Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Drew Barrymore’s interview with Kamala Harris was a cringefest. As for why that is, answers may vary

A couple of years ago Drew Barrymore posted an Instagram video of herself giddily strolling in a downpour, hair soaked and laughing hysterically. “Whenever you can, go out into the rain!” she says before bouncing up and down and chirping, “Do not miss the opportunity!”

That, I believe, revealed a dividing line in our common consideration of the sunshiny child actress turned daytime talk show host, in that while most people might have found it to be adorable and life-giving, more than a few folks probably reacted with, “Ugh, no to this.”  

There are many good reasons to avoid deluges, most having to do with the amount spent on one’s hair. Maybe Barrymore understands that. Regardless, that viral moment neatly establishes that storms don’t befall everyone equally. Drew has a lovely home, a fat bank account and a team of stylists. She can afford to let skies wreck her blowout. To others, those same relentless showers are a pneumonia risk, actual and figurative. 

You may think this doesn’t relate to Vice President Kamala Harris’ ill-advised appearance on Monday’s episode of “The Drew Barrymore Show.” You’d be wrong.

See, while we can all agree that Barrymore telling Harris, in her quavering “I’m so serious” tone, that we need the second-highest ranked elected official in the land “to be Momala of the country” was top shelf cringe, opinions of what made it so vary.

Given the broadly encompassing nature of the term “cringe,” that's not too surprising. Barrymore’s sit-down with Harris gave the internet endless reasons to wish for one’s couch cushions to instantaneously vacuum them, glutes first, into another dimension.

Barrymore opened her interview with the vice president by doing what every talk show host does, which is to relate their oh-so-normal lives to that of the celebrities to whom they’re speaking. In Barrymore’s case, she cited Harris’ status as a stepmother to her husband Doug Emhoff’s children Cole and Ella.

“I have such an investment in this question, because I too am in a beautiful dynamic,” is how Barrymore awkwardly describes being a stepparent. 

At this, Karris explains she doesn’t like the term “stepmom," for good reason. “I love Disney, however, Disney kind of messed that up for a lot of us over the years,” she said. Instead, Harris shares, Cole and Ella call her Momala. 

As Harris speaks, Barrymore inches closer and closer to her, leaning in enough to have made Sheryl Sandberg beckon security. She shortens the distance between herself and the vice president until her head invades a significant portion of Harris’ close-up framing. Then comes that "no no no no please don't" passage, when Barrymore's voice shudders with a tender warble.

“I keep thinking in my head that we all need a mom. I’ve been thinking that we all need a tremendous hug right in the world right now,” Barrymore says before adding, "but in our country, we need you to be Momala of the country.”

Ask yourself whether anyone called for Hillary Clinton to mommy us when she was running for office.

Cue the first all-female studio audience in the show’s history erupting into whoops and applause, and Harris' polite "Hmm . . . yeah . . . I mean . . ." speechlessness. This only fuels Barrymore to dive into throw pillow embroidered quote mode as she grabs Harris’ hands. 

“As a woman who respects so much and wants to share and wants to be confident and has no ounce of me that has competitiveness, when we lift each other up, we all rise!” More applause. “However, we need a great protector.” 

Some this is simply Drew Barrymore being Drew Barrymore. No guest sharing a couch with her is immune to her exaggerated, child-like eagerness, a little hand holding and, if you’re Oprah Winfrey, becoming the pliant biscuit dough to the actor's kneading kitten paws

For the record, the media mogul claimed to find the experience of having Barrymore rest her cheek against Winfrey’s hand while stroking her forearm to be "soothing." But as powerful as Oprah is, she isn't subject to the political consequences of "yikes" moments like this one.

In multiple polls, the vice president's approval ratings are consistently lackluster. Sexism and racism play no small role in those results, with Harris being the first Black and South Asian person to hold that office. Regardless of what she says and does, any perceived mistake is magnified. Add the bright idea of having Harris sit down with Barrymore to that column.

Barrymore's daytime talk show has steadily increased its viewership after she nearly forced her staff to cross the WGA's picket lines during its strike, but there has to be a better way to help the woman holding one of politics’ most thankless jobs look more relatable. 

As for the parameters defining that amorphous cringe episode, was it the forced two-handed clutching that made you recoil like a vampire before garlic, or Barrymore’s uncomfortable close talking? Either answer is valid.

We need your help to stay independent

Another dynamic is one that marginalized folks may have picked up on immediately, owing to Harris’ physical reaction to Barrymore’s “Momala to the nation” comment.

See how the vice president squeezes her lips together tightly with the corners upturned? That is the expression of someone trapped in a situation with all eyes on her, knowing she has no choice but to display grace while Barrymore is radiating “I just discovered Alice Walker,” website-certified-white-lady-shaman energy.  The same well-meaning souls give jars of rainwater as gifts or, as Barrymore called on Harris to do, urge "strong Black women" to protect us all during every presidential election cycle.  

Now ask yourself whether anyone called for Hillary Clinton to mommy us when she was running for office. Can you imagine a daytime talk show host asking the late Madeleine Albright to swaddle frightened voters? Not even "Gilmore Girls" was that maudlin.

Barrymore’s sit down with Harris gave the Internet endless reasons to wish for one’s couch cushions to instantaneously vacuum them into another dimension.

Many years ago, perhaps around that same time Albright made a cameo appearance in Rory Gilmore's dreams, Barrymore announced to the planet, “I don't want to be stinky poo-poo girl, I want to be happy flower child.” Every day of “The Drew Barrymore Show” depicts her striving to live up to that life goal. It’s her brand. Sooo cute.

Also, please recognize that neither Sherri Shepherd nor Tamron Hall could build a career on such dippiness because, like Harris, they aren't afforded the latitude to prescribe fluff as the solution to our problems. (Wendy Williams might have, but in what universe?)

Harris helms multiple White House-backed programs that support women’s empowerment as well as fighting for voting rights and reproductive rights, any of which could have been styled in pre-show interviews to appeal to Barrymore’s all-female audience without tanking her sunshine vibe.

To Harris’ credit, she steered out of the froufrou “Momala” ick with a response that worked for the room she was in. “I think that sadly over the last many years, there's been this kind of perverse approach to what strength looks like, which is to suggest that the measure of one's strength is based on who you beat down, instead of what we know: the true measure of your strength is based on who you lift up,” she said, to her share of reflexive clapping.

From there Harris urged viewers to take a true interest in the well-being and suffering of others, adding, “I think we all know that's what we want in each other. That's what we want from leaders. But let's be intentional about it and open about saying, ‘You know, that's really what strength looks like.’” Those are the words of someone who has honed the art of gliding between raindrops, aware of how many of her detractors would cruelly jeer her for getting soaked in a storm while praising Barrymore for dancing in it. Now there's a cringeworthy duality for you.

“It makes me really sad”: Daniel Radcliffe on J.K. Rowling’s anti-transgender rhetoric

"Harry Potter" actor Daniel Radcliffe has issued a response to series creator J.K. Rowling's steady stream of anti-transgender remarks.

Speaking to The Atlantic about his role in the Broadway musical, "Merrily We Roll Along," Radcliffe addressed Rowling's controversial comments.

“It makes me really sad, ultimately,” Radcliffe said. “I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.”

Radcliffe also noted that he has not had any director contact with her since 2020 when she first shared her first public sentiments against transgender people. The actor at the time published a brief essay for the "Trevor Project," in which he indicated his allyship with the trans community. "Transgender women are women," Radcliffe wrote. 

“I wanted to try and help people that had been negatively affected by the comments. And to say that if those are Jo’s views, then they are not the views of everybody associated with the ‘Potter’ franchise,” Radcliffe said. 

He acknowledged that "Harry Potter" would "not have happened without” Rowling, adding, “so nothing in my life would have probably happened the way it is without that person.” However, Radcliffe also argued that “that doesn’t mean that you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life.”

Earlier this month, Rowling hit out at Radcliffe and "Harry Potter" co-star Emma Watson for previously expressing support for transgender people. "Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces," Rowling wrote on X/Twitter. 

 

It’s now illegal to sell (some) raw chicken products with Salmonella

Occasionally, I stumble across food safety headlines that make me do a double-take because they are lauding a measure that seems like it should have been standardized long ago. For instance, last week, the United States Department of Agriculture announced that they would declare Salmonella an adulterant in some raw chicken products, thus making those products illegal to sell — a decision about which the National Chicken Council has already been critical. 

The build-up to the landmark decision began in earnest in 2022 when the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) released a proposed regulatory framework for a new strategy to control Salmonella contamination in poultry products and reduce foodborne illnesses attributed to these products.

“We know that Salmonella in poultry is a complex problem with no single solution,” said USDA Deputy Under Secretary Sandra Eskin at the time. “However, we have identified a series of strategic actions FSIS could take that are likely to drive down Salmonella infections linked to poultry products consumption, and we are presenting those in this proposed framework.”

The framework, which was created with collaboration from both industry stakeholders and scientists, included three key components: requiring that incoming flocks be tested for Salmonella before entering a production establishment; enhancing “establishment process control monitoring and FSIS verification”; and implementing an enforceable final product standard.

About a year later, the FSIS officially proposed classifying Salmonella —a common bacterial disease that affects the intestinal tract — as an adulterant. According to the USDA’s definition, the description “adulterated” shall apply “to any carcass, part thereof, meat or meat food product under one or more circumstances (for example: if it contains poisonous substances, pesticides, or chemicals; or if it has been prepared under insanitary conditions).” 

According to National Law Review, FSIS’s final determination this week is nearly identical to the 2022 framework proposal, with the exception of modifying the proposed sampling location to provide lower costs and more flexibility for industry members. While the organization reportedly plans on addressing Salmonella in other raw chicken products, this declaration specifically focuses on raw, breaded chicken products like frozen chicken cordon bleu or stuffed chicken breasts. 

We need your help to stay independent

“Under President Biden’s leadership, USDA is taking significant steps toward keeping American consumers safe from foodborne illness,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a Friday statement. “This final determination marks the first time that Salmonella is being declared an adulterant in a class of raw poultry products. This policy change is important because it will allow us to stop the sale of these products when we find levels of Salmonella contamination that could make people sick.”

Per the agency, the FSIS “will consider to be adulterated any raw breaded stuffed chicken products that include a chicken component that tested positive for Salmonella at 1 [colony forming unit] per gram or higher.” On their end, the FSIS will carry out verification processes, including sampling and testing of the raw chicken component before it is turned into breaded, stuffed chicken products. If the chicken doesn't pass the test, the batch represented by that sample can't be used to make the final products. This rule will kick in a year after it's officially published in the Federal Register on May 1. 

However, the National Chicken Council (NCC) has already raised some concerns about the proposed measure, specifically surrounding its actual efficacy. 

"This final determination marks the first time that Salmonella is being declared an adulterant in a class of raw poultry products. "

“NCC is gravely concerned that the precedent set by this abrupt shift in longstanding policy has the potential to shutter processing plants, cost jobs, and take safe food and convenient products off shelves,” said NCC President Mike Brown in a release. “We’re also surprised by FSIS’s victory lap here when the agency has no idea if this will move the needle on public health.” 

According to the Council, the FSIS has never, since the Poultry Products Inspection Act was passed in 1957, taken the view that the mere presence of Salmonella on raw poultry renders the product adulterated; additionally, they classify the FSIS’ pathogen threshold at levels as low as 1 CFU to be “practically a zero tolerance policy that doesn’t consider the impact of cooking the products to a safe temperature.” 

Experts agree that the likelihood of getting sick from just one CFU of Salmonella is pretty low — typically, foodborne illnesses occur when a person ingests a large number of bacteria, usually in the range of thousands to millions of CFUs — but it’s not impossible. 

The NCC estimates more than 200 million servings of these products will be lost as part of the FSIS determination, while they also anticipate 500 to 1,000 people will lose their jobs in order for producers to cover what they anticipate to be the higher costs of new USDA testing. 

“USDA has devoted untold amounts of time, effort and taxpayer dollars  — and is willing to drive up grocery store prices for consumers and impose millions of dollars of costs on American businesses — all to develop a policy intended to reduce foodborne illness outbreaks for a product that hasn’t even been associated with an outbreak in three years and that has been associated with only one outbreak in the past nine years,” Brown said.

However, the FSIS maintains that this is a necessary step forward in combating foodborne illness as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that Salmonella bacteria cause over 1 million human infections in the U.S. each year. 

Food is the leading source of Salmonella infections and poultry products are one of the leading sources of foodborne Salmonella illnesses, according to the agency. 

 

How extreme dieting can affect bone health

In a recent Instagram post, the actor Jameela Jamil revealed she has poor bone density, despite only being in her 30s. Jamil blamed this finding on 20 years of dieting – urging her followers to be aware of the harms diet culture can do to your health.

Bone density is important for many reasons, primarily because it acts as a reservoir for many of the important minerals our bones need to function well. Many factors can affect your bone density – and as Jamil has pointed out, diet is one component that has a significant effect on bone health.

Bone is a living tissue. This means our skeleton grows and remodels itself according to the stresses and strains it's put under. Everything from fractures to exercise require our bones to change their shape or density. This is why a weightlifter's skeleton is much denser than a marathon runner's.

The biggest skeletal changes we experience happen in our younger years. But bones keep changing throughout our lives depending on how active we are, what our diet consists of, and if we've suffered an injury or disease.

Bones are made of proteins, such as collagen, as well as minerals – largely calcium. This is a key mineral for us, as it keeps our bones and teeth strong and helps repair and rebuild any injured bones.

But other minerals and vitamins are also important. For example, vitamin D supports calcium, playing a key role in bone mineralisation. This is where calcium combines with phosphate in our bones to create the mineral crystal hydroxyapatite. This crystal is crucial to our bone mineral density (also known as "bone mass"), as it helps bones remodel and maintain their structural strength.

Dexa scans – the type of scan Jamil referred to in her post – can measure the density of these crystals in bones. The more hydroxyapatite crystals detected, the healthier the bones are.

We hit peak bone mineral density in our late teens and early 20s, when our body has grown to full size and our metabolism is working its best. From here, it's possible to maintain stable bone mass into your late 30s for women and early 40s for men, with the right diet and activity. But after this point, it begins to decline.

 

Bone density

We accrue calcium over many years. It initially comes from our mother, then later from our diet. Our body accrues calcium so it can adapt to times when calcium demand is greater than what we can get from our diet – such as during pregnancy, when the foetus needs calcium to build its own bones.

However, relying solely on this skeletal calcium reserve can't be sustained for lengthy or repeated periods, because of how long it takes to be replenished. This is why diet is so important for bone density – and why a poor diet can cause extreme damage, especially when certain food groups or minerals are consistently left out.

For instance, studies have shown consuming soft drinks, (particularly cola), more than four times a week is linked with lower bone density and increased fracture risk. This is true even after adjusting for many other variables that affect bone density.

These carbonated and energy drinks contain varying levels of vitamins – often with none of the minerals, including calcium, that the body needs to function optimally. This causes the body to draw on its reserves if calcium isn't being delivered elsewhere in the diet.

Diets high in added sugar can also have a detrimental affect on the skeleton. Excess sugar causes inflammation and other physiological changes, such as obesity. Consuming high amounts of sugar is linked with reduced calcium intake, especially in children who substitute milk for sugary drinks. Excess sugar consumption also causes the body to excrete excess calcium, instead of reabsorbing it in the kidney as the body normally would.

Low- and high-fat diets have also been associated with increased risk of osteoporosis (a condition that weakens bones) in women – though larger studies are needed to better understand the effects of removing whole food groups on bone health.

Anorexia nervosa also has a significant affect on bone density – affecting a majority of people with the condition.

Low bone mineral density – especially in the spine – puts people with anorexia at increased risk of fractures because their bone thickness is reduced, increasing the likelihood of developing osteoporosis, which is associated with increased fractures.

Anorexia in young adulthood is particularly challenging. This is the stage where the skeleton is building itself to reach peak bone mass, so it's depositing calcium at a record pace. When diet is insufficient and the body already starts drawing on its mineral reserves, there's a potential that the bone density or calcium reserves in the body will never be optimal – increasing fracture risk for the rest of that person's life.

 

Can bone health be fixed?

Optimal bone health starts in utero, but our prepubescent years are key to setting our skeleton up for later life. People who are behind the curve in early life may have difficulty achieving their peak, as poor bone mineral density can affect everything from our appetite to how efficient our gastrointestinal tract is at absorbing important nutrients (including calcium). Supplements have a limited effect because our body can only absorb a set amount of any vitamin or mineral at a time.

While it's possible to limit some of the decline in bone density that naturally happens as we age, some of the choices we make – such as not consuming enough calcium – can accelerate the decline. Biological sex also has a significant impact on our bone health in old age – with post-menopausal women at greater risk of osteoporosis because they produce less oestrogen, which helps keep the cells that degrade bone in check.

 

Adam Taylor, Professor and Director of the Clinical Anatomy Learning Centre, Lancaster University

 

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

“Irreparable breakdown”: Law firm abruptly quits defending Trump campaign in sex discrimination case

A law firm that has represented Donald Trump in various cases since 2014 has decided to quit representing the former president's campaign in the face of a lawsuit brought by a former employee who was impregnated by a top aide to the Republican candidate, The New York Times reported.

In a court filing last week, LaRocca, Hornik, Greenberg, Rosen, Kittridge, and McPartland said it wished to quit representing the campaign in the case brought by A.J. Delgado, a former writer for the National Review who worked on Trump's 2016 campaign.

Jason Miller, a communications staffer for Trump, cheated on his wife with Delgado during the campaign; she alleges he cut off contact after she became pregnant and that the campaign likewise "immediately and inexplicably" shut her out. Her lawsuit charges that this constitutes discrimination based on her sex and pregnancy.

In explaining its decision to quit representing the campaign, Trump's long-time lawyers cited an "irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship," the Times reported. That came after a federal court ruled that the campaign must turn over documents related to discrimination and harassment claims its received.

In her own filing, Delgado alleges that the firm's attempt to withdrawal from the case may be part of an effort to deny compliance with that ruling.

European wine just had its worst growing season in 62 years. Climate change could make it worse

When a team of New Zealand scientists analyzed the alcohol produced by the local vineyard Greystone Wines, they found something with profound implications for every wine drinker on the planet. The microbial ecosystems that distinguish literal wine from mere grape juice — the panoply of yeasts, bacteria and fungi — fluctuated significantly between the vintages produced in 2018 and 2021 by the North Canterbury winemaker because of human-caused climate change. Without exactly the right microbial ecosystems, it appears, vineyards either produce low-quality wine or no wine at all.

"Climate change and sustainability were recognized as an essential focus for the future."

Now the problem of climate change and wine that was explored by those scientists (in their case, for an article in the journal PLOS One) is being explored on a broader scale. In its latest annual report, the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) say that wine production has reached its lowest level in more than six decades, and climate change is a major culprit.

"Extreme climatic conditions and widespread fungal diseases severely impacted many vineyards worldwide, culminating in a historically low global wine production of 237 million hecto litres," the OIV writes. "This marked a 10% drop from 2022 and represented the lowest output since 1961."

In a press release issued shortly before the production of their report, the world's largest intergovernmental organization for regulating wine unambiguously pointed the finger at climate change. While human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are not the sole cause of the wine industry's woes, they are undeniably a major factor.

"Climate change and sustainability were recognized as an essential focus for the future," the organization explained. The sharp decline in production has hit both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, with OIV authorities saying output is worse than they projected in November. In Europe, for example, Italy suffered a 23 percent dip in productivity, Spain a 20 percent dip, Austria a 6.5 percent dip, Germany a 3.8 percent dip and Hungary a 2.1 percent dip.

All regions suffered from factors ranging from droughts and floods to water shortages and unexpected mildews. Because most wine is mainly produced in mid-latitude region such as California, South Africa, Argentine and the aforementioned European nations, they are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in heat and humidity.

"About 90% of traditional wine regions in coastal and lowland regions of Spain, Italy, Greece and southern California could be at risk of disappearing by the end of the century because of excessive drought and more frequent heatwaves with climate change," write the authors of a March 2024 paper on climate change and the wine industry from the journal Nature Reviews Earth and Environment. At the same time, there could be trade-offs that benefit residents of cooler latitudes, with warmer temperatures increasing wine cultivation suitability in northern France and the Pacific Northwest.


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


"About 90% of traditional wine regions in coastal and lowland regions of Spain, Italy, Greece and southern California could be at risk of disappearing by the end of the century…"

Regardless of where one lives, though, climate change is expected to increase heat and decrease water availability. If left unchecked, not only will this make it progressively harder for grapes everywhere, but it also is a breeding ground for diseases and pests that target vineyards. In the Nature Reviews Earth and Environment paper, the authors predicted that if warming is capped at 2° C above pre-industrial levels, almost half of the world's current winemaking regions would be less suitable for growing, with more than a quarter being at the same level and a quarter potentially being more suitable for cultivation.

Yet if temperatures surpass the 2° C threshold, 29% of current wine regions will have conditions too extreme to permit the growth of grapes, even the rise of new suitable growing regions could not possibly offset that loss. Another 41% of current wine regions will also be unsuitable unless farmers adapt their methods.

Speaking to Salon in 2020 about adaptation methods, Anita Oberholster — an associate specialist in cooperative extension of viticulture and enology at the University of California – Davis — said that there are ways of fighting climate change on behalf of wine including conserving water, reusing wastewater, working longer-term on rootstocks and varieties with higher heat and drought tolerance and protecting grapes against the heat. At the same time, there are certain climate change-caused developments from which there are no protections. Take the wildfires that devastated souther California's wine industry in 2020.

We need your help to stay independent

"As far as fires go, better management of fuel sources, looking at barrier sprays to protect grapes against smoke, improved treatment options for wines that are impacted, better insurance options, better risk assessment," Oberholster said. "We are applying for grants to try and link atmospheric data to smoke exposure risk data in vineyards."

While some adaptation is possible, to a large extent the wine industry is simply going to have to accept that the world of the future will be very different from the one to which they have been accustomed for centuries. In an industry where the varied habits of single-celled organisms and the tiniest environmental alterations can make a vast difference, climate change is too much of a game-changer to not have a massive effect.

In the words of the eminent Australian viticulturalist Dr Richard Smart to World of Wine, even relatively small changes in temperature could “effectively rewrite regional reputations and varietal preferences.”

“Abhorrent and inexcusable”: Video shows pro-Israel activists attack pro-Palestine UCLA protesters

In what one student group described as a "despicable act of terror," pro-Israel activists dressed in black and wearing masks stormed barricades and attacked a pro-Palestine encampment just before midnight at UCLA, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

The attack came after UCLA had declared the encampment "unlawful" and warned participants — who are demanding the school divest from companies that do business in Israel — that they could face expulsion.

"UCLA supports peaceful protest, but not activism that harms our ability to carry out our academic mission and makes people in our community feel bullied, threatened and afraid," Chancellor Glen Block said Tuesday, prior to the attack. "These incidents have put many on our campus, especially our Jewish students, in a state of anxiety and fear."

That message was followed hours later by the pro-Israel faction's effort to violently dismantle the pro-Palestine encampment.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described the scene early Wednesday as "absolutely abhorrent and inexcusable." The Los Angeles Police Department said it had responded to restore "order" on campus, although the student group, UC Divest at UCLA, accused officers of standing by amid "a horrifying, despicable act of terror" that it attributed to "Zionist aggressors," per NBC News.

 

 

But some defended the attack. In an appearance on Fox News, UCLA student Eli Tsives claimed "Jews in L.A. have had enough," faulting UCLA for not breaking up the encampment itself. Tsives noted that the counter-protesters were "not UCLA students" and "were all a lot older" than the demonstrating students.

Others suggested that UCLA's relative tolerance for the encampment, at least compared to schools in New York and Texas, had encouraged lawbreaking by others.

Dan Gold, executive director of UCLA's Hillel chapter, said Jews on campus had been subjected to acts of intimidation, claiming that at least 10 students had been denied passage on their own campus after protesters demanded to know whether they were "Zionists."

“This encampment violates a long list of university policies, and the result of not enforcing these rules that every other student and student group follows to a T is chaos and unrest — and worse, it allows for even more intense forms of hate to persist and grow," Gold told the Times.

“I’ve never seen this many police”: Lawmakers condemn massive NYPD raid on Columbia protest

Early Tuesday morning, a protester on the campus of Columbia University announced that Hamilton Hall “is now liberated” and indeed renamed to honor a Palestinian child killed in Gaza. By Tuesday night, the building had been “liberated” again, this time by dozens of officers with the New York City Police Department – a show of force that came after Mayor Eric Adams alleged, without providing evidence, that the building had been occupied by “professional outside agitators.”

Columbia University echoed the “agitators” claim in a statement justifying the raid, which resulted in dozens of arrests.

“After the University learned overnight that Hamilton Hall had been occupied, vandalized, and blockaded, we were left with no choice,” the school said Tuesday night. “We believe that the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University.”

That assertion came after a university official earlier warned that “students” who occupied the building “face expulsion.” Although there were no reports of violence by the campus occupiers, they did use a hammer to smash a window when they broke into the building and rejected pleas from some students that they not barricade the structure; a school facilities employee also accused protesters of holding them “hostage” for 10 minutes, the school newspaper reported

Columbia President Dr. Minouche Shafik is now asking the NYPD to stay on campus at least until commencement on May 17. That comes after Shafik admitted that an earlier request for police assistance – clearing an encampment that began as a protest of the school’s investment in companies that do business in Israel – had backfired, drawing more attention to activists’ demands and growing their ranks, at Columbia and elsewhere.

Tuesday night’s operation was on a scale previously unseen in New York, according to CNN reporter Miguel Marquez, the Columbia raid paired with a police clearing of a nearby encampment at City College of New York. “The way the NYPD came in with such force, with such precision … it’s clear, in part, this was to send a message, in part to protect themselves,” he said. “I’ve covered lots of this sort of stuff around the world, and I’ve never seen this many police moving into one area," he added.

The NYPD itself certainly viewed the evening's events as having propaganda value, particularly after Republican lawmakers seized on the protests as evidence of left-wing lawlessness. Columbia “has requested our assistance to take back their campus, which has seen disturbing acts of violence, forms of intimidation [and] destruction of property,” NYPD Deputy Commissioner Kaz Daughtry posted Tuesday night. A few hours later, he shared a video of a Palestinian flag being taken down at the nearby city college campus, writing on X: “An incredible scene and proud moment as we have assisted [CCNY] in restoring order in campus, culminating in raising Old Glory once again on their campus flagpole.”

We need your help to stay independent

There were no confirmed reports of injuries in either police action, a possible disappointment to lawmakers and right-wing pundits who had called for President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard.

Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a student group that has helped organize the campus protests, in a statement on social media accused Shafik of choosing to “militarize” the campus rather than to “divest from the genocidal State of Israel.” Shafik has said the school does not intend to comply with protesters’ demands, which would require the school to drop investments in companies such as Google and Amazon.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., urged both school leaders and the NYPD to reconsider their approach to student protests, suggesting that their actions would only incite more unrest. “Other leaders and schools have found a safe, de-escalatory path,” she posted on X Tuesday night. “This is the opposite of leadership and endangers public safety. A nightmare in the making.”

Her New York Democratic colleague, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, echoed the call for restraint. “The militarization of college campuses, extensive police presence, and arrest of hundreds of students are in direct opposition to the role of education as the cornerstone of our democracy,” he said on X.

Trump’s disturbing Time interview shows he has no idea abortion is a ticking time bomb for the GOP

Donald Trump has said many things that should have chased him out of politics a long time ago. But in an interview with Eric Cortellessa of Time Magazine this week, he finally said something so outrageous that it could make a difference in this campaign. When asked if states should monitor women's pregnancies so they can know if they've gotten an abortion after the ban, Trump replied:

"I think they might do that. Again, you'll have to speak to the individual states."

In other words, he's fine with whatever medieval torture a state might want to inflict. 

That wasn't all. He went on to say that states prosecuting women who get abortions is none of his concern. He promised to reveal his position on a possible national ban on the widely used drug Mifepristone in two weeks. (The two weeks have passed and when Time approached him to see if he had an update he extended it.) He may be waiting to see if the Supreme Court lets him off the hook with a ruling in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case they heard last month. And he was unwilling to say whether he will vote to overturn the 6-week abortion ban that goes into effect in his home state of Florida on Wednesday. Again, he said that it would be up to the state. 

Trump thinks he's brilliantly found a way to evade responsibility for the backlash by insisting that turning it back to the states solves the problem. He really seems to believe that by putting the words "states' rights" on repeat, and constantly pushing the lie that ending Roe v. Wade, for which he proudly takes credit, was what every expert and the majority of Americans wanted, he can convince people the controversy is over. Here he is telling the press that people are very happy with what he's done:

Trump believes, with some reason, that he can change reality just by saying something over and over again. His Big Lie is proof that there are tens of millions of people who are ready to believe anything he says. But this position that the Supreme Court ban is exactly what "everyone" always wanted is a lie too far — even for him. 

Support for abortion rights has grown since the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision and there is no evidence that this fatuous "states' rights" rationale means anything, especially since we all know that the extremists are planning to exhume archaic laws like The Comstock Act to further restrict reproductive rights on a federal level. 

The Time interview comes on the heels of a flurry of belated reports in the press about his second-term agenda, which many of us have been screaming about for months. Project 2025 and Agenda 47 among other plans being pulled together by the MAGA establishment, which now includes venerable institutions like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth, have been public for months but the media seemed to be reluctant to take them too seriously. Perhaps this was because Trump campaign officials Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita put out several statements insisting that none of these plans were official campaign policies and that any lists of personnel or plans were mere suggestions. But the election is just six months away now and it is long past time that Trump is confronted with what we've been hearing. This interview makes it clear that the candidate is on board with all of it and even has some extreme ideas of his own to add to the list.

For example, Trump confirmed in this interview that he plans to control the Department of Justice and ensure that his attorney general does his bidding. He said that if the Supreme Court does not grant the president total immunity, then Joe Biden will be prosecuted for a plethora of unnamed crimes. (He later said he didn't want to hurt Joe Biden because he has respect for the office but essentially blames Biden personally for all of his legal troubles and payback's a bitch.) 

We need your help to stay independent

He plans to round up millions of immigrants, put them in camps and deport them, using the military if necessary. If the local police won't cooperate he'll withhold federal funds from their cities until they comply. He will destroy the civil service as we know it and replace the personnel with loyalists and any member of his administration must swear that they believe the 2020 election was stolen. He'll close the pandemic preparedness office (!) because he knows how to deal with it without spending all that money.

On foreign policy, he believes that the whole world is in awe of his awesomeness and that world peace will be achieved the moment he becomes president again. And if our allies don't comply with his edicts, as he's said on the campaign trail, their enemies "can do whatever the hell they want." 

Does Trump think there will be violence if he doesn't win the election in November?

“I don't think we're going to have that. I think we're going to win. And if we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

That is a threat. (Nice little election you've got here…) As we all know, there is no such thing as a fair election that Trump doesn't win. He's made that crystal clear. And by saying over and over again to his people that he's way ahead in the polls (not true) and that it's impossible for him to legitimately lose, he's setting the stage for more violence if it happens. 

Cortellessa asked Trump if he thinks his loose talk about dictatorship is "contrary to our most cherished principles" and Trump blithely replied, “I think a lot of people like it.” Well, he certainly does. 

Trump and the MAGA establishment have laid out a vivid plan for a revolutionary imperial presidency. He's said before that the Constitution can be suspended and repeatedly insisted when he was president that he had "an Article II" that gave him unlimited power. Now he's got the Supreme Court contemplating giving him immunity from prosecution for any of his crimes. As Biden would say, it's not a joke. He means it. 

“Completely corroborated”: Ex-prosecutor says DA already sank Trump lawyers’ Michael Cohen strategy

Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann on Tuesday said that the early testimony in former President Donald Trump’s hush-money criminal trial has been “so powerful” that the public should “recalibrate” how it views the case.

Longtime former Trump fixer Michael Cohen has been poised to be a star witness in the case but the former president’s defense team has already gone on attack, painting him as a liar after he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress to aid Trump.

But Weissmann argued after testimony from former American Media chief David Pecker and former Stormy Daniels lawyer Keith Davidson that this “case is made very much without Michael Cohen.”

“This is so corroborated,” Weissmann said, noting that the two witnesses’ accounts “fit together so perfectly.”

“Also it’s completely corroborated, particularly with respect to Mr. Davidson, by so many texts and email exchanges and the written documents,” he continued, adding that virtually every question has been backed up by some form of evidence.

Pecker and Davidson both testified that Cohen had to scramble to come up with the money to buy Daniels’ story to help Trump’s campaign after the National Enquirer refused.

“By the time you get to Michael Cohen, the way I think this will be summed up by the prosecution is to say, “you know what, if Michael Cohen had said anything else you would have thought he was lying,” Weissmann said. “It is so completely consistent with this story.”

Bird flu is getting worse — but it’s not yet “cow flu,” experts explain

The bird flu outbreak is growing. On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 36 dairy cow herds in 9 states have been infected with H5N1, also known as avian or bird flu, as of April 30, 2024. This week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also announced it is collecting samples of ground beef at retail stores in states with bird flu outbreaks in dairy cows. According to NBC News, the agency will test beef to see “whether any viral particles are present.” Previously, viral particles have been discovered in as much as 1 in 5 samples of cow's milk.

Additionally, the USDA started mandating that dairy cows have to test negative for bird flu before being shipped across state lines. The news comes after several infectious disease experts have criticized the government for not doing enough testing and being “blind” to the true size of the current outbreak — and after a report published in  Emerging Infectious Diseases found that cats died after they were fed raw colostrum from sick cows.

“Our findings suggest cross-species mammal-to-mammal transmission of HPAI H5N1 virus and raise new concerns regarding the potential for virus spread within mammal populations," the authors wrote. 

Just like humans, birds can get the flu. When that happens, they can pass it on to other poultry — such as chickens, ducks and turkeys. But the most recent strain of avian influenza, H5N1, has jumped species. Instead of only infecting birds, the current outbreak is infecting dairy cows and even spread from a cow to at least one human; which is the first time cow-to-human transmission has happened. The last time a human tested positive for H5N1 was in April 2022 in Colorado when an individual got infected from poultry.

The USDA has said that it is confident that the meat supply is safe and that pasteurized milk is safe to drink.

As Salon previously reported, public health experts are concerned that the more it jumps from animal to animal, or animal to human, the more likely it is to mutate, have human-to-human transmission and get a foothold in the human population. Notably, some strains of H5N1 have a 50 percent mortality rate in humans (fortunately, the one confirmed case from an infected cow was mild.) This is why epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have been publicly criticizing the government’s response and demanding they act fast to contain the spread among animal species.


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


“I think we're slowly inching towards getting some sort of answers for some of our questions,” Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist, told Salon in a phone interview, in regards to recent developments. “But I am a bit disappointed in the lack of transparency and urgency, particularly with USDA, and it just doesn't seem that there is an appetite to get ahead in this.”

The USDA has said that it is confident that the meat supply is safe and that pasteurized milk is safe to drink. Notably, Colombia has placed restrictions on beef being transported from U.S. states where dairy herds have tested positive for bird flu.

Jetelina emphasized to Salon that H5N1 isn’t new, and it’s important to communicate that to the public. While some people might be inclined to call it “cow flu,” now that cattle are arguably more prominent than birds in the situation, she said it hasn’t mutated into a novel virus that warrants a name change.

"What we have to see is whether it's adapted to cattle species, and if it’s circulating only in that species. Then we would call it cow flu."

“We have to make it very clear that this is not a new virus. It's not like COVID-19 in October of 2019. It's existed for over 20 years,” Jetelina said. “And it's not just among cows, it's still very much in other livestock as well as wild birds — we're just paying very close attention to cows right now because this is a new mode of transmission that has really unfolded in the past couple of months.”

Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan of the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Ark., told Salon calling H5N1 the “cow flu” is “misleading.” If it is only circulating around cows, then it can be called a “cow flu,” he said. 

“It has not adapted enough,” Rajnarayanan said. “So what we have to see is whether it's adapted to cattle species, and if it’s circulating only in that species. Then we would call it cow flu.”

Rajnarayanan said it’s also important to emphasize that it’s not a definitive conclusion that the cats from the CDC report died from drinking raw colostrum. It’s possible that the cats got sick from eating infected wild birds, too. Jetelina said the report on the cats emphasizes that raw milk shouldn't be consumed right now. An estimated 4.4 percent of American adults consume raw milk.

“This is not a virus we want to play around with,” Jetelina said. “It really confirmed that raw milk is just something we don't want people consuming and we really need to get the public health message out there that that's never safe, but particularly right now.”

Jetelina said scientists don’t know what happens if someone consumes infected raw milk at the moment, but it’s a good sign that there haven't been any fatal cases linked to raw milk and H5N1. While experts believe there have been more than one human case from cows, they say it’s a good sign that hospitalizations aren’t rising.

We need your help to stay independent

“If it's going to be a problematic virus circulating, you will see a hospitalization increase,” Rajnarayanan said. “And that, we don’t see.”

Still, more surveillance is needed, he said. 

“It's not going to become a problem immediately,” he said. “But we have to prevent it from becoming a big deal in the next year.” 

Jetelina agreed. 

“I think one good sign is that even if there are more human cases, they seem to be mild, or asymptomatic, given that they haven't kind of gone on the radar yet,” Jetelina said. “We just really need to stay ahead of this thing and see how it's evolving so we can be prepared in case this does jump to humans, for human-to-human transmission."

“College was called ‘Babylon'”: A former “stay-at-home daughter” exposes Christian patriarchy

Christian fundamentalism is a competitive sport, with adherents often trying to outdo each other by escalating their extremism. Author Cait West is a survivor of this toxic dynamic, having grown up in a church and family seemingly intent on generating ever more stringent rules governing people's sexuality, education, and life choices — especially those of girls and women. In her new book, "Rift: A Memoir of Breaking Away from Christian Patriarchy," West details a childhood under a father who spent years trying to tighten his grip on his family, denying his children ordinary life experiences like dating, education, or even the barest amount of autonomy. 

West spoke to Salon about her experiences as a "stay-at-home daughter," explained why fundamentalism lures so many people in, and what, exactly the Christian right finds so alluring about Jane Austen novels. 

This interview was edited for length and clarity

Many of our readers are quite familiar with the Christian right, their strict gender roles, and even their abstinence-only teachings. But what you describe in your book is next level. You even say that the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" was considered too liberal. What is being a "stay-at-home daughter?"

"My job was to learn homemaking skills and prepare to be a stay-at-home wife."

I grew up in the Christian patriarchy movement, which teaches that because God is masculine, he's the ultimate patriarch. That means that men are the best representation of God. Men are supposed to be leaders of the family, the church and the government. Women were created to submit, either to their fathers or their husbands. Growing up as a girl, I was told I would never leave the home until I got married. I wouldn't get a higher education. I wouldn't have dating relationships. I wouldn't have a career. My job was to learn homemaking skills and prepare to be a stay-at-home wife. And that's why they called girls like me "stay-at-home daughters," because we were living very differently from the outside world. We were proud of that fact.

Your educational limits struck me because it's more severe even than a lot the home-schooling Christian fundamentalism that we've heard about. What were your family's views on college? 

It was never an option. I could maybe take a class for fun, like an art class, but not anything that would lead to me having education for a job. I was told it would be a waste of time, and it wouldn't be safe for me to go to college. College was called "Babylon." I was taught that it was a scary place where women were sexually assaulted. That we'd be taught about evolution and other dangerous teachings. Even for boys, it was discouraged, unless they needed it for a specific profession.


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


In your book, you really get into maddening and contradictory expectations around courtship. You were told that a young man was supposed to ask if he could court you and your father would say yes. It was supposed to go smoothly into marriage. But that was not your experience. What happened when you actually tried these courting relationships?

First off, I wasn't allowed to really be friends with boys. I was allowed to be friendly or polite, but not to have real friends who are boys. So I didn't know the men who were interested in me. In the specific case of my first courtship, he asked my father if we could have a courtship. My dad said yes. We had quite a long relationship, but because this man wasn't quite meeting my father's standards in terms of like income and job stability, he ended it. We followed a courtship guide called the "Pathway to Christian Marriage." It had all these questions that we would go through every week with my father. All of our time together was chaperoned. I never really got to know him very well, but I also thought I was going to get married to him and that we would eventually get to know each other after that. When my father ended the courtship, I felt heartbroken. I was really upset because I had no choice about it. I didn't even really get to say goodbye.

My father told me I was sinning by having these strong emotions. Not only was my relationship ended and I had no choice, but I was shamed for having emotions. That was one of the breaking moments for me, when I knew that something was off in my family and this wasn't going to work out.

I thought that was one of the most disturbing parts of the book: Your father's repeated insistence that having feelings about somebody was not only wrong but sinful. 

It's tied in with purity culture. The idea of purity culture is that you'd stay physically sexually pure until you get married. We just took it one step further to this idea of emotional purity. You shouldn't share your heart with anyone you weren't married to. That would be like cheating on your future spouse. So. that's why my father said it was sinful. He also framed it as, "This is for your protection." So you don't carry emotional baggage into your future marriage. It was framed as a positive thing. But my experience of it was very negative.

Your family didn't start in this almost cultish religion. Your parents dated before they got married.

Yes.

Your dad pushed your family further and further down this path of escalating fundamentalism. What was it about this increasingly rigid fundamentalism that was so appealing to him? 

I can only speculate, but my father has a tendency towards authoritarianism. I see this progression into more extreme beliefs and lifestyle as him finding validation in controlling his family. These teachings told him it was godly to control us this way. Having this validation was very appealing to him, but he's not the only type of person who gets wrapped up in this movement. People often get in because they're afraid of things they don't understand. Economic insecurity, social issues, or just being afraid of gender roles changing. They're fed these messages of fear from patriarchal pastors. They're promised, if you follow all these rules in your family, then, you're going to have a blessed house and you're gonna have many children and grandchildren and God will bless you. There is this fear and then this promise.

I was struck by how the arguments for courtship and not leaving the house and controlling children were framed as a kind of loss aversion. There's this promise that there's a recipe to avoid feeling sad.

It's in the courtship model itself. We're told dating would be practice for divorce. But if you go through courtship and you follow all the rules, your heart will be intact when you get married, and you won't experience that ever. We were told not to get too attached to the world, and don't fall in love with worldly things, because they don't last forever. I was constantly being told that emotions were unreliable. If you conform to the rules and you don't have strong feelings, then everything goes smoother. But, yeah, I think people want to protect themselves and their children from pain. That's a very human desire. But we take it too far. 

It seems very ironic to me. People raise children in these rigid fundamentalist spaces because they're afraid to lose them. And then what they do is they end up driving them away. Have you ever talked to your father about that?

Well, the last time I talked to my dad was like five years ago. But when I left I tried to explain to him how I was feeling and my belief that my emotions weren't sinful. That I thought he was emotionally abusing me. That didn't go very well. He rejected that and he was very hurt that I would even say that. He's never taken accountability for anything that I talk about in the book. He thinks that he was following God the whole time. We don't have contact anymore.

We need your help to stay independent

What are the things you hope to get by sharing your story? 

For people who have experienced abuse or who want to leave fundamentalism, I hope they feel seen and validated. Their experience is real and they deserve to be happy. They don't deserve to be hurt this way. When we tell our stories, that kind of magic can happen. We feel like we're not alone.

I hope that people don't disregard my story, because there are extreme aspects. I hope people see the similarities between my story and their stories, or how religion has impacted American politics. I was taught that my generation would grow up and make our government Christian. When we see things like Roe v. Wade being overturned. The speaker of the House is, in my opinion, a patriarchal Christian. It's very real and very relevant to all of our lives now. Even though it's difficult to understand the extremes, I feel like it's becoming more mainstream in many ways. So I hope it brings awareness to that.

I do want to end on a slightly lighter note. You're in the publishing industry, as well as being an author yourself. So can you help me understand something that puzzles me? Why are so many fundamentalists obsessed with Jane Austen? Her books are all over far-right Christian media. I don't get it. There's nothing like about her writing that seems fundamentalist to me. Please enlighten me!

[Laughter]

For girls like me, we didn't find contemporary literature very relatable. But I could read a Jane Austen book and relate to what these characters were feeling and experiencing because they were living in a society where women needed to get married to have any kind of status or choice. That's what my life was like.

Also, fundamentalists aren't very nuanced in their reading of literature and texts. We see how they read the Bible. People like my parents would have seen Jane Austen as validating their belief in this old-fashioned gender hierarchy. They're not seeing the subversive aspects of what Jane Austen was saying. It's very black-and-white thinking. Austen's nuance just flew right over their heads.

Thanks for helping me because I just did not see how they could not see that Jane Austen is making fun of a lot of this patriarchal nonsense. 

I don't want to say fundamental fundamentalists are uneducated. They just don't value critical theory or higher literacy in the same way. What they value is their beliefs.

“A true conspiracy”: Hush-money trial lays out how the “coverup extended into the Trump White House”

Being put on trial in a criminal case is one of the most stressful experiences a person can have. This is especially true if you are former president Donald Trump, a man who has rarely if ever been held accountable for his decades of horrible and lawless behavior. Trump’s stress and anxiety are made even more acute because he is facing not just one serious criminal trial but four of them – and the possibility (however unlikely) of being sentenced to prison for the rest of his natural life.

As a range of legal experts have observed, the first two weeks of the hush-money trial have gone very badly for the defense. In his testimony last week, David Pecker, former publisher of The National Enquirer, painted a clear picture of knowingly, at Donald Trump’s direction, participating in a scheme to hide information from the public about the ex-president’s relationships with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

The Washington Post offered this profile of Donald Trump’s emotional and psychological state at present:

Two weeks in, the first criminal trial of a former president has been personally taxing for Trump and disruptive to his campaign. Despite efforts to schedule dinners where donors, friends and world leaders join him, Trump’s moods are worse on trial days, according to several people close to him. The former president is accustomed to near-daily rounds of golf, “constant stimulation” and cheers when he enters and exits a room at Mar-a-Lago, they said. Instead, he is now reporting four days a week for mundane court arguments and long stretches without permission to check his phone.

“The phrase around here is ‘the process is the punishment,’” said one person close to Trump, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Trump also claims he is upset that his criminal trial in Manhattan keeps him away from his wife, Melania. On Friday, Trump told reporters, “I want to start by wishing my wife, Melania, a very happy birthday….It would be nice to be with her — but I’m in a courthouse for a rigged trial.” The irony of such a complaint is apparently lost on the corrupt ex-president.

On Tuesday, Judge Merchan put even more pressure on Trump, warning him that he could be put in jail if he continues to violate the court's gag order prohibiting threatening and other such speech and behavior against witnesses and other people involved in the hush-money trial. The judge ordered Trump to take down his social media posts targeting people affiliated with trial and pay the court a fine of $9,000, $1,000 for each violation. 

So while it is true that Donald Trump may be embattled right now, those Americans — especially members of the news media — who support real democracy, the rule of law, and want to see him finally punished for his many obvious crimes, should be very reserved and careful with premature celebrations. Trump has decades of experience successfully evading the law. And of course, there is no way of predicting with any high level of certainty what 12 jurors will do when they finally decide if the former president is innocent or guilty of his alleged crimes.

"We’re watching an all-hands-on-deck moment for the anti-democracy establishment to delay and obfuscate all of these trials until they can be cast aside along with a broken democracy."

In an attempt to make better sense of the second week of Donald Trump’s hush-money trial, its implications for the 2024 election, and what may happen next, I recently spoke with a range of experts: 

Norm Ornstein is emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and contributing editor for the Atlantic. He is also co-author of the bestselling books "One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported."

The Trump trial so far has proven the naysayers like Jed Shugerman wrong. This is not a weak case or a political blunder. The prosecution's opening argument, followed by the devastating testimony of David Pecker, shows that this was a true conspiracy involving Trump and many others to shut down startling revelations about Trump's despicable behavior after the "Access Hollywood" tape. For the public to find out that Trump had slept with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, or had an extended sexual affair with yet another woman, would have likely been fatal to his campaign. The elaborate scheme of hush money and more to silence the women involved, which included falsifying business records, is a clear violation of New York law and a clear and direct attempt to tamper with the 2016 election.

That is not all, since we now learn that the coverup extended into the Trump White House and implicated then-press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So, Sanders, under fire for corruption as governor of Arkansas, is even worse than we thought. This trial is moving along, and the belief among many that it would turn on the testimony of a discredited Michael Cohen has already been erased. Pecker, plus tapes and documents will be enough to do the trick. And with the Supreme Court showing with the immunity case that it is more intent on protecting Trump than following the Constitution and the law, it is even more important that this New York trial is moving expeditiously toward a conclusion.

We need your help to stay independent

David Pepper is a lawyer, writer, political activist, and former elected official. His new book is "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American".

I’m seeing what it looks like to have a powerful person with a record of evading accountability finally facing some measure of accountability. And America is seeing that as well.

And when at the federal level, that accountability continues to be delayed, fraying any sense that there is a rule of law left for powerful political figures.

America finally witnessing that accountability at any level is important.

Without it, the incentive among politicians to skirt the law just keeps growing.  And in many states, we’re reaching a crisis level of lawlessness for that exact reason.


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


I never really thought through what to expect. (My philosophy is that we’re better off focusing our energy on the action steps WE can take to save democracy, rather than watching trials from miles away, where we control nothing and which in the end probably has minimal political impact.)

All that being said, I’ve been surprised by how sharp some of the damaging testimony against Trump has been. And I’ve been surprised by how unprepared Trump seems to be, physically and personally, for the rigors of a trial. It definitely is a stark contrast to the image he likes to paint of himself.

Nate Powell is a graphic novelist and the first cartoonist to win the National Book Award. Powell has also won four Eisner Awards. 

It’s a strange, warping feeling: my expectations of seeing any real consequences— even with a possible conviction, or multiple convictions across multiple trials— are completely eroded, yet I can feel that expectation still in gear, idling in the driveway, just in case. The possibility itself has finally approached, and with it a series of ongoing pressure tests. I stay updated every few hours, though, and I think that reveals the hope I still possess— hope that the wheels of accountability will actually function as they should. I dread that we’re watching an all-hands-on-deck moment for the anti-democracy establishment to delay and obfuscate all of these trials until they can be cast aside along with a broken democracy, while paying lip service to the system operating as intended. From a personal angle, the events are so entirely out of my control that I’ve been able to stay informed without falling into a doomscroll cycle. I do recognize a baseline functionality that I’ve developed over the last decade— and what separates that from normalization.

To save lives, the FDA must change how it evaluates rare disease treatments

There are over 7,000 rare diseases that collectively affect more than 30 million Americans. Children and families struggling with these diseases need treatments — and hope. We're urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use regulatory tools, such as its accelerated approval pathway, to speed up the development and approval of treatments.

But to date, FDA regulators haven't done so, even for promising drug candidates.

We are regrettably well-acquainted with one of these disease groups: a class of genetic metabolic conditions called the mucopolysaccharidoses, or MPSs. One of us — Mark Dant — has a child born with an MPS disorder. Dr. Matthew Ellinwood, a translational researcher and the chief scientific officer at the National MPS Society, has spent his career researching MPS.

The MPSs typically arise in infancy and early childhood. The 12 MPS subtypes cumulatively affect one in every 25,000 children. They cause developmental delay, chronic pain, enlarged organs and early death in severe cases.

Sadly, countless other rare disease patients are in a similar predicament. Regulators rarely approve promising treatments without time-consuming, logistically impossible and ethically-flawed clinical trials, even in cases when alternative regulatory pathways may exist.

The traditional FDA approval process wasn't built for rare diseases.

This must change. Drug regulators must expand the use of accelerated approval for rare disease treatments. Lives hang in the balance.

For diseases like MPS, few approved treatments exist. That's not necessarily because scientists and clinicians don't know how to treat them. It's because the traditional FDA approval process wasn't built for rare diseases.

To get a green light from the FDA using the traditional approval process, new drugs must undergo two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials that confirm safety and clinical benefit — usually defined as a reduction in symptoms. Trials often include thousands of participants.

In the United States, rare diseases are defined as those affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans. For individual MPS syndromes, patients likely number in the hundreds. 


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


That essentially makes finding enough patients to enroll in traditional trials impossible. Often, researchers are forced to recruit participants internationally, adding additional expenses and obstacles.

Moreover, disorders like the MPSs progress quickly from the time a child is born. Patients available to enroll in trials may already display severe symptoms, making traditional trials particularly challenging.

This situation is especially evident with MPS III — a fatal neurodegenerative disease also known as Sanfilippo syndrome. Children with MPS III experience symptoms resembling both autism and Alzheimer's disease. They typically live just 10 to 20 years.

To the dismay of patients and families, none of these drug candidates have been granted accelerated approval.

For patients with Sanfilippo syndrome, effective treatments might not show a measurable clinical benefit within the two-year span of a traditional clinical trial. As a result, therapies that show enormous potential are abandoned.

The FDA has a separate approval pathway, the accelerated approval process, for diseases that aren't suited to standard clinical trials. Drugs applying for this kind of approval don't need to show a measurable clinical benefit, such as a reduction in symptoms. Instead, drugs can be approved based on a "surrogate endpoint," also known as a "biomarker."

In these cases, medical tests may show an outcome associated with improvement in patients. That might allow for a drug to receive FDA approval, which has long been a serious challenge for medicines treating complex, rare diseases like MPS.

We need your help to stay independent

Since its implementation in 1992, accelerated approval has been hugely effective. It was used to greenlight AZT, the first effective antiretroviral for HIV and AIDS.

A widely-accepted biomarker exists for Sanfilippo syndrome and related MPSs. Studies show that a reduction in heparan sulfate, a complex type of carbohydrate found in the body's tissues, is likely to produce positive clinical outcomes in patients. 

The existence of this biomarker makes drugs for Sanfilippo syndrome ideal candidates for accelerated approval. Such an approval could be based on evidence that a drug lowers a patient's heparan sulfate levels. In fact, the FDA itself has already issued a guidance acknowledging heparan sulfate's potential as a biomarker.

Our collective understanding of MPS has progressed significantly over recent decades, and numerous treatments are now in development. But to the dismay of patients and families, none of these drug candidates have been granted accelerated approval.

Developing new rare-disease treatments is daunting. Given the small pool of potential patients, rare disease drug developers have a slim chance of recouping their R&D investment. The fact that MPS treatments haven't received accelerated approval has thrown some programs into serious doubt — and caused others to shut down altogether.

The science behind heparan sulfate and MPSs is clear. It's imperative that the FDA review promising drugs appropriately via accelerated approval. Doing so will not only save patients, but also reignite interest in rare-disease research more broadly.

Will the FDA act? More than 30 million Americans with rare diseases are watching.

The 7 biggest takeaways from “Broken Horses,” the New York Times’ unsettling horse-racing exposé

“Horses dying in clusters is not a new phenomenon,” Joe Drape, a New York Times reporter, says in the outlet's new documentary, “Broken Horses.”

“It’s just now people are paying attention and want to know why.”

"Broken Horses," the latest episode from the third season of "The New York Times Presents," premiered on April 26 on FX and Hulu, just ahead of the 150th running of the Kentucky Derby at the historic Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. Last year, 12 horses died after sustaining severe injuries on that very track. Those deaths were compounded by additional clusters of fatalities at other prominent races, including the Preakness Stakes in May, the Belmont Stakes in June and a race at New York's Saratoga Springs course.

Drape, along with colleague Melissa Hoppert, held pivotal roles in the investigation into the spate of horse deaths that cropped up last year. The NYT's new expose endeavors to pull back the curtain on horse racing's seamy, systemic issues with doping and unbridled breeding practices through exclusive interviews and evidentiary support, giving viewers a better understanding of why such intensely powerful animals are falling apart.

Here are the key takeaways from "Broken Horses."

01
The rise of the "super trainer" changes horse racing
As the oldest continuously held sporting event in the U.S., horse racing was once considered a pastime for the wealthy. However, the sport saw a dramatic shift with the genesis of the super trainer, the person who takes horses from owners to ready them for competition through exercise. They also bear the responsibility of deciding which races a horse should enter, and ensuring that the animal is adequately prepared and healthy enough to participate. 
 
Different from a standard trainer, a super trainer is equivalent to a franchise equipped with hundreds of horses and premier stables, typically garnering millions of dollars in prize money on the track. As noted by Drape, who has been covering horse racing for 25 years, the ballooning economics underpinning the sport has created a "win now culture."
 
"I'm afraid that it's going to eclipse the culture of, 'let's care for our horses first,'" Drape said. 
02
A group of super trainers calling themselves "The Avengers" band together
Presumably pulling from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a subset of super trainers teamed up to form an ownership group, dubbing themselves "The Avengers." Functioning something like a hedge fund — which is notable, given that some of the super trainers are hedge fund managers — the group pools their money together in order to buy top-quality horses in large quantities, thereby incurring less risk.
03
Bob Baffert's unethical training practices
The most notable super trainer featured in "Broken Horses" is Bob Baffert, and for good reason. Over the course of his career, Baffert's horses have racked up nearly $350 million on the racetrack, and he has won six Kentucky Derbies, a record eight Preakness Stakes, three Belmont Stakes and two Triple Crowns.
 
As the face of the industry, Baffert has trained some incredible athletes. The documentary hones in on one of those horses: Havnameltdown, a standout four-year-colt who was euthanized in May of 2020 after suffering an injury to his front left ankle at the Pimlico Race Court in Baltimore, Maryland, ahead of the Preakness Stakes. "Broken Horses" also includes interviews with Havnameltdown's owner, Katherine Devall; though visibly upset as she recounts memories of the horse, Devall does not find Baffert to be at fault for her horse's death. "It's just things that happen," she says.
 
Havnameltdown's death is not an isolated incident. As Drape noted, Baffert has a ratio of six horse deaths to every 1,000 starts, making him one of the most deadly trainers in California. From 2011-2013, seven of his horses died, and it subsequently comes out that he is administering thyroid medications to every horse in his care. Though Baffert is plagued with a number of high-profile medical violations, his quasi-celebrity status in the industry and ability to rake in funds amounts to small fines and slaps on the wrist.
 
Prior to Havnameltdown's death, Baffert was suspended from the Kentucky Derby through 2024, after Medina Spirit, the 2021 champion he trained, failed a post-race drug test. Baffert's initial suspension was only meant to be two years long; however, Churchill Downs elected to extend his moratorium, arguing that his unwillingness to accept responsibility for the doping indicated that he “cannot be trusted to avoid future misconduct," per the NYT.
04
The proliferation of pharmaceuticals in horse racing leads to an investigation
The documentary delves into the differences between banned and controlled substances, underscoring how ubiquitous the administration of both forms of drugs to horses is in the industry. 
 
In the fall of 2015, the Jockey Club, a horse racing company with 18th-century origins, hired a team of former FBI investigators to look into corruption in the sport. The probe, which included substantial undercover work, led to the indictment of 30 trainers, veterinarians and drug distributors in a widespread doping scheme in March of 2020. Among those criminally charged were Jorge Navarro, a well-known New Jersey trainer who recklessly and openly referred to himself as the "Juice Man," and Jason Servis, who trained one of the top racehorses in the world, Maximum Security.
05
Congress passes the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA)
Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., spearheaded the passing of the HISA legislation that aims to have the federal government police the horseracing industry, creating a form of centralized authority.
 
"Broken Horses" features testimony from Lisa Lazarus, Chief Executive Officer of HISA, who oversaw the launch of the law's anti-doping program in May of 2023. The program sharply tamped down the frequency of doping in horseracing by implementing more stringent testing protocols. Additionally, penalties for violating substance rules can now amount to thousands of dollars in fines as well as lengthy suspension periods. 
06
Reckless breeding is still a pressing issue
Though the introduction of HISA made significant headway in regulating the frequency of doping in horseracing, the organization has no oversight when it comes to breeding or sales. They only deal with horses that are racing.
 
As the documentary pointed out, the breeding pool has shrunk significantly in recent years for money. For example, a now-retired champion horse called Flightline bred 152 mares in one year, producing foals valued at $200,000 each.
 
"Breeding has started tending toward speed versus distance," said Dr. Kate Papp, a veterinarian. "That's not doing anything good for longevity and bone density long term. So the more we breed for these spindle-legged, really fast horses instead of durable, long-distance horses, the more problems we probably will be having."
07
Necropsies of dead horses yield telling findings
HISA launched an investigation into the 12 fatalities at Churchill Downs in 2023, focusing on several components: testing of the racetrack surface, and a comprehensive veterinary review of all the vet records. 
 
In reviewing the necropsies, and specifically the orthopedic breakdown, veterinarian Dr. Sheila Lyons found that the horses had significant pre-existing injuries, not only in the limb that broke down but in other limbs as well. Notably, the reports did not have drug history.
 
The New York Times had Dr. Lyons and Dr. Papp conducted an independent review of the records related to the 2023 deaths at Churchill Downs and Pimlico Race Course. "We don't even know if these horses were running with legal therapeutic medications," Lyons said. "If a horse gave the ultimate price, we want to learn what contributed to that and make changes."
 
Lyons ultimately determined that Havnameltdown's pathology was unheard of. He had lesions in all four fetlock joints, which occurs when repetitive injury wears away at cartilage. This sort of injury, according to Lyons, is easily diagnosed. Additionally, previous vet exams detected a choppy or abnormal gait for Havnameltdown. Given that these reports are available to the horse's trainer and veterinarian, Lyons said, "How it was never red-flagged just baffles me."
 
Havnameltdown also had corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injected into both hocks and stifles, which are different joints in a horse's leg. Doing so, with his compromised pathology, would have likely enabled him to race and train in a way that he couldn't without those drugs, Lyons noted, adding that she felt his death could have been prevented. "Continuing to train and race a horse that has significant pathology in one or more joints is abusive," she argued.
 
"It was only a matter of time," Papp said. "Havnameltdown should not have been racing that day. Absolutely not, under any circumstances."
 

"Broken Horses" is streaming now on FX and Hulu.

Anita Hill says Harvey Weinstein decision will not be “the final word for victims and survivors”

After the shocking reversal of Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault conviction on April 25, survivors of sexual abuse and advocates like Anita Hill have come forward to share their thoughts.

Hill penned an op-ed for The Hollywood Reporter to address what the court's ruling shows about "misconceptions around sexual violence and how victims and survivors can keep moving forward." The piece published Monday begins by stating that it was "grossly ironic, if not outright cynical, that the release comes during Sexual Assault Awareness Month; it says volumes about the contemporary reality of sexual assault and the limits of legal protections against it."

A lawyer and educator, Hill became a national figure when she accused the now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, her former boss, of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation hearing. More than 30 years after Hill's testimony, she said of the Weinstein ruling that "while we can thank movements like #MeToo for creating an awareness of the pervasive reality of sexual violence, the Court’s interpretation of the law marks a disturbing setback."

Hill stressed there can only be justice, "Unless and until New York decides to retry Weinstein" but "for now this case defines survivor justice for the state of New York."

She continued that while the ruling has shaken survivors, "We all can play a role in assuring them that they are not alone.

"No single legal ruling can ever upend the tremendous progress we have made together," she said. "By the truth of our testimonies, our movement will persist. And changes to our systems and culture will follow."

“The Bible is one of the worst books ever,” says Brian Cox because “it is not the truth”

Move over, Joaquin PhoenixBrian Cox's next verbal target is religion — more specifically, the Bible.

The 77-year-old "Succession" actor is a self-proclaimed socialist well known for his controversial and discourse-sparking opinions. In an episode of "The Starting Line Podcast" with Rich Leigh, Cox shared more of his thoughts on religion, wealth distribution and politics.

When asked about religion holding humanity back, Cox said, "Oh considerably, yes – I think religion does hold us back because it's belief systems which are outside ourselves."

He continued to state that in his opinion, religion is a tool to control people.

"They're not dealing with who we are. We’re dealing with, 'Oh if God says this and God does that, and you go, 'Well what is God?' We’ve created that idea of God, and we’ve created it as a control issue, and it’s also a patriarchal issue . . . It’s essentially patriarchal; we haven’t given enough scope to the matriarchy."

Cox said his issues with religion mostly stem from Judeo-Christian religions centering on a patriarchal approach to life, society and politics.

"I mean the propaganda goes right way back. The Bible is one of the worst books ever, for me, from my point of view." He continued that people may need religion, "but they don’t need to be told lies, they need some kind of truth, and that is not the truth. It is not the truth, it’s a mythology you know . . . it’s not really to do with what women understand more than anybody."

Famine: In Gaza and elsewhere, an underlying pattern that can lead to hunger and death

The United Nations' latest report on hunger makes for grim reading. On April 24, 2024, the international body released its annual Global Report on Food Crises, showing that 281.6 million people faced acute hunger in 2023.

And indications for 2024 suggest worse may be to come. In March, the United Nations' highest technical body for assessing food and nutrition crises warned of an "imminent famine" in Gaza. The U.N. also raised the alarm about situations in Sudan, Haiti and other countries around the world.

To those of us who study global hunger issues, the situations in Gaza, Sudan, Haiti and a host of other countries reflect a growing trend in which severe crises – often, but not only, related to conflict – have the potential to become famines.

But how and under what conditions do famines form?

Recent academic thinking suggests that famines can be viewed as complex systems. As a scholar who researches hunger and humanitarian relief efforts, I wanted to see if it was possible to identify a consistent underlying pattern in the way these systems formed.

So in 2018 I developed a famine systems model that identifies five elements that describe the evolution of these crises. First, they require severe pressure on a population that is then kept in place by a "hold" that prevents the release of this pressure. This then creates self-reinforcing dynamics that can tip over into a famine system – which is when a "famine" is often officially declared – involving rapid increases in malnutrition and mortality. Finally, there is a rebalancing.

 

A representation of the famine systems model

           
 Paul Howe, CC BY

           

To better understand how the model works, it is worth examining each of its stages:

1. Intensifying pressure

Pressure in a famine cycle results from a combination of disruptive factors and vulnerability. Disruptive factors are things that affect the ability of a population to obtain the food it needs from normal sources. For example, in the Somalia famine of 2011-2012, a combination of successive droughts and a rise in global food prices made it difficult for communities to grow or buy food and maintain their livestock.

Vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of a population – or parts of that population – to experiencing these crises based on the resources and options available to them, and their food and nutrition status. In the case of Somalia, certain clans with limited support networks to reach out to for help were particularly at risk.

If there are strong and comprehensive disruptive factors and high vulnerability, the pressure can be severe.

 

2. Persistent holds

A hold is a condition that prevents the affected population from receiving release from famine pressure. Natural holds occur after a drought, when the rhythms of the agricultural cycle mean that the next harvest will not arrive for another year. Economic holds could relate to an extended period of elevated global food prices. Political holds can involve ongoing conflict or policies that make an area inaccessible.

When these holds prevent assistance from getting in to alleviate famine pressures – or prevent populations from leaving – they are highly impermeable. This frequently happens in sieges, such as Germany's encirclement of Leningrad during World War II.

During the siege of Sarajevo in the 1990s, however, the hold was more permeable, and some assistance and trade reached the populations, helping to prevent famine.

 

3. Self-reinforcing dynamics

If severe pressure is kept in place by a hold, it generates self-reinforcing dynamics, such as rapid rises in local food prices, declines in wages and asset prices and a resulting deterioration of terms of trade. This makes it even more difficult for affected people to obtain sufficient nutrients.

The dynamics can also lead to a breakdown in social norms. Populations may resort to stealing or rioting. Where possible, populations often migrate in search of better conditions or assistance. Combinations of these dynamics have been observed across historical contexts, from the biblical siege of Samaria to the Great Irish Famine of the late 1840s to the more recent crisis in Somalia.

 

4. Emerging famine systems

If the self-reinforcing dynamics are not stopped, at a certain point the ability of a population to stave off the crisis will be exhausted, and the situation will tip over into a famine system. A key feature of this model is the recognition that these interacting parts of the system often work together to generate a relatively sudden rise in malnutrition and deaths.

Although not always the case, a "classic" pattern for famine systems – whether in Somalia during 2011-2012 or Leningrad in 1941-1942 – is a steep rise and high peak in mortality. This is the period in which a famine can be unambiguously declared, but it is also too late to prevent the loss of life.

 

Rebalancing

Finally, there is a rebalancing of the system – often signaled by a decline in mortality. This may take place for two principal reasons. The first is that the famine system has already affected the most vulnerable people – such as children and the elderly or socially marginalized groups – and therefore cannot sustain the high levels of mortality. The second is when the key holds are removed and the self-reinforcing dynamics are counteracted by, for example, a new bumper harvest or the provision of scaled-up humanitarian assistance.

 

How Gaza fits the model

In terms of the crises currently facing the world, I'm deeply worried when I see elements of this model coming together in multiple places.

For instance, the severe pressure in northern Gaza stems from the disruptive factor of the conflict affecting a vulnerable population with few livelihood options. The hold consists of the constrained access to food due to both insufficient humanitarian relief and the breakdown of local markets. The self-reinforcing dynamics include price rises and social unrest, especially at food delivery points. And the rapid increase in malnutrition may signal the emergence of a famine system in the north of the territory.

The model also suggests, however, that famines are not inevitable. Providing release from holds can allow urgent assistance to counter the pressure, ease self-reinforcing dynamics, and save lives and alleviate suffering by preventing famine systems from forming.

 

Paul Howe, Professor of the Practice, Tufts University

 

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

“Tremendous influence”: Lawyer testifies “Access Hollywood” tape helped Stormy Daniels hush deal

There was "very little interest" in Stormy Daniels' story of an alleged tryst with former President Donald Trump until the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape in 2016, according to a former lawyer for the adult film star, testimony that boosts prosecutors' claims that the hush payment to her was intended to influence the election.

Keith Davidson, who previously represented Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, testified Tuesday that the recording of Trump boasting of sexual assault had a "tremendous influence" on the effort to buy the rights to her story.

"I think before, before [the] 'Access Hollywood' tape, there was very little interest from what I understand," Davidson said, according to NBC News.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his legal team have argued that the Trump campaign was thrown into turmoil by the "Access Hollywood" recording, prompting increased interest in silencing others with potentially damning stories to tell. Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records to, prosecutors say, cover up a $130,000 payment to Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Davidson said he did not believe that the money for the hush payment came from Michael Cohen himself. He testified that the believed the funds came from "Donald Trump or some corporate affiliation thereof."

“I believe that Michael Cohen was the personal attorney or general counsel for Donald Trump," Davidson said, according to The New York Times, "and that this story involved his client, that that was his interest in the story.”

Historian says Trump lawyer “deliberatively misleading” SCOTUS: Ben Franklin “would be horrified”

When Trump lawyer D. John Sauer spoke before the Supreme Court last week calling for presidential immunity for “official acts,” he repeatedly argued that at least one revolutionary mind would be on his side: Benjamin Franklin. 

But a leading legal historian pointed out that Sauer took a single sentence Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 out of context – while completely ignoring that Franklin also called for “the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.”

“Franklin would be horrified,” Holly Brewer, University of Maryland professor and legal historian, said in an X thread

Brewer was an author of an amicus brief penned by the nation’s preeminent historians in the immunity case, which said “no plausible historical case” supports Trump’s contention that the original meaning of the Constitution infers his argument for “permanent immunity from criminal liability for a President’s official acts.” 

“Once again, Trump’s lawyers are trying to turn a president into a king,” she said. “That they pretended that Franklin meant that Presidents should not be tried for high crimes— is somewhat shocking to this historian.”

Former President Donald Trump is fighting charges of “conspiring to thwart the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 election,” notes the historians’ brief.

Sauer has centered Franklin in his argument for presidential immunity, writing in a recent filing that: “The Framers viewed the prosecution of the Chief Executive as a radical innovation to be treated with great caution. Benjamin Franklin stated at the Constitutional Convention: 'History furnishes one example of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out ag[ain]st this as unconstitutional.'"

But in an interview with Salon, Brewer said: “Franklin's actual speech, the whole of it, if someone read the next few sentences, says exactly the opposite of what John Sauer was implying.”

At one point during oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it was her understanding that every U.S. president “has understood that there was a threat of prosecution if for no other reason than the Constitution suggests that they can be prosecuted after impeachment. The office of Legal Counsel has said forever that presidents are amenable to a threat of prosecution…”

She then asked Sauer: “So it seems to me that you are asking now for a change in what the law is related to immunity.”

Sauer again provided the Franklin quote, which he introduced saying: “I would quote from what Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, which I think reflects best the Founders' original understanding and intent here, which is, at the Constitutional Convention.”

Brewer said Sauer’s omission appears intentional: “By leaving out the rest of this quote, Trump's lawyers seem to have been deliberately misleading the Supreme Court justices.”

We need your help to stay independent

Brewer said that the Trump legal team’s use of selective and misleading quotes to bolster their argument that presidential immunity dates back to the founding is not only ahistorical – but could also have dangerous consequences.

“If a president is completely above the law and can do whatever you want, that means there is no security for anyone in this country and that the whole structure of the laws can be rendered pretty much meaningless,” Brewer said. 

So, what was Franklin actually talking about at the Constitutional Convention?

According to Brewer, he was referring to the death warrant of King Charles I of England, who was tried, convicted and executed in 1649.

“Franklin meant that after Charles II was restored to power in 1660, he oversaw the trial and execution of those who signed his father's death warrant (the "regicides"),” Brewer wrote.

In historian Geoffrey Robertson’s book, “The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold,” the author recounted how a judge told the jury to reconsider their not-guilty verdict. 

“Then, the jury condemned the regicides to be hanged, drawn and quartered (tortured,)” Brewer wrote.

For twenty-first century readers, to be drawn and quartered is a particularly gruesome manner of death.

“It is a kind of death that involves torture as well as just execution,” Brewer told Salon. “Quartering was cutting off your arms and your legs. Drawn is pulling out your guts while you're alive.”


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


And what’s more, Brewer said that Franklin was referring to the trial of a king as against the English Constitution. 

As Brewer pointed out, Franklin could not have been referring to the U.S. Constitution – as it was not yet written, at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

Franklin’s speech continued: “What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in [which]. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It [would]… be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.”

Brewer said Franklin clearly thought “trials were better than assassinations (or revolutions) because he thought they were fairer to the accused.”

Brewer said above all, Franklin, a frequent critic of monarchy, would “have been horrified to be thus represented as a proponent of monarchy.”

“Misrepresenting Franklin's own words before the highest court in the land, portraying our system as a monarchy, not as a republic, has the potential to transform it into that very monarchy that Franklin's listeners dreaded to discover in Sept 1787,” Brewer wrote.

Franklin is well-known for another quote at the Constitutional Convention: “A republic… if you can keep it.”

Biden administration admits that marijuana isn’t as dangerous as heroin, moves to reclassify drug

Marijuana is finally on track to be reclassified as a less dangerous drug by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, multiple news outlets reported Tuesday. The proposed reclassification must still be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, but it would recognize that cannabis has medical uses and less potential for abuse compared to harder drugs.

The Associated Press reported that the DEA's move "clears the last significant regulatory hurdle before the agency’s biggest policy change in more than 50 years can take effect.”

After the Office of Management and Budget signs off, the DEA can take public comment to move the drug from a Schedule 1 classification, which is the same category as heroin, down to Schedule III, like ketamine and anabolic steroids.

Reclassifying cannabis is not the same as legalizing it at the federal level. But it would make it easier to conduct medical studies and could ease access to financial institutions for some state-level cannabis businesses.

The shift comes after President Joe Biden called for a review of federal marijuana policies in 2022 and moved to pardon thousands of Americans convicted of simple possession charges. 

“Criminal records for marijuana use and possession have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing and education opportunities,” Biden said last year. “Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs.”

The reclassification of cannabis reflects shifting views on the drug, which has been legalized for recreational use in about half of U.S. states. A Gallup poll from last fall found that 70 percent of adults support legalization, compared to the 30 percent recorded in 2000.

Trump closes his eyes, appears to sleep through testimony from Stormy Daniels’ lawyer

Donald Trump was told Tuesday morning that he could go to jail if he keeps violating a gag order, but that prospect does not appear to be keeping him awake, with reporters saying he appeared to nod off, again, during his Manhattan criminal trial.

Trump, 77, has based his election pitch on the argument that his 81-year-old opponent, President Joe Biden, is too diminished to lead the country. But that argument has been undermined, in part, by Trump's own performance in the courtroom, where journalists have noticed him closing his eyes — and appearing to fall asleep — on several occasions this month.

It happened again Tuesday when Keith Davidson, a lawyer for adult film star Stormy Daniels, was on the stand and being questioned about the time he met Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer.

“Trump appears to have fallen asleep while listening to testimony — at times appearing to stir and then falling back to sleep,” NBC News reported. “Trump's eyes were closed for extended periods and his head has at times jerked in a way consistent with sleeping.”

The New York Times' Maggie Haberman  who previously angered Trump with her own reporting on his in-court siestas  echoed that reporting, writing that Trump "has been sitting with his eyes closed for significant portions of testimony" Tuesday morning. "It is unclear how the jurors, who have to sit through this same testimony, will feel about a defendant closing their eyes so much."

“Horrifying agenda”: Trump says he may let anti-abortion states monitor pregnancies

Former U.S. President Donald Trump said in an interview published Tuesday that if reelected in November, he would allow states to monitor women's pregnancies and prosecute anyone who violates an abortion ban.

That position, said one leading reproductive rights organization, underscores the grave threat the presumptive GOP nominee poses to fundamental freedoms.

"There is zero doubt in my mind that Trump will choose anti-abortion extremists and their horrifying agenda over American families every single chance he gets, and this new interview proves that he will ban abortion in all 50 states," Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said in response to the former president's comments. "It's imperative," she added, "that we double down on our mission to reelect the Biden-Harris ticket and deliver congressional majorities to lock our right to abortion care into federal law."

Speaking to TIME magazine, Trump said it's "irrelevant" whether he's "comfortable or not" with states prosecuting people for obtaining abortion care in violation of state-level abortion bans.

"It's totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions," said Trump.

The former president also said he believes states "might" attempt to monitor pregnancies to determine compliance with abortion bans, but the federal government under his leadership would not intervene to stop such a massive invasion of privacy.

TIME's Eric Cortellessa, who conducted the interview, stressed that Trump's allies "don't plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power," pointing to the Heritage Foundation's support for "a 19th-century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills."

"The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to 'the moment of fertilization.'"

When Cortellessa asked Trump if he would veto that legislation if it reached his desk, the former president dodged the question.

"I don't have to do anything about vetoes because we now have it back in the states," Trump said.

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Republican-led states rushed to impose draconian abortion bans, laws that have endangered lives and forced many to travel out of state to receive care. Nearly two dozen states across the U.S. currently ban or restrict abortion care.

Trump, who nominated three right-wing justices to the Supreme Court, has celebrated and taken credit for the high court's decision to end the constitutional right to abortion.

In a video released earlier this month, Trump said he was "proudly the person responsible" for the reversal of Roe and supports letting states do "whatever they decide" on abortion access.

"Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others, and that's what they will be," Trump said in the video. "You must follow your heart—or, in many cases, your religion or your faith."

President Joe Biden, meanwhile, has signed executive orders aimed at protecting abortion access, though abortion rights campaigners say such steps are no replacement for the passage of legislation codifying abortion protections at the federal level.

Last week, as The Associated Pressreported, the Biden administration finalized a rule "intended to protect women who live in states where abortion is illegal from prosecution."

"The medical records of women will be shielded from criminal investigations if they cross state lines to seek an abortion where it is legal," the outlet noted. "In states with strict abortion rules, the federal regulation would essentially prohibit state or local officials from gathering medical records related to reproductive healthcare for a civil, criminal, or administrative investigation from providers or health insurers in a state where abortion remains legal."

Julie Chavez Rodriguez, manager of Biden's 2024 reelection campaign, said Tuesday that Trump's comments to TIME "leave little doubt: If elected, he'll sign a national abortion ban, allow women who have an abortion to be prosecuted and punished, allow the government to invade women's privacy to monitor their pregnancies, and put IVF and contraception in jeopardy nationwide."

"Simply put: November's election will determine whether women in the United States have reproductive freedom, or whether Trump's new government will continue its assault to control women's healthcare decisions," said Rodriguez. "With the voters on their side this November, President Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris will put an end to this chaos and ensure Americans' fundamental freedoms are protected."

Shake Shack takes a bite out of rivalry with Chick-fil-A, snags viral TikTok star

Shade continues to be thrown between Chick-Fil-A and Shake Shack. 

Through the month of April, Shake Shack offered free sandwiches on Sundays, noting in a release they prided themselves on their “Chicken Shack which is available 7 days a week," a very-thinly-veiled reference to their competitor, which has been closed on Sundays since opening in 1946. 

Now, a Chick-fil-A employee who went viral for her glowing TikTok videos about her meals at the chain has been officially employed to make content — for Shake Shack. 

Since being hired by Chick-fil-A four months ago, TikTok creator Miri has posted near-daily video reviews of the employee meal she receives each day. Her TikToks, which have accumulated millions of views and thousands of followers, are often positive videos depicting her days at work, the food and more, often including the opening phrase, “It’s a great day at Chick-fil-A!” 

However, Chick-fil-A corporate offices reportedly advised Miri to stop making the videos. According to her video about the topic, she was told to discontinue the videos because they "break a rule in our employee handbook.” She prefaces this fact with how appreciative she is for TikTok, her new followers and Chick-Fil-A at large.

According to the creator, the “rule was in place” prior to her making the videos and that this was not a punishment, just the company upholding a rule despite finding her content “funny and engaging.” They will also allow Miri to keep her existing content up. However, Miri clarified that while she still loves the company and still works there, Chick-fil-A is not “willing to collab at this time” on further video content — but Shake Shack is. 

After several PR and HR-focused websites published commentaries about how Chick-fil-A throwing water on Miri’s videos was a potential mishap, Miri posted a TikTok showcasing the a chicken sandwich at Shake Shack and discussing their "free chicken Shack every Sunday in April" promo.One of the top comments, with 26,000 likes, says "Ooop! CFA dropped the bag and Shake Shack grabbed it. Love to see it.” 

We need your help to stay independent

Diana Bradley at PRWeek reported the new partnership between Shake Shack and Miri came together through a "TikTok DM that led to a phone call" — and the rest is history. In recent videos, Miri is classified as a paid partner of Shake Shack and ran a promotion in which she gave out $1,000 worth of coupon codes to the restaurant. 

Mike McGarry, Shake Shack’s vice president of brand marketing, told Salon Food in an emailed statement that the company is always “on the lookout for opportunities to connect with passionate food enthusiasts who share [their] commitment to quality and flavor.” 

“We also love embracing cultural moments that resonate with audiences and allow us to engage in a meaningful way,” McGarry said. “When we saw Miri’s content, we knew we had to reach out. Partnering with her allows us to celebrate her love for food while also providing us an opportunity to showcase our commitment to crafting high-quality food like our Chicken Shack. At Shake Shack, we will always encourage everyone to try our menu and share their feedback."

Salon also reached out to Chick-Fil-A for comment, but did not hear back. 

It remains to be seen what the next move might be for Chick-Fil-A, but clearly Shake Shack isn't slacking and immediately scooped up Miri once they saw how passionate her followers are — and just how many likes and views she brings along with her.