outrage, disgust, and bellowing objections of “impossible” and “it can’t happen here!” because “we are Americans and better than that!” Then as Trump and his agents continued with their Nazi-talk and other racial authoritarianism (and related violence and threats), the same gatekeepers and public voices responded with shock and disgust and momentary condemnation. This was especially true on and in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 coup attempt.

Now, Donald Trump is (finally) facing some legal consequences for his decades-long crime spree and has responded by amplifying his Hitlerian language and threats. The mainstream news and other elites and gatekeepers who shape the “boundaries of the approved public discourse” are largely responding with indifference, because they are more focused on the familiar horserace of the 2024 election and have rationalized Trump’s aberrant and very dangerous behavior as this is “all Trump just being Trump.”

In an excellent essay at the Atlantic, historian Christopher Browning explains, with great vulnerability and transparency, how his thinking on these questions about Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, and American fascism evolved:

For some years, a variety of news commentators and academics have called Donald Trump a fascist. I was one of those who resisted using that term. I thought it had long been abused by casual, imprecise applications, and as a historian of Nazi Germany, I did not think Trumpism was anywhere close to crossing the threshold of that comparison. I still deny that Trump’s presidency was fascist—but I’m concerned that if he wins another trip to the White House, he could earn the label.

Fascism was most fully exemplified by the regimes of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. These regimes combined totalitarian dictatorship, wars of imperial conquest, and outright genocide in the case of Hitler (of Jews, Slavs, Roma) or ethnic mass murder in Mussolini’s case (of Libyans, Ethiopians, Slovenes). Placing Trumpism in the same category seemed to me trivializing and misleading.

I argued instead that Trump was more like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan than Hitler or Mussolini, and should be categorized as an “illiberal populist” rather than a fascist. And in one very important respect, Trump differed sharply from the European fascists of the interwar period.

They were ardent militarists and imperialists. War was the crucible in which the new fascist man was to be forged; territorial expansion was both the means and the end of fascist power and triumph. Trump has shown little ambition to pursue such aims. In his first term, he shamelessly abased himself before Russian President Vladimir Putin, exchanged “love letters” with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban committing the U.S. to withdrawal from Afghanistan, and petulantly sought to downgrade U.S. treaty obligations to NATO and South Korean allies that he deemed to be “delinquent” and getting a “free ride.”

Trump has continued in the same isolationist vein in recent interviews and speeches. …

Browning continues:

A huge transformation of the administrative state is being deliberately planned. The government agencies and civil service he has decried as the “deep state” would be purged or politicized, and the “retribution” he has promised against his enemies would also be carried out. The “unitary executive” theory long promoted by some Republicans would become the reality of an unabashed authoritarianism.

The very last months of the Trump presidency foreshadowed what a second term would entail. When formerly loyal vassals such as Attorney General William Barr and Defense Secretary Mark Esper demonstrated that they would not cross the line into unconstitutional insurgency, Trump sought sycophants for whom no such line existed. In a new Trump administration, total devotion to the leader would be the sole qualification for appointment.

Unlike previous fascist leaders with their cult of war, Trump still offers appeasement to dictators abroad, but he now promises something much closer to dictatorship at home. For me, what Trump is offering for his second presidency will meet the threshold, and the label I’d choose to describe it would be “isolationist fascism.” Until now, such a concept would have been an oxymoron, a historical phenomenon without precedent. Trump continues to break every mold.

To experience such a rapid progression in real time is surreal. My worn copies of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," Milton Mayer’s “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45," Du Bois’s “Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880” and Sheldon Wholin’s “Democracy Incorporated” are on the floor next to me while I write this essay. I am increasingly worried that a type of path dependence has set in with the Age of Trump and the country’s democracy crisis and ascendant neofascism. The water in the pot is boiling more rapidly and too many Americans have gotten far too comfortable in it.

Apocalypse now, and always: On UFOs, AI and encounters with non-human intelligence

It’s understandable if our present moment feels to many people like the end of the world. No one needs reminding of the litany of terrible things happening across the globe, from the erosion of democracy to endless war to the “biological holocaust” our planet is undergoing thanks to climate change.

As someone raised in the shadow of Y2K and 9/11, my entire life has felt like waiting for an apocalypse. I was profoundly traumatized by the evangelical weirdness about those who will be “left behind” when Jesus returns from vacation to vacuum all the true believers up to heaven, not to mention the ever-looming specter of nuclear annihilation, terrorist attacks or killer rocks from space. Everything seems to be getting worse, not better. Yet, we’re still here.

To make things even weirder, now UFOs have been given mainstream legitimacy. We still don’t entirely know what they are, but one of the few established facts in this area is that the U.S. government has secretly studied UFOs for decades, and has actively sowed discord about whether they're out there and what they are. The feds and scientists who study them call them UAPs, or "unidentified aerial phenomena," which is admittedly more accurate, but the general public still gravitates toward the term familiarized by "The X Files" and other pop-culture artifacts. Whatever label we use, these things are unidentified. In many cases, we literally don’t know what the heck we’re seeing.

That hasn’t stopped people from making all sorts of assumptions about unexplained things seen in the sky. But the typical Hollywood account really doesn’t reflect what most modern UFO/UAP experiences are like. In her latest book, “Encounters: Experiences with Nonhuman Intelligences,” religious scholar D.W. Pasulka seeks to demystify this growing phenomenon, suggesting that the truth is far stranger than fiction. While aliens visiting from other planets remain a popular theory, and cannot be conclusively ruled out, that's far from the only hypothesis. Salon spoke with Pasulka about UFO encounters, new religions built around technology and strange lights in the sky, and the apocalypse.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Your book highlights the idea that UFO experiences aren’t much like the mainstream pop-culture depictions. One clear sense in which ideas of UAPs are wrong is that non-human intelligence doesn't necessarily mean E.T. from another planet. The idea of non-human intelligence communicating with humanity is an ancient one, reported throughout all recorded history — but this isn’t generally an area that has a strong scientific basis, it would seem. Can we talk about how some of these encounters can take different forms, including some that even weirder than aliens?

So first, I’m a professor of religious studies and most people don't know what we do. We're interdisciplinary: We’re archaeologists, sociologists, historians. We come at it from different perspectives and definitely do not advocate for any religious tradition. We think that studying religion is important, because most people in the world are religious, they belong to some traditional religion or nontraditional religion.

There's also this whole realm of new religious movements, which includes spirituality. A lot of people have a religious tradition but get rid of it, in favor of what they think are spiritual experiences, say via meditation, centering prayer or things like that. A lot of people consider themselves spiritual, but not religious, and that also fits into what we study. We study people's practices and beliefs and behaviors, and how they impact greater culture.

"When I started to look into people who have seen UFOs … it's generally a transformative experience. And It's nothing like how it's portrayed in the movies. It's a lot stranger."

That said, we’re coming to this idea of how people think about the idea of the UFO. In 2012, I was one of these people that saw the UFOs as extraterrestrial vehicles, advanced technology from somewhere else, but I didn't believe in it. This is the stereotype we inherit from media technologies: films, social media, things that we share. All of us have grown up with some type of extraterrestrial media technology. It could be "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" or "Lost in Space." All of these informed our views of what a UFO is.

So when I started to look into people who have seen UFOs — they call themselves "experiencers" — or just people who've randomly seen UFOs, like pilots, it's generally a fairly transformative experience for them. And it's nothing like how it's portrayed in these movies. It's a lot stranger.

For people who have who see these routinely — and there are people who do — it's much different. I was shocked to find that the government was studying this. The first book I did was “American Cosmic" and I met people in programs who studied this, scientists at the top of their game, Gary Nolan at Stanford University being one of them.

This was shocking to me. It completely reoriented me to what is going on. I also did a study of the space program. I found that the people who were creating the rocket technologies that got us off this planet believed that they were in communication with non-human intelligences — on each side, Russia and the United States, each different. Russia had more of a Christian inflection, and people like Jack Parsons, in our program, thought of it in much more wild, esoteric ways, But they were definitely believing that they were in contact with non-human intelligences and these inspired their rocket calculations.

"We have something completely different now. This is a decentralized form of religion, that could only happen with the infrastructure that we have today."

I found that the United States space program didn't really want to talk about this at all. A lot of people in those programs didn't even know who Jack Parsons was. So there was a compartmentalization that was extreme. This is how I came to recognizing that there was a lot more here than what we inherit as a stereotype.

It would be foolish of the government not to study this phenomenon. So where do we go with that? If UFOs are a kind of new religious movement, it does not seem very organized. People aren't going to the UFO church down the street. So what are the implications of that?

I'm studying this as a new form of religion. We do have UFO religions where you can go to the UFO church, by the way. There have been UFO religions all throughout the 20th century. The Nation of Islam is a great example of a religion that was formed through its founders’ UFO experience and events. And the end of the world for them is happening, when the UFOs will come back and reshape social relations here on Earth. That's a religion here in the United States. It's all over the world right now.

There's also Raëlism, where you have a person who has a UFO experience, and we have millions of people who belong to this religion. So there are a lot of discrete UFO religions. But what I'm saying is, no, we have something completely different now. This is a decentralized form of religion that could only happen with the infrastructure that we have today, which is a technological infrastructure. People can identify that they have had these UFO experiences, go to specific social media sites like Reddit, Twitter or Instagram, and share their videos and experiences.

So this is reinforcing a belief. There's different types of belief, but it's still a religiosity. A lot of people who have these experiences are doing things that people in religious studies identify as rituals, practices, belief in beings that we consider to be higher, more advanced than us, or even malicious in some ways. So this is what I'm saying when when we're talking about a new form of religion.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


This is global. It transcends nation-states, whereas traditional religions were localized and regional. This is happening because of the shift in technological infrastructure. Before, we saw this with the Protestant Reformation, which would not have happened had we not had the printing press — a technological invention that networked people with information. We're seeing this supercharged at this point in time.

It's really interesting to me how UFO religion blurs the line between technology, science and spirituality. There's a hard line in Western culture between those things. But in a lot of other cultures, that's not really a thing. It's all one, and separating stuff as real, tangible, scientific or technological is just kind of arbitrary.

Carl Jung is a person who writes about this in the early 20th century. And he basically calls the image of the UFO the "technological angel," and says that this is, in a sense, religion and technology merging, which it has to do if religion is going to survive — it has to change shape. He begins to speak about it as a psychological appearance, like some kind of archetype.

You know, we're afraid of sentient AI [artificial intelligence]. Well, that's a form of non-human intelligence. So I think it's really interesting that at the same time that the UFO is getting prominence, we also see AI gaining prominence. A lot of the communities of people who created AI and were longtime AI creators, coders and things like this, their belief system was basically a UFO-type belief system. They did not believe that these were extraterrestrial. They believed they were interdimensional, which means that through AI, we're opening up new, non-space-time places of information and knowledge, and that this kind of interaction with this other intelligence was going to be happening.

I read that you're a practicing Catholic. I’m curious whether you have any thoughts about the idea that the government is hiding the truth about UFOs from the public because it would cause world religious organizations to panic or collapse or something. Is this really a genuine risk, what’s called “epistemological shock?” Or would most religions be able to adapt? Are we ready for some of these paradigm shifts that seem apparent?

A lot of people from the government have approached me and asked my opinion about how people in religious traditions will feel if the government comes out and says, “Yes, we've been studying UFOs and we believe that they exist.” And by the way, the government has done this many times and nobody's really gotten very upset about it. [Editor's note: To clarify, the U.S. government has acknowledged the existence of UAP, but says it has found no evidence they are extraterrestrial or non-human in origin.]

I basically think that religious traditions, or at least almost every religious tradition, have metaphysical categories for non-human intelligence, obviously. I think that it's secular people who don't understand this. There have been studies about people in religions and how they'll feel about it. They're totally fine with it. A lot of them already believe it.

So I think it's not going to create shock. I think that if the government [makes that claim], that's just a way for them not to share the information that they have, because if they have information it probably has to do with national security. And that's a legitimate reason not to share it, frankly. They don't have to make the excuse that religious people are gonna freak out about this.

It seems the whole culture of secrecy is kind of counterproductive, because people don’t speak out about it and we can’t figure out what UFOs are, systematically, which gives people room to make assumptions. I’m very wary of claims that UAP are aliens from another world, here to rescue us from our mistakes about climate change or war or whatever. That idea feels too familiar to the Christian apocalypse, replacing one with another. I feel like in some ways, the notion of apocalypse is just about shirking our responsibility as humans to take charge of what's happening on this planet.

I've studied apocalypse. There's obviously the apocalypse that evangelical Christians believe in, and that actually is different from the Catholic apocalypse. Even within the very large field of Christianity, different religions within that have different ideas of apocalypse, whereas some don't even have any.

Secular people also have apocalypses. There’s this idea of the zombie apocalypse. There's the idea of the climate change apocalypse, which is bolstered by scientific evidence. But it's very associated with the end of human history and time. So we've been living through this idea of apocalypse, no matter if we're religious or not.

We need your help to stay independent

In fact, part of the reason why I started to study UFOs was because there was another apocalyptic prediction in 2011. My students were really worried. They were asking me — there was a man in California, I can't remember his name, who was predicting that the end time was coming and he was getting a lot of media attention. A lot of people were selling everything they had, taking their kids’ college funds and giving it to this man, because he was saying we had to do this to warn everybody that this was going to happen. Of course it didn't.

So I decided that I needed to give this class to my students, because they needed to know that apocalypses have been around for thousands of years, and nothing ever happens. Did you know that climate change has been around too? I don't want to say that, no, pollution is not happening and terrible things are not happening. No, they're happening. But climate changes have been around and have been documented, even here in the United States. There were people who immigrated here because of climate change in various European countries. They were unable to live in their country, so they immigrated here. So even climate change has been around. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take it seriously. That just means that we need to have a broader idea.

There's a NASA historian named Steven J. Dick who has said that when humans are looking historically, they generally look at 1,000 years, 2,000 years, 10,000 years, something like that. He says we need to have cosmic time, so that we can understand maybe things in terms of millions or billions of years, so that we can begin to understand our place in the universe, we can become much more cosmologically aware.

I can’t afford olive oil. What else can I use?

If you buy your olive oil in bulk, you've likely been in for a shock in recent weeks. Major supermarkets have been selling olive oil for up to A$65 for a four-liter tin, and up to $26 for a 750 milliliter bottle.

We've been hearing about the health benefits of olive oil for years. And many of us are adding it to salads, or baking and frying with it.

But during a cost-of-living crisis, these high prices can put olive oil out of reach.  

Let's take a look at why olive oil is in demand, why it's so expensive right now, and what to do until prices come down.

 

Remind me, why is olive oil so good for you?

Including olive oil in your diet can reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and improve heart health through more favorable blood pressure, inflammation and cholesterol levels.

This is largely because olive oil is high in monounsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols (antioxidants).

Some researchers have suggested you can get these benefits from consuming up to 20 grams a day. That's equivalent to about five teaspoons of olive oil.

 

Why is olive oil so expensive right now?

A European heatwave and drought have limited Spanish and Italian producers' ability to supply olive oil to international markets, including Australia.

This has been coupled with an unusually cold and short growing season for Australian olive oil suppliers.

The lower-than-usual production and supply of olive oil, together with heightened demand from shoppers, means prices have gone up.

         

How can I make my olive oil go further?

Many households buy olive oil in large quantities because it is cheaper per litre. So, if you have some still in stock, you can make it go further by:

  • storing it correctly – make sure the lid is on tightly and it's kept in a cool, dark place, such as a pantry or cabinet. If stored this way, olive oil can typically last 12–18 months

  • using a spray – sprays distribute oil more evenly than pourers, using less olive oil overall. You could buy a spray bottle to fill from a large tin, as needed

  • straining or freezing it – if you have leftover olive oil after frying, strain it and reuse it for other fried dishes. You could also freeze this used oil in an airtight container, then thaw and fry with it later, without affecting the oil's taste and other characteristics. But for dressings, only use fresh oil.

 

I've run out of olive oil. What else can I use?

Here are some healthy and cheaper alternatives to olive oil:

  • canola oil is a good alternative for frying. It's relatively low in saturated fat so is generally considered healthy. Like olive oil, it is high in healthy monounsaturated fats
    Cost? Up to $6 for a 750mL bottle (home brand is about half the price)

  • sunflower oil is a great alternative to use on salads or for frying. It has a mild flavour that does not overwhelm other ingredients. Some studies suggest using sunflower oil may help reduce your risk of heart disease by lowering LDL (bad) cholesterol and raising HDL (good) cholesterol. Cost? Up to $6.50 for a 750mL bottle (again, home brand is about half the price)

  • sesame oil has a nutty flavour. It's good for Asian dressings, and frying. Light sesame oil is typically used as a neutral cooking oil, while the toasted type is used to flavour sauces. Sesame oil is high in antioxidants and has some anti-inflammatory properties. Sesame oil is generally sold in smaller bottles than canola or sunflower oil. Cost? Up to $5 for a 150mL bottle.

         

How can I use less oil, generally?

Using less oil in your cooking could keep your meals healthy. Here are some alternatives and cooking techniques:

  • use alternatives for baking – unless you are making an olive oil cake, if your recipe calls for a large quantity of oil, try using an alternative such as apple sauce, Greek yoghurt or mashed banana

  • use non-stick cookware – using high-quality, non-stick pots and pans reduces the need for oil when cooking, or means you don't need oil at all

  • steam instead – steam vegetables, fish and poultry to retain nutrients and moisture without adding oil

  • bake or roast – potatoes, vegetables or chicken can be baked or roasted rather than fried. You can still achieve crispy textures without needing excessive oil

  • grill – the natural fats in meat and vegetables can help keep ingredients moist, without using oil

  • use stock – instead of sautéing vegetables in oil, try using vegetable broth or stock to add flavour

  • try vinegar or citrus – use vinegar or citrus juice (such as lemon or lime) to add flavour to salads, marinades and sauces without relying on oil

  • use natural moisture – use the natural moisture in ingredients such as tomatoes, onions and mushrooms to cook dishes without adding extra oil. They release moisture as they cook, helping to prevent sticking.

 

Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University

 

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