Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

5 years after Mueller report into pro-Trump Russian meddling, legal scholars still have questions

In the long list of Donald Trump’s legal woes, the Mueller report – which was released in redacted form on April 18, 2019 – appears all but forgotten.

But the nearly two-year investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election dominated headlines – and revealed what has become Trump’s trademark denial of any wrongdoing. For Trump, the Russia investigation was the first “ridiculous hoax” and “witch hunt.”

Mueller didn’t help matters. “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” the special counsel stated.

With such equivocal language, it’s easy to see how Democrats and Republicans – and the American public – responded to the report in completely different ways. While progressive Democrats wanted Trump to be impeached, some GOP leaders called for an investigation into the origins of the investigation itself.

Over the past five years, the Conversation U.S. has published the work of several scholars who followed the Mueller investigation and what it revealed about Trump. Here, we spotlight four examples of these scholars’ work.

1. Obstruction of justice

As a law professor and one-time elected official, David Orentlicher pointed out that Trump did many things that influenced federal investigations into him and his aides. They include firing FBI Director James Comey, publicly attacking the special counsel’s work and pressuring then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation.

Some accused Trump of obstructing justice with these actions. But Orentlicher wrote that obstruction of justice is “a complicated matter.”

According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. The law requires a “corrupt” intention to obstruct justice as well.

But in a March 24, 2019, letter to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings, then-Attorney General William Barr said he saw insufficient evidence to prove that Trump had obstructed justice.

So it was up to Congress to further a case against Trump on obstruction charges, but then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declined, arguing that it would be too divisive for the nation and Trump “just wasn’t worth it.”

2. Why didn’t the full report become public?

Charles Tiefer is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore and expected that Trump and Barr would do “everything in their power to keep secret the full report and, equally important, the materials underlying the report.”

Tiefer was right. To keep Mueller’s report private, Barr invoked grand jury secrecy – the rule that attorneys, jurors and others “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.”

Trump and Barr also claimed executive privilege to further prevent the release of the report. Though it cannot be used to shield evidence of a crime, Tiefer explained, “that’s where Barr’s exoneration of Trump really helped the White House.”

3. Alternative facts

Political scientists David C. Barker and Morgan Marietta asked an important question: After nearly two years of waiting, why didn’t the report help the nation achieve a consensus over what happened in the 2016 presidential election?

In their book, “One nation, Two Realities,” they found that voters see the world in ways that reinforce their values and identities, irrespective of whether they have ever watched Fox News or MSNBC.

“The conflicting factual assertions that have emerged since the report’s release highlight just how easy it is for citizens to believe what they want, regardless of what Robert Mueller, William Barr or anyone else has to say about it,” they wrote.

Perhaps the most disappointing finding, they argued, is that there are no known fixes to this problem. They found that fact-checking has little impact on changing individual beliefs, and more education only sharpens the divisions.

And with that, they wrote, “the U.S. continues to inch ever closer to a public square in which consensus perceptions are unavailable and facts are irrelevant.”

4. Trump’s demand for loyalty

Political science professor Yu Ouyang studies loyalty and politics at Purdue University Northwest. He explained that it’s normal for presidents to prefer loyalists.

What sets Trump apart, Ouyang wrote, is his “exceptional emphasis on loyalty.”

Trump expects personal loyalty from his staff – especially from his attorney general.

When his first attorney general, Sessions, recused himself from overseeing the FBI’s probe into Russian meddling, Trump considered it an act of betrayal and fired him in November 2017. Session’s removal enabled Trump to hire Barr.

“Trump values loyalty over other critical qualities like competence and honesty. … And he appoints his staff accordingly,” Ouyang wrote.

 

Howard Manly, Race + Equity Editor, The Conversation

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

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Israel aid amendment calls for “space lasers” at the border

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is going off about Jewish "space lasers" again, but this time she's suggesting they could be used against immigrants, making them a good thing.

In a Wednesday night post on social media, Greene said she is offering an amendment to pending Israel aid package that would provide funds for "the development of space laser technology on the southwest border."

"I've previously voted to fund space lasers for Israel's defense," Greene posted, falsely (Israel does not have space lasers). "America needs to take our national security seriously and deserves the same type of defense for our border that Israel has and proudly uses."

As The Daily Beast noted, Israel has an under-development "Iron Beam" defense system that would used ground-based energy beams to knock out incoming projectiles. Presently, no country fires lasers from space.

Greene, a conspiracy theorist who has risen to the top of the Trump-era GOP, was previously ridiculed for claiming in a since-deleted block of text on Facebook that wildfires were started by "space solar generators" that are "beaming the suns power down to Earth," a scheme that she suggested was orchestrated by the Rothschilds, a go-to target for antisemites.

“He’s in for a rude awakening”: Experts say Trump daring judge with “clear violation” of gag order

Donald Trump is trying to be cute. Subject to a gag order that prohibits him from launching broadsides against prospective jurors, the former president took to the failing social network that he owns to – yes, you already know – attack prospective jurors.

Quoting Fox News anchor Jesse Waters, Trump posted Wednesday on Truth Social: “They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury.”

Well, no: In Trump’s Manhattan trial, dozens of prospective jurors have already been disqualified for potential bias, including the woman that Trump sought to intimidate on the second day of jury selection, earning him a rebuke from Judge Juan Merchan. Of those who have made the cut is a juror who admitted to watching Fox News (as well as MSNBC) and another who commented that Trump “speaks his mind,” per Talking Points Memo.

So Trump is sharing a false conspiracy theory, seemingly expressing a conviction that he will be found guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a hush payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 election – thus the need to start early with a “rigged” narrative. But his actions, in addition to being self-defeating, could get him in trouble well before the trial ends.

Trump is already subject to a gag order, one that prosecutors say he’s already violated with social media posts attacking Daniels and Michael Cohen, his former attorney who served a year in prison for his own role in the plot to break campaign finance law. That order expressly prohibits Trump from: “Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or juror in this criminal proceeding.”

Does sharing an ally’s attack, suggesting that those who will judge his guilt or innocence are all lying crypto-DNC staffers, actually violate that order? Yeah, former federal prosecutors say.

“On its face, Trump’s post violates the gag order,” Renato Mariotti, who worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Illinois, posted on social media. “His attorneys will argue that he is just amplifying or ‘reposting’ someone else’s comment. But… Trump didn’t just retweet something. He typed it out word for word, essentially adopting Watters’ statement.”

We need your help to stay independent

NYU Law Prof. Ryan Goodman, who worked for the Department of Defense’s general counsel under former President Barack Obama, told CNN that Trump unquestionably crossed a line.

“It’s a very, very clear violation of the gag order,” Goodman said Wednesday. It doesn’t even matter what Trump meant by it, he continued: jurors are off limits. “It’s not about intent. It’s not about making statements about jurors in order to interfere with a criminal proceeding, which is part of the gag order. He just cannot make public statements about them. He just did.”

Another CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, agrees.

“It’s clearly – I think – an attempt to intimidate jurors and it is clearly barred by the gag order in this case,” Toobin commented. “Donald Trump doesn’t seem to realize he is now a criminal defendant and criminal defendants have different and lesser rights than ordinary citizens. They are not allowed to interfere in the trial process, especially when there is a gag order that specifically addresses attempts to intimidate jurors.”

When Trump sought to intimidate a juror in real life, the judge wasn’t having it. “I will not tolerate that,” Merchan said Tuesday. "I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make that crystal clear.”

Conservative attorney George Conway thinks Trump should pack an overnight bag. Jail time is a possibility, he told MSNBC, albeit unlikely just yet.

“I think before that happens, I think Merchan’s going to be very, very explicit about it, like, ‘Okay, that’s it, you’ve done this, this is it. Next time bring your toothbrush.”

With jury selection resuming Thursday, and weeks to go before a verdict, Merchan will now have to decide just how much the rules apply to a former president. A hearing on whether Trump violated the gag order with his previous social media posts in already scheduled for April 23.

“Trump thinks he’s too clever by half,” MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang posted on social media. “He’s in for a rude awakening.”

The ripple effects of Drowsy Don beyond the courtroom: The Trump trial is making everything weirder

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

In my mind, I was traveling through the hot, dry landscape of Nevada and headed toward the mecca of debauchery and decadence: Las Vegas. The Trump Tower shimmered in the distance like a mean-spirited heathen God of diseased greed; rapturous and belching out the capitalistic indulgence of America as if in the throes of passion.

I woke from my nap to see the beady little eyes of that orange-toned man on television in his ubiquitous white shirt, red tie and dark blue suit proclaiming his victimhood as his decades-long fleecing of America now has him cornered in a stuffy Manhattan courtroom while prospective jurors eye him like a caged orangutan that likes to fling its own feces at the crowd.

After one day in court, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman told us, Trump was essentially sleeping in the courtroom. As much as he wants to call Biden “Sleepy Joe,” he will forever be known as “Drowsy Don.” For the next month, Trump will sit like every other accused criminal in a court of law awaiting justice. Except he is making history as the first former president to be prosecuted for a felony.

Those prospective jurors not chosen to judge Trump spoke with reporters and told us of their interest in seeing a man who provokes visceral reactions, both good and bad, from so many people. Trump bathes in the chaos, drowns others with his bombast and, in a courtroom where he apparently cannot control his own actions, let alone anyone else’s, he is now seen stripped of pretense and floundering — when he’s not sleeping.

Trump remains larger than life to many, and the ripple effects of his extended stay on the public stage are still being felt and will continue long after he either expires of natural causes inside prison or while hugging his golden toilet bowl at Mar-a-Lago.

Joe Biden was elected nearly four years ago by telling us he was a bridge to the future — a better future without Trump. It was appealing to a majority of voters who needed to flush Trump from their system. Many thought Biden was a short-term fix until younger, more viable leadership took over. But now Biden is determined to stay, Trump wants back in and the nation has to watch a sequel some wags have called “Grumpier Old Men.”

That’s another example of the Trump ripple effect. He won’t go away and Biden is determined to keep him from another term, convinced that he remains the country’s best chance to hold the line between democracy and whatever Trump and his putrid, vampiric acolytes have in mind for the country. Biden is aided in this effort by a variety of well-known people, not limited to every living former president, many members of the Trump team from his first term and everyone with any common sense who continues to tell us how bad for democracy, business and the existence of mankind Trump is for the world.

That’s another ripple.

But it’s not always that dire.  

On Monday, I heard two things I’d never heard in the White House briefing room during my last 40 years covering the White House. I heard the word “shwacking” used and a reference to “Where’s Waldo.” I have Admiral John Kirby, the feisty National Security Council spokesperson, to thank for both of those references. Kirby was trying to deal with the insane claims, reportedly from the Iranian government, that its recent drone and missile strikes on Israel failed “on purpose.” As silly as that all sounds, all of it is a ripple in space-time that is indirectly tied to the actions of Drowsy Don.

Kirby’s sense of humor is a welcome respite to mitigate the seriousness of the problems in the world we face, directly and indirectly, because of the four years Trump soiled the White House. The impeachment of Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas is a byproduct of pro-Trump MAGA members. It was dumped on the Senate this week, and they quickly dispensed with the entire matter Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson, himself a Trump protégé, is battling the threat of his own ouster at the hands of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, another Trump sycophant who’s 40 shades of MAGA worse than other GOP members. 

The world is pegging a solid 10 on the weirdness scale.

We need your help to stay independent

With Trump on trial in Manhattan and already floundering, one has to ask how he remains viable as a candidate. Here’s one way: The MAGA team has dug out a sub-basement to lower the bar, and still the Democrats are stumbling to get over it. At least Biden is. The president came out this week and made statements criticizing Trump for his COVID policies — but, curiously enough, avoided talking about Trump on trial.

Biden's administration, meanwhile, can’t seem to stop stumbling over itself. It's infamous for its dreadful staging of public events on the road and at the White House. The administration recently left the reporting pool out of an event where Biden essentially spoke to an empty room because of a staff mistake. A recent bilateral press conference in the Rose Garden was delayed because of technical problems. In Baltimore, Biden’s staged appearance to talk about the Key Bridge collapse was roundly criticized for looking more like a mayoral visit than a presidential visit. Reporters on the campaign trail complain often about the lack of professionalism among the advance staff. Reporters at the White House routinely complain about Biden’s staff ignoring them, ghosting them or trying to intimidate them into silence, while seemingly unable to handle even the simplest requests.

Monday, a Fox News reporter asked in the press briefing about inflation and the rising cost of gas. I followed with what should have been a softball. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, among others, has called inflation “greedflation” and noted that there is no economic reason for increased inflation. It’s simply price gouging by the very rich — the same people Biden has routinely said need to pay their “fair share of taxes.”

I asked the White House if the president blamed those he asked to pay their fair share for rising prices. Given the opportunity to speak directly to that issue, the administration merely explained that Republicans and Democrats “see things differently.” The country is blaming Biden for inflation and his staff can offer no response other than repeating that the job market remains strong.

They can’t hit the layups.

Weirder still was a follow-up question about Julian Assange. The president himself recently hinted that there may be a way to settle the long-running Assange case through a plea deal. It would behoove Biden to avoid a public trial or extradition of the controversial WikiLeaks publisher during an election year. But instead of answering my question on Monday, the press office just referred me to the Department of Justice — which, by the way, had already refused to answer a question about Assange and referred me back to the White House.


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


That’s just weird, and counterproductive. But that’s how things operate in D.C. these days, and have been operating since the last vestige of normalcy departed, at the same time Barack Obama's final press secretary, Josh Earnest, left the building in 2017. Trump distorted everything. It will take someone younger, more vibrant and with better ideas to pave a new highway, rather than patch the potholes of weirdness in our government. 

So don’t expect to leave the land of the weird any time soon. We have yet to see either major political party conduct their conventions to nominate a presidential candidate, and we’re all assuming it’s definitely going to be Biden versus Trump, part deux. With Trump’s rhetoric where it’s always been — divisive and angry — and with the Biden administration nearly incompetent at promoting its agenda, people are already tired and burned out. 

How much weirder will it get before summer? Trump can’t outrun his past. It’s catching up to him daily in that Manhattan courtroom, where he remains both a cause and a symptom of the weird times in which we live. His arrival in politics was like a large asteroid hitting the ocean with a ripple effect of destruction and disharmony that has echoed across the landscape, engulfing the Supreme Court, Congress and the current presidency. Its stench of decay and greed has had far-reaching effects on international markets, diplomacy and worldwide democracy. The rise of the far right is now seen across the globe.

The weirdness is so pervasive in some cases that it has become monotonous. Nothing Trump does surprises anyone anymore. His followers just scream that he's the victim, with increasingly forced outrage. His opponents just say, “Really? Again? Give me a break.” You can only be shocked so many times by Donald Trump’s narcissism before you walk away from it with a sigh. It just takes up too much energy. The prospective jurors in Manhattan are drawn to watch the man up close, much as you’d watch the orangutan in the zoo — but after a while you'd get bored and walk away, leaving the animal to the zookeepers who must care for him.

The weirdness lingers. The viewers don’t. By this fall, we may well have moved beyond both Trump and Biden. But don’t count on it. We have to buckle up. It’s likely to become weirder, sooner rather than later, and there are still endless ways in which this could play out — most of them bad, but some of them good.

It’s so weird that an acid overdose while riding in a convertible during a July heat wave in the desert outside Las Vegas seems like something to no longer fear nor loathe.

And for the love of God, can somebody get Drowsy Don a new suit?

Blinken sitting on staff recommendations to sanction Israeli military units linked to killings, rape

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

A special State Department panel recommended months ago that Secretary of State Antony Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after reviewing allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses.

But Blinken has failed to act on the proposal in the face of growing international criticism of the Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza, according to current and former State Department officials.

The incidents under review mostly took place in the West Bank and occurred before Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. They include reports of extrajudicial killings by the Israeli Border Police; an incident in which a battalion gagged, handcuffed and left an elderly Palestinian American man for dead; and an allegation that interrogators tortured and raped a teenager who had been accused of throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Recommendations for action against Israeli units were sent to Blinken in December, according to one person familiar with the memo. “They’ve been sitting in his briefcase since then,” another official said.

A State Department spokesperson told ProPublica the agency takes its commitment to uphold U.S. human rights laws seriously. “This process is one that demands a careful and full review,” the spokesperson said, “and the department undergoes a fact-specific investigation applying the same standards and procedures regardless of the country in question.”

The revelations about Blinken’s failure to act on the recommendations come at a delicate moment in U.S.-Israel relations. Six months into its war against Hamas, whose militants massacred 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped 240 more on Oct. 7, the Israeli military has killed more than 33,000 Palestinians, according to local authorities. Recently, President Joe Biden has signaled increased frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the widespread civilian casualties.

Multiple State Department officials who have worked on Israeli relations said that Blinken’s inaction has undermined Biden’s public criticism, sending a message to the Israelis that the administration was not willing to take serious steps.

The recommendations came from a special committee of State Department officials known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum. The panel, made up of Middle East and human rights experts, is named for former Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chief author of 1997 laws that requires the U.S. to cut off assistance to any foreign military or law enforcement units — from battalions of soldiers to police stations — that are credibly accused of flagrant human rights violations.

The Guardian reported this year that the State Department was reviewing several of the incidents but had not imposed sanctions because the U.S. government treats Israel with unusual deference. Officials told ProPublica that the panel ultimately recommended that the secretary of state take action.

This story is drawn from interviews with present and former State Department officials as well as government documents and emails obtained by ProPublica. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.

The Israeli government did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the years, hundreds of foreign units, including from Mexico, Colombia and Cambodia, have been blocked from receiving any new aid. Officials say enforcing the Leahy Laws can be a strong deterrent against human rights abuses.

Human rights organizations tracking Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks have collected eyewitness testimony and videos posted by Israeli soldiers that point to widespread abuses in Gaza and the West Bank.

“If we had been applying Leahy effectively in Israel like we do in other countries, maybe you wouldn’t have the IDF filming TikToks of their war crimes now because we have contributed to a culture of impunity,” said Josh Paul, a former director in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and a member of the vetting forum. Paul resigned in protest shortly after Israel began its bombing campaign of Gaza in October.

The Leahy Laws apply to countries that receive American-funded training or arms. In the decades after the passage of those laws, the State Department, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, followed a de facto policy of exempting billions of dollars of foreign military financing to Israel from their strictures, according to multiple experts on the region.

In 2020, Leahy and others in Congress passed a law to tighten the oversight. The State Department set up the vetting forum to identify Israeli security force units that shouldn’t be receiving American assistance. Until now, it has been paralyzed by its bureaucracy, failing to fulfill the hopes of its sponsors.

Critics have long assailed what they view as Israel’s special treatment. Incidents that would have disqualified units in other countries did not have the same result in Israel, according to Charles Blaha, the former director of the State Department’s Office of Security and Human Rights and a former participant in the Israeli vetting forum. “There is no political will,” he said.

Typically, the reports of wrongdoing come from nongovernment organizations like Human Rights Watch or from press accounts. The State Department officials determining whether to recommend sanctions generally do not draw on the vast array of classified material gathered by America’s intelligence agencies.

Actions against an Israeli unit are subject to additional layers of scrutiny. The forum is required to consult the government of Israel. Then, if the forum agrees that there is credible evidence of a human rights violation, the issue goes to more senior officials, including some of the department’s top diplomats who oversee the Middle East and arms transfers. Then the recommendations can be sent to the secretary of state for final approval, either with consensus or as split decisions.

Even if Blinken were to approve the sanctions, officials said, Israel could blunt their impact. One approach would be for the country to buy American arms with its own funds and give them to the units that had been sanctioned. Officials said the symbolism of calling out Israeli units for misconduct would nonetheless be potent, marking a sign of disapproval of the civilian toll the war is taking.

Since it was formed in 2020, the forum has reviewed reports of multiple cases of rape and extrajudicial killings, according to the documents ProPublica obtained. Those cases also included several incidents where teenagers were reportedly beaten in custody before being released without charges. The State Department records obtained by ProPublica do not clearly indicate which cases the experts ultimately recommended for sanctions, and several have been tabled pending more information from the Israelis.

Israel generally argues it has addressed allegations of misconduct and human rights abuses through its own military discipline and legal systems. In some of the cases, the forum was satisfied that Israel had taken serious steps to punish the perpetrators.

But officials agreed on a number of human rights violations, including some that the Israeli government had not appeared to adequately address.

Among the allegations reviewed by the committee was the January 2021 arrest of a 15-year old boy by Israeli Border Police. The teen was held for five days at the Al-Mascobiyya detention center on charges that he had thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at security forces. Citing an allegation shared by a Palestinian child welfare nonprofit, forum officials said there was credible information the teen had been forced to confess after he was “subjected to both physical and sexual torture, including rape by an object.”

Two days after the State Department asked the Israeli government for information about what steps it had taken to hold the perpetrators accountable, Israeli police raided the nonprofit that had originally shared the allegation and later designated it a terrorist organization. The Israelis told State Department officials they had found no evidence of sexual assault or torture but reprimanded one of the teen’s interrogators for kicking a chair.

“You can go three hours that way”: Kari Lake and Arizona GOP can’t decide if abortion is bad or not

Abortion is supposedly an act so evil that it's tantamount to murder — yet it's somehow less wicked if someone takes a road trip before doing it. That appears to be the bizarre opinion of Kari Lake, failed gubernatorial candidate turned current Republican Senate candidate in Arizona. At a Tuesday campaign event, Lake was dismissive toward those angered by a recent state Supreme Court ruling that resurrected a near-total abortion ban initially passed before Arizona was a state, and 55 years before women had the right to vote. 

"Even if we have a restrictive law here," Lake tried to assure the concerned crowd, "you can go three hours that way, three hours that way, and you're going to be able to have an abortion."

What's changed is that they have since learned that voters want women to have their rights. Now that women's safety is under threat, so are the electoral chances of Republicans in November.

The comment is confounding in multiple ways, and it's just the latest twist in Lake's ever-changing position on abortion. In 2022, she insisted that bringing back the 1864 law was a good idea because "life begins at conception." After the court's wildly unpopular decision, however, she discovered she could set aside her alleged deep moral qualms with abortion to denounce the ruling. Then again, on Tuesday she seemed to be fine with the ruling, not because of deep moral qualms but because she sees it as no big deal to make someone drive three hours to get an abortion. 

This cavalier attitude towards what patients go through to get abortion care is, first and foremost, gross. There's nothing easy about driving three hours one way, sitting at a clinic for many more hours, and then trying to find a way home when you're not allowed to drive yourself after an abortion. (It's not safe to drive while under pain medication.) For younger women, low-income women and single mothers, that burden often makes getting an abortion impossible. 


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


But this "eh, just go out of state" attitude brings up more questions about how much Lake has even thought about her supposed deeply held beliefs about abortion. If it's so immoral that it must be banned in the state of Arizona, then why does it suddenly become OK if a woman does it in California? And if it's not immoral, as Lake's statement suggests, then why should abortion be banned in Arizona at all? 

Last week, Republicans tried to dodge their own contradictions by blocking a Democratic bill to repeal the 1864 law from even coming to a vote. Democrats responded by yelling "Shame! Shame!" But it's not just Republican opposition to women's rights that is shameful; it's their cowardice. They could just vote to uphold the 1864 law, as they did in 2022, in conjunction with passing another ban on abortion. But they're so afraid to go on the record defending that cruel, ancient law, now that it's enforceable, that they won't even allow a vote on it. So even though Arizona Republicans drew humiliating national coverage over their gutless behavior, they did it again on Wednesday. Democrats once again tried to end the 1864 law, and using arcane rules of order, Republicans weaseled out of holding a vote at all. Worse, state Rep. Ben Toma, the speaker of the Arizona House, feigned a high-and-mighty attitude about it. He accused Democrats of "childish behavior" in trying to force this issue. But it's Republicans who are refusing to pull up their big boy pants and deal with this pressing issue.

Ahead of Wednesday's session, the Washington Post chronicled the chaos within the ranks of Republicans in Arizona who cannot decide whether they still think abortion is murder or they're fine with it now. Just a few months ago, Republicans in the state legislature were declaring that "abortion is the ending of an innocent human life" and that they would always "fight for the unborn." One even tried to open the carpool lane up to pregnant women to create a legal rationale for declaring that a woman is a "new mom" not when she gives birth, but after a sperm touches an egg. 

But now, like Lake, they're suddenly all over the place and can't decide what they think about abortion. Rep. Matt Gress, like other Republicans documented by the Post, now calls the abortion ban "draconian" and is calling for its repeal. 

It's not like these people just finally got around to looking at a biology textbook and realized that an embryo is not, in fact, a "pre-born baby." I daresay they all knew that already, and these histrionics about "life" were a pretext for the real goal: stripping women of basic rights. What's changed is that they have since learned that voters want women to have their rights. Now that women's safety is under threat, so are the electoral chances of Republicans in November. 

Certainly, politicians change their positions all the time for political expedience or upon learning new information. In many cases, this can be a good thing. Being able to change with the times or adjusting to better serve your constituents are good qualities for a leader. Flexibility is one reason democracy tends to work better than other forms of government. But this sudden change of heart about abortion among so many Republicans suggests that they never really thought it was baby-killing, as they have proclaimed for years. Instead, it appears that they smeared millions of women as murderers for no other reason than to please the Christian right, whose main goal is restoring women to second-class status. 

Rather than dealing honestly with the public, Republicans are scheming to find a way to trick voters into accidentally giving away their rights. On Monday, NBC News exposed a strategy document shared internally by party leaders, which offered ideas to bamboozle people about abortion measures on the ballot. The document suggested piling multiple, conflicting ballot measures onto voters to confuse them about how, exactly, they can vote to protect abortion rights. Should the will of the masses prevail and abortion is made legal again, it suggests abusing the health regulatory framework to make it more difficult and expensive for providers to offer abortion services. 

We need your help to stay independent

It's always been the case that opposition to abortion is about hostility to women's liberation, not "life." As Nicole Narea at Vox explained over the weekend, when the 1864 abortion ban was first passed, supporters didn't even bother to pretend they thought abortion was "murder." First-trimester abortion was a common form of birth control that had been accepted for centuries. What changed was not people's moral views on abortion. It was the development of misogynist outrage at the burgeoning feminist movement of the 19th century and falling birth rates.  Male doctors also wanted to put their competition — midwives who made extra cash providing abortions — out of business. Eager to push women into more subservient roles, legislators started passing abortion bans —which was a lot easier to pull off when women couldn't vote.  

Alabama Republicans are also facing the consequences of lying about the real purpose of abortion bans for so long, when their own court, taking seriously its own rhetoric about "life," functionally banned in-vitro fertilization. After all, if you actually believe an embryo is the moral equivalent of a child, IVF is worse than abortion, since it requires deliberately creating multiple embryos with the understanding most will not survive. If abortion is "murder," IVF is premeditated serial killing. But under a deluge of criticism, Alabama Republicans passed a bill that ostensibly protects IVF (though it really doesn't). In doing that, they tacitly admitted that they never actually thought abortion was a criminal act. 

It may be hard to push the genie back into the bottle, however. In March, Democrat Marilyn Lands won a special election to the Alabama state legislature by running on a reproductive rights platform. What is remarkable is how decisive her victory was: In a district that Donald Trump narrowly carried in 2020, she beat the Republican by 25 points. Hers is just one in a long line of pro-choice victories across the country since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. I suspect an underrated aspect of this shift is that pro-choice candidates have been able to offer moral clarity and consistency. Their Republican opponents can't decide if abortion is murder or just something they kind of don't like. 

Arizona Republicans clearly hope they can dodge and weave until this issue goes away. But it won't, and telling women to just "go three hours that way" will not solve their problem. Many voters were happy to ignore the inconsistencies and logical fallacies of the anti-abortion position when Roe v. Wade protected them from irrational Republican laws. But there's no ducking the radicalism of the GOP on this issue now, with Arizona Republicans committed to an abortion ban that predates modern medicine. 

He’s dropping little clues: The troubling message we are missing from Trump’s MAGA rallies

During a rally last Saturday in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, the last such event before his criminal trial began on Monday in Manhattan, Donald Trump displayed his authoritarian and fascist behavior and beliefs to the extreme. He continued to preach his Big Lie about the 2020 election being “stolen” from him, claimed he is being “persecuted” and tried to intimidate the judges, prosecutors, and other members of law enforcement working to hold him accountable for his actions. Trump, a master propagandist, used the classic tactic of projection, accusing President Biden of being a “demented tyrant” and the real enemy of democracy who would destroy the country if re-elected.

“This election is a choice between the Biden-fascist state or the American republic," he told his MAGA crowd. 

During his Saturday speech, Trump also continued to amplify antisemitic conspiracy theories about George Soros and again compared himself to the legendary gangster and murderer Al Capone. His ego demanded that he say something about Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel, falsely claiming that Iran would never dare to do such a thing if he were president. In January 2020, the Iranians launched a missile attack against a U.S. base in Iraq. Donald Trump was still president of the United States at the time.  

During his Saturday speech, Trump also had a moment of raw honesty and candor, sharing how, “I love women more than I love anything. I love women.” That is true if one understands Trump’s definition of love to mean the dozens of women he has been credibly accused of sexually harassing and sexually assaulting. E. Jean Carroll would most certainly have something to say about Trump’s “love.” Stormy Daniels will also have much to say about the ex-president’s special “love” during his election interference trial in Manhattan.

Trump told his thousands of followers gathered before him that he wants the power to determine when presidential elections (and presumably other elections) take place. Trump is literally reading a page from the dictator’s playbook. At the end of his speech in Pennsylvania, Trump, channeling Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, reached a crescendo by threatening those Americans —  a group he has previously targeted as “vermin” and “traitors” — who are poisoning the “blood” of the nation:

[T]ogether we are taking on some of the most menacing forces and vicious opponents our people have ever seen. They are vicious and they are horrible. But no matter how hateful and corrupt the communists and criminals we’re fighting against may be, you must never forget this nation does not belong to them. This nation belongs to you. This is your home. This is your heritage. And our American liberty is your God-given right. Your God-given right.

From Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, from Easton to Bethlehem, and from Johnstown to Allentown, we stand on the shoulders of American legends, who poured out their blood, sweat and tears, for our rights and for our freedoms. And it’s been a very rough period of time. I’ll tell you what, for this country. It’s never had. I don’t think our country has ever been so low, but we’re going to change it. We’re going to get numbers like nobody’s ever seen. I think we’re going to swamp them. And this isn’t drain the swamp. This is we’re going to swamp them. We’re also going to drain the swamp. It’s a double swamp.

Predictably, the American mainstream news media did not cover Trump’s Schnecksville political speech and rally in great detail. Instead, such journals of record as the New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, The Associated Press, and NPR summarized Trump’s speech and the events of that day in a manner that, for the most part, literally whitewashes the abnormal, the aberrant, and the inherent dangerousness of what the corrupt ex-president and the larger antidemocracy movement represent to the country and the world.

During his rally on Saturday, Trump continued to manifest what appears to be a diseased mind and how he is mentally decompensating under the extreme pressures of his numerous criminal trials, hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and legal expenses, and the 2024 election and his crusade to be America’s first dictator. To that point, Trump had repeated difficulties with speech and thinking, where he used the following nonsense words and phrases: “Adlinthin," "Magastine," and "weak nicks," as Raw Story details:

Trump in one instance said that the people of Israel are under attack because the United States has shown "great weak nicks."…

In another instance, as Trump was calling Rolling Stone a liberal outlet, he accidentally called it a "magastine."…

In a third example, Trump at his rally was talking about immigration when he invented the word "adlinthin," according to onlookers.

"Just last week it was reported that an illegal adlinthin— and you just look at this, what's happening"….

We need your help to stay independent

There was another important recent news story that the American mainstream news media largely ignored. Trump recently shared a campaign-propaganda video about the solar eclipse which The Independent, a British news outlet, described as follows:

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it the moon crossing the sun? No, it’s Donald Trump’s head.

Seven years on from the notorious moment where he stared directly at the sun during the last solar eclipse over the US, the former president is jumping on the sungazing bandwagon yet again.

On Sunday night, Mr Trump posted a bizarre campaign ad on Truth Social where his own head takes on the role of the moon – blocking out the sun and plunging America into total darkness.

The video begins with the words “the most important moment in human history is taking place in 2024” emblazoned over an image of the flaming sun, while dramatic music plays in the backdrop.

Images show large crowds gathered to watch the solar event, staring up at the sky wearing protective glasses.

The footage moves between the awestruck crowds and the sun where a huge silhouette begins to slowly move across it.

But, it’s not the moon causing the rare phenomenon. It’s the outline of Mr. Trump’s head – complete with quaff, bushy eyebrows and long neck.

As his head covers the entirety of the sun – creating its own solar eclipse – a phrase flashes across the screen: “We will save America. And make it great again.”

The message of Trump’s “eclipse” video is rather obvious: he is a type of God and prophet or messiah on Earth, an Ozymandias figure of sorts, whose powers are greater than the sun and such fundamental forces as gravity and the movement of the stars and planets. As some of the country’s leading mental health professionals have repeatedly warned, Donald Trump appears to actually believe in such delusions and absurdities. Based on their behavior, the MAGA political cultists also appear to be believe that their Dear Leader has such superpowers.

Donald Trump wants to be worshipped; his followers want to worship him; this should terrify any reasonable and thinking person in the United States who values their freedom and safety, and that of their loved ones and other people they care about.

During this, the first week of Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, he has been hostile and disrespectful to the court. Trump also appears to be quite tired as he has fallen asleep several times, his mouth open, and his head slouched down.

Is this funny? Those people who are eager to laugh at mock the aspiring dictator have of course found great sport and entertainment in it. As I have repeatedly warned, many people laugh and mock Donald Trump because, at their core, they are actually terrified of him and what he represents.

Some expert observers have focused on Donald Trump’s sleeping in court as evidence that he may have dementia or some other brain disease. I am not qualified to make that assessment.

There is the simplest explanation: Donald Trump is an older man who appears to be overweight and is under a great deal of pressure; This would make Donald Trump very tired – as it would most people, be they younger or older.

But when I look at “Sleepy Trump”, I am more concerned about what is going on in his twisted and evil mind. If there was a thought bubble above Trump’s head, like in a comic book or graphic novel, it would likely show images of revenge and destruction and other malevolence as he does horrible things to the judges, the witnesses, the jurors, the prosecutors, Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, President Biden, E. Jean Carroll, Stormy Daniels, and any and all people who dare to oppose or otherwise do not support him.

Making fun of “Sleepy Trump” makes people feel good. But the far more important story is Donald Trump’s drive to unlimited power and what he and his followers are going to do when and if he escapes the law and becomes the country’s first dictator.

A one-shot vaccine for COVID, flu and future viruses? Researchers say it’s coming

At the beginning of the pandemic, many people hoped that infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 — or vaccines against the virus — would provide durable lifetime immunity, as is the case with diseases like measles or mumps. Instead, the COVID virus is more akin to the influenza virus, which mutates constantly and confers only short-term immunity. Both COVID and the flu require new and different vaccine formulas aimed at defeating newly circulating variants of the viruses. The inevitable result of this has been, for most of us, increasing vaccine fatigue.  

But what if it were possible to protect against COVID and the flu, and other unknown viruses that haven't yet emerged, with just one shot? If that became reality, seasonal or annual boosters would be part of the past. And what if such vaccinations didn't even require a needle?

While those possibilities may sound far in the future, scientists at the University of California, Riverside, believe they could become reality relatively soon — perhaps within the next five to 10 years. As illustrated in a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a new, RNA-based vaccine strategy could be effective against any viral strain to emerge in the future. This next generation of vaccines would theoretically offer protection against viruses we aren’t even aware of yet, and could be used safely on infants and people with compromised immune systems, who today must often opt out of vaccination to protect their health.

This new RNA-based technology, the research paper reports, would target a part of the viral genome that is common to all strains of any virus and would depend on a “second immune system” response. 

“We have a very strong reason to believe that all these other human viruses, like dengue virus and COVID-19, produce a protein that we can target to make a vaccine,” Shouwei Ding, distinguished professor of microbiology at UC Riverside and lead author of the paper, told Salon in a phone interview. With any future virus, "all we need to do is to identify the protein that can suppress RNAi.”

Here's what Ding was talking about. Traditional vaccines work by training the body to recognize and combat specific molecules found on a particular pathogen. For example, live-attenuated vaccines often use a weakened form of a virus to train the immune system. Once the weakened form of the virus is in the body, the immune system learns to recognize the antigen and develop immunity to it.

Another type of vaccine, based on "viral vectors," uses DNA and RNA to give cells a blueprint, rather than a piece of the pathogen itself, to build immunity. MRNA vaccines, like the best-known vaccines against COVID-19, use a synthetic version of single-stranded RNA to create a bespoke version of the mRNA within the body. This creates cells that can produce proteins like those found in a virus, and which then train the immune system to fight a disease before it enters a person’s bloodstream. 

We need your help to stay independent

The new vaccine technology proposed in this paper would still use a live, modified version of a virus. But its effectiveness would not depend on the body's traditional immune response, which produces T-cells and memory B-cells. Instead, it would produce proteins that block a pathogen’s RNAi response, which is something all viruses create.

Researchers tested their theory in mice with a virus called Nodamura. The mice lacked T and B cells, but after one injection with the test vaccine, the mice were protected against the virus for at least 90 days. 

This new vaccine tech could be key to fighting bird flu, researchers say: "We are actively seeking funding to do just that.”

In 2013, this same group of researchers at UC Riverside published a paper showing that flu infections also cause people to produce RNAi molecules. Ding said their next step will be to generate a universal, one-time-use influenza vaccine that would be safe for very young infants. Current flu vaccines are only recommended for infants over the age of six months. Furthermore, this new vaccine would likely be delivered as a spray. As Salon has previously reported, vaccines that don’t require needles may one day become standard.

This intriguing report arrives at a moment when the bird flu virus, known as H5N1, has reportedly begun to spread among cattle. There has also been at least one confirmed human case. As Salon has reported, infectious disease experts do not expect bird flu to become a pandemic this year, that's a definite possibility in the future. One virologist told Salon she would recommend public vaccination against bird flu right now. No avian flu vaccines have yet been approved for use in humans, however, although several are under development, none have been approved for use in humans yet.


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


Ding said the vaccine his team is developing could be a contender: “That's what we're aiming for. We are actively seeking funding to do just that.”

Among the additional implications of this new vaccine technology, Ding said, could be more rapid protection than is now typical. “What we find is that two days after the shot, you are already fully protected,” he said. With current vaccines, "it will often take two weeks or more to be effective, and that's not very good for an emerging infection.” 

Ding said his team anticipates having a vaccine candidate ready for human clinical trials in about a year. After that, the traditional regulatory would likely take 5 to 10 years — although a new public health emergency, like the COVID pandemic, could speed that up considerably. 

“Succession” star Brian Cox blasts Joaquin Phoenix’s “truly terrible” “Napoleon”

"Succession" star Brian Cox wants Joaquin Phoenix’s "Napoleon" to f**k off.

Cox laid into Phoenix’s “truly terrible” performance in Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” at a HistFest panel on “history on stage and screen” at the British Library, and he didn't pull any punches.

“I would have played it a lot better than Joaquin Phoenix, I tell you that,” Cox said. “I think he’s well named. Joaquin … wackeen … wacky. It’s a sort of wacky performance.”

The film, which sits at a 57% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, was panned by many critics, and faces fresh scrutiny from the Emmy-winner. Cox expressed disappointment at the lack of historical accuracy in Ridley’s and others’ films. 

'“Braveheart" is a load of nonsense,” Cox said. “Mel Gibson was wonderful but it’s a load of lies. He never impregnated the French princess. It is a bollocks [sic] that film.”

Even critics weren’t safe from tirades by the Roy family’s patriarch: Cox lambasted them for comparing his theater and television performances.

“Most critics are stupid. They really are. Theater criticism has gone right down the tubes,” Cox said. “You think of those wonderful critics of the past, there’s nobody to match them now. Because they don’t do their homework.”

And in line with his well-documented tradition, the actor took aim at method acting.

“Oh no that’s all bollocks. It’s a kind of nonsense. We’re transmitters. That’s what we are as actors. We transmit energy,” Cox said. “You have to do your homework. That’s the delight of it, the information you get because you’re reading everything about Churchill and you’re building up a picture of who this person was.”

Cox also touched on American politics, criticizing increased restrictions on abortion access in many states and the potential re-election of Donald Trump.

“It’s very hard to govern America and you certainly don’t need idiots like Trump doing that,” Cox said, hinting that he may leave the country in the event of a Trump victory. “I do think that Biden is a good man, but he’s too old.”

Senate dismisses Republican-led Mayorkas impeachment

The Senate dismissed both impeachment charges against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday, curbing what Mayorkas spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg called ​​"baseless attacks."

House Republicans led the partisan impeachment effort, which passed 214-213 in February, charging Mayorkas with “willful and systemic refusal to comply” and “ breach of public trust.”

The House of Representatives passed the two articles just days after Senate Republicans killed a bipartisan border deal that would have given the Department of Homeland Security more resources to secure the border.

In a 3-hour proceeding, the 51-member Democratic majority voted to dismiss both charges on Wednesday, concluding that the charges did not reach the magnitude of “high crimes and misdemeanors” outlined by the constitution and avoiding a trial.

Republicans in the chamber objected to the lack of a trial in the matter, with Eric Schmitt (R-MO) describing the vote as “unprecedented.” The dismissal isn’t fully unprecedented, though, as the GOP caucus in the Senate attempted a similar move in 2021, when all but 5 voted to kill the impeachment proceedings against President Trump. 

“The majority leader’s position is asking members of this Senate to vote on political expediency to avoid listening to arguments,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said during debate.

Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) argued that a trial would set a dangerous precedent in future politically-motivated impeachment proceedings.

“For the sake of the Senate’s integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today’s charges,” Schumer said.

Trump campaign asks for a cut of donations from down-ballot candidates using his likeness

Donald Trump’s campaign is asking all candidates and committees for a cut of donations if they elect to use his name and likeness, according to a letter sent to Republican digital vendors on Monday.   

“Beginning tomorrow, we ask that all candidates and committees who choose to use President Trump’s name, image, and likeness split a minimum of 5% of all fundraising solicitations to Trump National Committee JFC. This includes but is not limited to sending to the house file, prospecting vendors, and advertising,” Trump's co-campaign managers detail in the letter, furthering that “any split that is higher than 5% will be seen favorably by the RNC and President Trump's campaign.” It also clarifies the actions that the campaign does not condone, such as "questioning the readers' support of President Trump” or “impersonating President Trump or his campaign.”

The campaign warns that “vendor[s] whose clients ignore the guidelines mentioned above will be held responsible for their clients' actions,” including, for repeated violators, “the suspension of business relationships between the vendor and Trump National Committee JFC.”

As Trump finds himself in deep fundraising troubles — with President Biden widening the gap in donations between the two to $75 million in the first quarter of 2024  added to the start of his New York criminal trial, which is expected to largely keep him off the campaign trail for the next several weeks and burn millions in legal fees, this move tracks.

In 2023, his campaign rolled-out a “Trump Seal of Approval,” which similarly sought to rein in the use of Trump’s name (and thwart scams) in Republican campaigning. The seal has been given to a grip of the former President’s most loyal allies, like Mike Johnson and Marjorie Taylor Greene’s re-election campaigns.

 

The Beijing half marathon controversy: What we know so far

Organizers of the Mengnui Beijing Half Marathon have launched a probe to examine a potential cheating scandal after three African runners seemingly slowed down, allowing a Chinese athlete to surge ahead of them and clinch the win.

A recorded live stream of the April 14 race shows that the four runners in question — Willy Mnangat and Robert Keter both of Kenya, Dejene Hailu of Ethiopia and He Jie of China — were largely together throughout the 13.1 miles. But as the group nears the finish line, Mnangat and Keter each appear to gesture to He to move forward, in a seemingly deliberate move that allows him to break the tape first. Video of the race's closing seconds quickly circulated online, leading to widespread skepticism and rumors of potential rigging. 

The results are still under review, but here's what we know so far about the controversy. 

Who is He Jie?

The 25-year-old athlete won the men's marathon at the Asian Games and is ranked 77th in the world, per World Athletics. Last month, He set a Chinese national record when he ran a 2:06:57 at the Wuxi Marathon, the New York Times reported. 

What the video shows

As the quartet approaches the final straightaway, the Kenyan and Ethiopian runners — clad in white and orange singlets — visibly appear to slow their pace, per footage obtained by the Wall Street Journal. Mnangat can be seen waving his hand alongside He, wearing a red racing tank, who then begins to push ahead of the pack. He cuts across the front of the group, from right to left, before Keter demonstrates a similar motion as if to encourage He to keep going. He strides across the finish line in first, followed by the trio of African runners who came in joint second place. He won in a time of 1:03.44, missing the national record by one minute and 11 seconds, as noted by The Guardian.

What the organizers of the race say

The Beijing International Running Festival, which planned the half marathon, shared a statement on Monday indicating that it had initiated the investigation in response to online speculation. The organizing committee attaches great importance to the issue raised by netizens about the results of the (race),” organizers said, per the Associated Press. “A special investigation team has been set up to conduct an investigation, and the results of the investigation will be released to the public in a timely fashion.”

Mnangat changes his story about why he let He win

Right after the race concluded, Mnangat also told the South China Morning Post that he let He win "because he is my friend."

“He comes to Kenya and I was [pacing for him] in the Wuxi Marathon [in March], so he is my friend, OK,” the Kenyan runner added.

However, when speaking to BBC Sport Africa, Mnangat claimed that in the half marathon, all three men had been hired to serve as He's pacemakers, despite entering the race as official competitors. "I don't know why they put my name on my bib/chest number instead of labeling it as a pacemaker," Mnangat told the outlet. “I was not there to compete. My job was to set the pace and help the guy win but unfortunately, he did not achieve the target, which was to break the national record.”

Commonly used in long-distance track events and road races, pacemakers (more colloquially known as "pacers") are experienced runners who run a designated pace per mile to help another runner hit a time goal.

Not the first Chinese distance runner cheating accusations

According to the NYT report, 258 participants in the 2018 Shenzhen Half Marathon were disqualified after it was determined that they had cheated by wearing fake bib numbers, taking shortcuts and hiring other runners to fill in for them, as reported by Chinese state-led media.

In 2019, female runners were caught riding bikes in the Chengdu Women’s Half Marathon and the Xuzhou International Marathon.

Late-night hosts mock “broken-brained” Trump for his confusing Battle of Gettysburg speech

Late night show comedians Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are not taking their foot off Donald Trump's neck for his public fumble discussing the Battle of Gettysburg.

During a rally outside of Allentown, Penn., on Sunday, the former president was stumbling over his words and rambling incoherently about the battle.

"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. I mean, it was so much and so interesting and so vicious and horrible and so beautiful in so many different ways," Trump said. "It represented such a big portion of the success this country. Gettysburg, wow."

On "The Daily Show," Stewart snarkily said, “That is plagiarized almost directly from my seventh grade book report: ‘Gettysburg. Wow,'” 

Trump also confusingly brought up Confederate General Robert E. Lee, “The statement of Robert E. Lee, who’s no longer in favor . . . ‘Never fight uphill, me boys.'"

Trump's use of "me boys" has sparked memes and jokes around Irish accents and pirates. Stewart even joked, “I’m pretty sure that Robert E. Lee was not a leprechaun."

Kimmel quipped, “You have to hand it to this guy: On the weekend before his unprecedented criminal trial begins, he somehow manages to overshadow it with this broken-brained interpretation of what happened at Gettysburg during the Civil War."

Colbert highlighted that Trump is a “stirring orator. I look forward to Ken Burns’ updated documentary.”  

“A fool”: Trump fumes over Jimmy Kimmel’s roasting of falling Truth Social stock

Donald Trump hit back at Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night talk host jested at the steadily declining stock of the ex-president's social media platform.

"Daddy is running out of money," Kimmel said on Tuesday's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a warning aimed at the former president's sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. The stock value of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company that oversees Truth Social, took an 18.3 percent tumble on Monday after the company filed to register the potential sale of millions of additional shares, per the NYT. “If you bought Trump stock two weeks ago ― and shame on you if you did ― you lost half your money,” Kimmel said. “But if you hold on just a little bit longer, you might be able to lose all of it.”

The ex-president took to Truth Social on Wednesday morning to fume. "Stupid Jimmy Kimmel, who still hasn’t recovered from his horrendous performance and big ratings drop as Host of The Academy Awards, especially when he showed he suffered from TDS, commonly known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, to the entire World by reading on air my TRUTH about how bad a job he was doing that night, right before he stumbled through announcing the biggest award of all, 'Picture of the Year,'" Trump wrote. 

"It was a CLASSIC CHOKE, one of the biggest ever in show business, and to top it off, he forgot to say the famous and mandatory line, 'AND THE WINNER IS,'" Trump wrote in his recent Truth. "Instead he stammered around as he opened the envelope. Supposedly his wife, and even management, begged him not to do it, 'DON’T READ HIS TRUTH, JIMMY, PLEASE DON’T DO THIS,' they said. He was made to look like a FOOL, which he is, and at the same time go down in Television History as the WORST HOST EVER OF THE ONCE VAUNTED ACADEMY AWARDS!"

 

 

 

 

 

“Somebody needs therapy”: House hearing on China devolves into feud on debunked Biden bribes

A House Oversight Committee meeting turned contentious on Wednesday, as Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) exchanged quips.

In an Oversight & Accountability hearing dubbed by the GOP, “Defending America from the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Warfare, Part I,” committee Chairman Comer attacked President Biden with discredited foreign bribery allegations in a heated exchange with Ranking Member Raskin.

During the hearing, Comer repeatedly questioned President Biden’s stream of revenue, parroting a discredited claim that China bribed the Biden family with $9 million.

“That’s a lie that’s been discredited. I mean where’s your impeachment investigation?” Raskin pressed. “If Joe Biden took a $9 million dollar bribe from China, then why aren’t you impeaching him for that?”

Comer turned the conversation away from the question and said that Democrats have an “obsession” with Russia and Trump.

“It’s disturbing, you need therapy. You all, you need therapy, Mr. Raskin,” Comer said.

In a fiery exchange, Comer asked Raskin how the Bidens made their “millions.”

“I’ll tell you what Joe Biden did. He was a senator of the United States. Then he wrote a book, and he said he made the most money ever made in his life, millions of dollars on his book,” Raskin said.

“That’s what his family did? That’s what Hunter, That’s why Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania, China, Russia, that’s why they paid the Biden family money. Because of Joe Biden,” Comer rebutted.

“Somebody needs therapy here,” Raskin quipped, “But it’s nobody on our side of the aisle.”

Watch here:

Expert: Judge may be “forced to take extreme measures” to protect jurors after Trump intimidation

Seven jurors were sworn in on the second day of former President Donald Trump's New York hush-money trial, slotting in more than a third of the number of jurors and alternates needed to hold a trial in the state. Their seating, which occurred faster than anticipated, also has some legal experts preemptively sounding the alarm about jurors' safety. 

The selected Manhattan residents were pulled from a group of 96 prospective jurors who began the process Monday afternoon. Four of the jurors chosen thus far are men and three are women. Among those seated are two lawyers, an Upper East Side oncology nurse, an IT consultant originally from Puerto Rico, a Chelsea-based software engineer, a Harlem woman who works in education and a man originally from Ireland who resides in West Harlem, Politico reports

The jury will determine whether Trump is guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to an adult film actress who claimed to have had a sexual encounter with the former president in 2006. Prosecutors have accused Trump of depriving voters of important information about his conduct with women by executing the cover-up in the final weeks of his 2016 presidential campaign. After a break on Wednesday, the trial will resume Thursday morning with a new slate of 96 jurors. 

Once jury selection is complete — which could conclude by the end of the week — the trial will commence with the parties' opening arguments and evidence presentation. At the court's current pace, that could happen as early as next Monday, according to Bennett Gershman, a Pace University law professor and former New York prosecutor.

"After Monday, it looked like the jury selection process might take weeks," he told Salon, adding that he was "very surprised" by the number of jurors seated Tuesday and the increased "likelihood" that the required 12 jurors and up to six alternates could be selected by the end of the week. 

Dozens of people were dismissed from the jury pool upon telling presiding Judge Juan Merchan that they could not be impartial, according to Politico. Further questions led the judge and the parties to dismiss others for a reason, while a smaller few were removed by the prosecution and defense teams, who, Gershman said, are each entitled to 10 opportunities — called "peremptory" challenges — to cut prospective jurors without providing a justification. 

"The grounds for striking a juror 'for cause' typically is the juror’s expressed inability to be fair, impartial, and to able to keep an open mind whatever their politics or personal views," Gershman explained. "Some jurors may have demonstrated in their past strong views about Trump and the case. That would not necessarily be a ground to excuse them if they insist they could still be fair and consider the evidence objectively."

Even then a juror who has held "strong beliefs" either in favor of or against the former president but maintains she or he can be fair, he added, can still be stricken by either side in a peremptory challenge. 

Attorneys for the former president made clear Tuesday that they'd explored the depths of the prospective jurors' social media pages in search of potential signs of bias in years-old posts. Several potential jurors were removed after the judge examined their previous online musings.

Merchan dismissed one man after Trump lawyer Todd Blanche pointed to a social media post where the man wrote, “Good news!! Trump lost his court battle on his unlawful travel ban!!!” followed by a suggestion to "lock him up."

We need your help to stay independent

In other instances, the judge rejected Blanche's attempts to give certain prospective jurors the boot, Politico notes, including one whose husband shared a post suggesting that "The Avengers" should take down Trump. 

When vetting prospective jurors for a trial, prosecutors and the defense have different qualities that they look for, former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance explained in a Wednesday post to her Substack newsletter, "Civil Discourse."

"The defendant is looking for holdout jurors," she writes, adding later that the "goal" for Trump’s defense team is to seat "a jury that can’t reach a verdict, a jury that 'hangs,'” which could lead to the declaration of a mistrial. 

Prosecutors, however, given their task in order to obtain a conviction is having to "convince every juror that their evidence is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" are aiming to remove prospective jurors who "they believe won't them a fair shake," Vance said. 

As the selection process has gotten underway, juror profiles have also flooded the airwaves and the internet as media opine over the morsels of information about the individuals who will decide the former president's fate in the case. How detailed some of the profiles have been — coupled with Trump's earlier scolding by the judge over his courtroom mutterings following a prospective juror's questioning — has also prompted some legal experts to highlight potential issues with juror safety.


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


Asked about what jurors could be thinking after being chosen, former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori voiced concerns for the jurors' wellbeing in an interview flagged by Mediaite

"First of all, I imagine it’s somewhat surreal, right? To be selected. I am wondering if some of them are a little unhappy with the amount of information that is being made public about them," Khardori told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Tuesday evening, emphasizing that the responsibility of guarding the information "resides with the DA's office and with the judge."

Khardori added that he does not think "this jury is gonna remain anonymous necessarily if they keep this up."

While only the judge, the prosecution and the defense team known the full identities of the jurors and whether the jurors need other protections now is "unclear," Gershman told Salon, the judge could later order "the trial to be held in such a way that the jurors could be shielded from being viewed by the public and the media" should it ever "reasonably appear that the jurors might be subject to threats and intimidation by Trump and his followers."

"Given that Trump has threatened and intimidated so many persons in the criminal justice system – judges, prosecutors, their families, witnesses – and was even berated yesterday by the judge for muttering angrily within earshot of a prospective juror – it is not inconceivable that the judge might be forced to take extreme measures to protect the integrity of the trial and the jury," he said. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson pushes ahead with Ukraine, Israel aid despite GOP revolt

House Speaker Mike Johnson will forge ahead with votes on foreign aid packages, despite threats within his Republican caucus that moving forward with support for Ukraine, in particular, could cost him his job.

CNN reported Wednesday that, after months of hesitation, the embattled speaker is defying his right flank and relative moderates in the party with a plan to hold votes on legislation providing a total of $95 billion in aid to Ukraine and Israel, as well as humanitarian support for Gaza and other conflict zones. This top-line figure matches the amount provided in the already-passed Senate version of the bills.

“After significant member feedback and discussion, the House Rules Committee will be posting soon today the text of three bills that will fund America’s national security interests and allies in Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and Ukraine, including a loan structure for aid, and enhanced strategy and accountability,” Johnson said in a statement.

The aid packages will be introduced separately, but the final product will be sent to the Senate as one package  something Democrats had demanded, but which threatens to further anger members of the GOP caucus.

A large number of Republicans have insisted on tying foreign aid legislation to some of their own unrelated priorities, such as funding for border security. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York, generally considered near the center of the party, in a post on X told Johnson to “go back to Biden & Schumer and tell them he needs a border security measure to pass foreign aid."

A faction of more far-right Republicans, led by Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene, are trying to rally a movement to remove Johnson from the speakership, calling his latest move an act of surrender to Democrats. But Johnson is likely hoping to enjoy some welcome political cover from Donald Trump after paying homage to the former president at Mar-a-Lago. "He's 100% with me," Johnson crowed after their meeting.

Johnson, who has said that he will not step down, may also count on some Democratic support to avoid the fate of Kevin McCarthy, his deposed predecessor. But whether or not he will get enough support to survive a motion to vacate the chair is no sure thing.

Fermented foods sustain both microbiomes and cultural heritage

Many people around the world make and eat fermented foods. Millions in Korea alone make kimchi. The cultural heritage of these picklers shape not only what they eat every time they crack open a jar but also something much, much smaller: their microbiomes.

On the microbial scale, we are what we eat in very real ways. Your body is teeming with trillions of microbes. These complex ecosystems exist on your skin, inside your mouth and in your gut. They are particularly influenced by your surrounding environment, especially the food you eat. Just like any other ecosystem, your gut microbiome requires diversity to be healthy.

People boil, fry, bake and season meals, transforming them through cultural ideas of "good food." When people ferment food, they affect the microbiome of their meals directly. Fermentation offers a chance to learn how taste and heritage shape microbiomes: not only of culturally significant foods such as German sauerkraut, kosher pickles, Korean kimchi or Bulgarian yogurt, but of our own guts.

           

Fermentation uses microbes to transform food.

         

Our work as anthropologists focuses on how culture transforms food. In fact, we first sketched out our plan to link cultural values and microbiology while writing our Ph.D. dissertations at our local deli in St. Louis, Missouri. Staring down at our pickles and lox, we wondered how the salty, crispy zing of these foods represented the marriage of culture and microbiology.

Equipped with the tools of microbial genetics and cultural anthropology, we were determined to find out.

 

Science and art of fermentation

Fermentation is the creation of an extreme microbiological environment through salt, acid and lack of oxygen deprivation. It is both an ancient food preservation technique and a way to create distinctive tastes, smells and textures.

Taste is highly variable and something you experience through the layers of your social experience. What may be nauseating in one context is a delicacy in another. Fermented foods are notoriously unsubtle: they bubble, they smell and they zing. Whether and how these pungent foods taste good can be a moment of group pride or a chance to heal social divides.

In each case, cultural notions of good food and heritage recipes combine to create a microbiome in a jar. From this perspective, sauerkraut is a particular ecosystem shaped by German food traditions, kosher dill pickles by Ashkenazi Jewish traditions, and pao cai by southwestern Chinese traditions.

 

Where culture and microbiology intersect

To begin to understand the effects of culinary traditions and individual creativity on microbiomes, we partnered with Sandor Katz, a fermentation practitioner based in Tennessee. Over the course of four days during one of Katz's workshops, we made, ate and shared fermented foods with nine fellow participants. Through conversations and interviews, we learned about the unique tastes and meanings we each brought to our love of fermented foods.

Those stories provided context to the 46 food samples we collected and froze to capture a snapshot of the life swimming through kimchi or miso. Participants also collected stool samples each day and mailed in a sample a week after the workshop, preserving a record of the gut microbial communities they created with each bite.

The fermented foods we all made were rich, complex and microbially diverse. Where many store-bought fermented foods are pasteurized to clear out all living microbes and then reinoculated with two to six specific bacterial species, our research showed that homemade ferments contain dozens of strains.

On the microbiome level, different kinds of fermented foods will have distinct profiles. Just as forests and deserts share ecological features, sauerkrauts and kimchis look more similar to each other than yogurt to cheese.

But just as different habitats have unique combinations of plants and animals, so too did every crock and jar have its own distinct microbial world because of minor differences in preparation or ingredients. The cultural values of taste, creativity and style that create a kimchi or a sauerkraut go on to support distinct microbiomes on those foods and inside the people who eat them.

Through variations in recipes and cultural preferences toward an extra pinch of salt or a disdain for dill, fermentation traditions result in distinctive microbial and taste profiles that your culture trains you to identify as good or bad to eat. That is, our sauerkraut is not your sauerkraut, even if they both might be good for us.

 

Fermented food as cultural medicine

Microbially rich fermented foods can influence the composition of your gut microbiome. Because your tastes and recipes are culturally informed, those preferences can have a meaningful effect on your gut microbiome. You can eat these foods in ways that introduce microbial diversity, including potentially probiotic microbes that offer benefits to human health such as killing off bacteria that make you ill, improving your cardiovascular health or restoring a healthy gut microbiome after you take antibiotics.

Fermentation is an ancient craft, and like all crafts it requires patience, creativity and practice. Cloudy brine is a signal of tasty pickled cucumbers, but it can be a problem for lox. When fermented foods smell rotten, taste too soft or turn red, that can be a sign of contamination by harmful bacteria or molds.

Fermenting foods at home might seem daunting when food is something that comes from the store with a regulatory guarantee. People hoping to take a more active role in creating their food or embracing their own culture's traditional foods need only time, water and salt to make simple fermented foods. As friends share sourdough starters, yogurt cultures and kombucha mothers, they forge social connections.

Through a unique combination of culture and microbiology, heritage food traditions can support microbial diversity in your gut. These cultural practices provide environments for the yeasts, bacteria and local fruits and grains that in turn sustain heritage foods and flavors.

 

Andrew Flachs, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Purdue University and Joseph Orkin, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Université de Montréal

 

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

“Deliberately ignorant” Trump misleads followers on jury rules in latest Truth Social rage post

Donald Trump, once more enraged and online, has implausibly claimed that his legal team was blindsided by court staff saying that they could only strike up to 10 jurors from the docket and no more.

"I thought STRIKES were supposed to be 'unlimited' when we were picking our jury?" he wrote Wednesday on Truth Social. "I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country. Don’t worry, we have the First Worst also, as the Witch Hunt continues! ELECTION INTERFERENCE!"

What the post misses is that the number "10" is baked into New York state criminal law, information that Trump's legal team should have known about even if the court staff didn't remind them before the trial. Prosecutors can also strike any 10 jurors from the pool, although each side is prohibited from striking them based solely on factors such as race. Jurors can also be struck for cause, such as openly expressing bias during the selection process, which does not count against either side's allotment.

Law professor and for U.S. attorney Joyce Vance wrote on X that the rule is common knowledge in legal circles. "The number of peremptory strikes are set by NY law," she noted. "For cause challenges are unlimited, but the judge rules on them. Again, Trump is either deliberately ignorant or lying."

Trump has displayed a bitter and defiant attitude throughout first couple days of the trial: that is now landing him in some trouble. On Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchan had to admonish Trump for gesturing and speaking in the direction of a potential juror.

The jury that takes shape will decide whether or not Trump is guilty of 34 felony counts, all related to accusations that he falsified business records to hide hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, who claims they had an extramarital affair.

Removing PFAS from water will cost billions and take time. Here are ways to filter water at home

Chemists invented PFAS in the 1930s to make life easier: Nonstick pans, waterproof clothing, grease-resistant food packaging and stain-resistant carpet were all made possible by PFAS. But in recent years, the growing number of health risks found to be connected to these chemicals has become increasingly alarming.

PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are now either suspected or known to contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage and cancer, among other health issues.

They can be found in the blood of most Americans and in many drinking water systems, which is why the Environmental Protection Agency in April 2024 finalized the first enforceable federal limits for six types of PFAS in drinking water systems. The limits – between 4 and 10 parts per trillion for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA and GenX – are less than a drop of water in a thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools, which speaks to the chemicals' toxicity. The sixth type, PFBS, is regulated as a mixture using what's known as a hazard index.

Meeting these new limits won't be easy or cheap. And there's another problem: While PFAS can be filtered out of water, these "forever chemicals" are hard to destroy.

My team at the University of Notre Dame works on solving problems involving contaminants in water systems, including PFAS. We explore new technologies to remove PFAS from drinking water and to handle the PFAS waste. Here's a glimpse of the magnitude of the challenge and ways you can reduce PFAS in your own drinking water:

 

Removing PFAS will cost billions per year

Every five years, the EPA is required to choose 30 unregulated contaminants to monitor in public drinking water systems. Right now, 29 of those 30 contaminants are PFAS. The tests provide a sense of just how widespread PFAS are in water systems and where.

The EPA has taken over 22,500 samples from about 3,800 of the 154,000 public drinking water systems in the U.S. In 22% of those water systems, its testing found at least one of the six newly regulated PFAS, and about 16% of the systems exceeded the new standards. East Coast states had the largest percentage of systems with PFAS levels exceeding the new standards in EPA tests conducted so far.

 

Under the new EPA rules, public water systems have until 2027 to complete monitoring for PFAS and provide publicly available data. If they find PFAS at concentrations that exceed the new limits, then they must install a treatment system by 2029.

How much that will cost public water systems, and ultimately their customers, is still a big unknown, but it won't be cheap.

The EPA estimated the cost to the nation's public drinking water systems to comply with the news rules at about US$1.5 billion per year. But other estimates suggest the total costs of testing and cleaning up PFAS contamination will be much higher. The American Water Works Association put the cost at over $3.8 billion per year for PFOS and PFOA alone.

There are more than 5,000 chemicals that are considered PFAS, yet only a few have been studied for their toxicity, and even fewer tested for in drinking water. The United States Geological Survey estimates that nearly half of all tap water is contaminated with PFAS.

Some money for testing and cleanup will come from the federal government. Other funds will come from 3M and DuPont, the leading makers of PFAS. 3M agreed in a settlement to pay between $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion to help reimburse public water systems for some of their PFAS testing and treatment. But public water systems will still bear additional costs, and those costs will be passed on to residents.

 

Next problem: Disposing of 'forever chemicals'

Another big question is how to dispose of the captured PFAS once they have been filtered out.

Landfills are being considered, but that just pushes the problem to the next generation. PFAS are known as "forever chemicals" for a reason – they are incredibly resilient and don't break down naturally, so they are hard to destroy.

Studies have shown that PFAS can be broken down with energy-intensive technologies. But this comes with steep costs. Incinerators must reach over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius) to destroy PFAS, and the possibility of creating potentially harmful byproducts is not yet well understood. Other suggested techniques, such as supercritical water oxidation or plasma reactors, have the same drawbacks.

So who is responsible for managing PFAS waste? Ultimately the responsibility will likely fall on public drinking water systems, but the EPA has no waste regulations for PFAS.

 

Steps to protect your home from PFAS

Your first instinct might be to use bottled water to try to avoid PFAS exposures, but a recent study found that even bottled water can contain these chemicals. And bottled water is regulated by a different federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration, which has no standards for PFAS.

Your best option is to rely on the same technologies that treatment facilities will be using:

  • Activated carbon is similar to charcoal. Like a sponge, it will capture the PFAS, removing it from the water. This is the same technology in refrigerator filters and in some water pitcher filters, like Brita or PUR. Note that many refrigerator manufacture's filters are not certified for PFAS, so don't assume they will remove PFAS to safe levels.

  • Ion exchange resin is the same technology found in many home water softeners. Like activated carbon, it captures PFAS from the water, and you can find this technology in many pitcher filter products. If you opt for a whole house treatment system, which a plumber can attach where the water enters the house, ion exchange resin is probably the best choice. But it is expensive.

  • Reverse osmosis is a membrane technology that only allows water and select compounds to pass through the membrane, while PFAS are blocked. This is commonly installed at the kitchen sink and has been found to be very effective at removing most PFAS in water. It is not practical for whole house treatment, but it is likely to remove a lot of other contaminants as well.

If you have a private well instead of a public drinking water system, that doesn't mean you're safe from PFAS exposure. Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources estimates that 71% of shallow private wells in that state have some level of PFAS contamination. Using a certified laboratory to test well water for PFAS can run $300-$600 per sample, a cost barrier that will leave many private well owners in the dark.

For all the treatment options, make sure the device you choose is certified for PFAS by a reputable testing agency, and follow the recommended schedule for maintenance and filter replacement. Unfortunately, there is currently no safe way to dispose of the filters, so they go in the trash. No treatment option is perfect, and none is likely to remove all PFAS down to safe levels, but some treatment is better than none.

Kyle Doudrick, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame

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

Like Arizona, more states may resurrect abortion and LGBTQ laws that were dormant for over 100 years

When the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to get an abortion in June 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the court “should reconsider” other rights it currently recognizes – like the rights for same-sex couples to have sex and marry.

If the Supreme Court overturns legal precedents on these and other issues, old state laws that haven’t been enforced, possibly for centuries, can suddenly spring back to life.

This is what happened after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on April 9, 2024, that an 1864 abortion ban should be enforced. The ban is an example of zombie laws – old state laws that are neither enforced nor repealed.

I am a scholar of constitutional rights, particularly rights won in court like student speech, the right to direct one’s own medical care, abortion and parental rights.

There are many old and unenforceable state laws that are left on the books because of inertia. It might seem unnecessary for a state legislature to repeal a law that is not enforced or has been superseded by a more recent law.

But the recent Arizona abortion ban shows the consequences of assuming that old laws will always remain dormant.

A woman wearing green scrubs is shown sitting from the neck down, next to another person whose legs and hands are visible in a medical office.

An abortion provider, left, counsels a patient at a health clinic in Phoenix on April 11, 2024. The Washington Post/Getty Images

Arizona’s abortion laws

Under Arizona’s 1864 abortion law, anyone who helps perform an abortion could be sent to jail for up to five years, unless the abortion was necessary to save the life of the pregnant person.

The law was originally passed by a territorial legislature, then was rubber-stamped into official state law 1913 by the new state Legislature after Arizona became a U.S. state in 1912. Planned Parenthood challenged this law as unconstitutional in the early 1970s. But that case was still making its way through Arizona courts when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, affirming the federal right to get an abortion.

In March 1973, an Arizona appeals court issued a short decision that said the Roe decision meant that the Arizona ban was also unconstitutional and could not be enforced.

The Arizona Legislature never formally repealed the law.

In addition, the state went on to enact a number of other restrictions on abortion over the years, including a law that banned abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy. That law went into effect in March 2022, three months before the Supreme Court overturned the Roe decision with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. The 2022 law was virtually identical to the Mississippi statute being challenged in Dobbs, so its constitutionality was questionable when it was passed, but the Dobbs decision changed that.

This meant Arizona had two laws restricting abortion in different ways at the same time, the 1864 law and the 2022 law. The question for Arizona courts then became which law should go into effect. Four of the state supreme court’s seven justices determined on April 9 that the 1864 abortion ban took precedence over the 2022 law that banned abortion only after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Arizona is not the only state that has conflicting old and new laws about the same issue.

Uncommon, but not unique

Wisconsin, for example, has a very similar dispute playing out in its courts.

Wisconsin has a law from 1849 that bans abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. This law only banned abortion after what used to be called quickening, meaning when a pregnant person feels fetal movement. This usually happens somewhere between the 16th to 24th week of pregnancy.

In 1858, the law was amended to ban all abortions – and imposed a harsher punishment if the abortion occurred after quickening. That law had some minor tweaks in the 1950s and stayed in effect until Roe v. Wade.

In 2015, however, Wisconsin passed a law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This later law did not replace, repeal or even acknowledge the 1849 law.

Instead, the 2015 law seemed to assume the 1849 law would remain unenforceable and did not challenge Roe v. Wade.

After the Dobbs decision came out, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin district attorneys arguing that the 20-week ban should replace the 1849 law.

In December 2023, a Wisconsin judge agreed with the attorney general. The case has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, but the court has not yet said if it will hear the appeal.

Other kinds of zombie laws

Other outdated laws stay on the books long after they are actually enforced.

The U.S. Supreme Court can determine that a particular state law is unconstitutional, but it doesn’t actually repeal or erase the law in question. The court also cannot remove identical laws passed in other states.

Although the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2015 gave same-sex couples the constitutional right to get married, for example, 32 states still have old laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. These laws would come back to life if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell.

It has also been unconstitutional for states to criminalize same-sex sexual activity since the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Still, 12 states have laws that prohibit same-sex sexual relations. Those states could start prosecuting people for this activity if the Supreme Court reversed Lawrence.

This might seem unlikely, but sheriff’s deputies in Louisiana arrested men for “violating” the state’s unenforceable ban in 2015.

Alabama is another state that has been particularly slow to delete zombie laws. In 2000, it became the last state in the country to remove a statute banning interracial marriage, 33 years after the Supreme Court held in the Loving v. Virginia case that such laws were unconstitutional.

The Alabama state constitution also had provisions from 1901 prohibiting interracial marriage and requiring racial segregation in schools until the language was finally removed in 2022.

These zombie laws are repealed the same way that any other law is passed. The state legislature can pass a law deleting or replacing an older law with new language. Depending on the state, a popular referendum can also change state law and state constitutions.

A man holds a sign that says 'righteous laws abolish abortion' and in front of a sign that says 'love life, choose life' on a quiet street.

An anti-abortion rights protester holds a sign outside a family planning clinic in Phoenix on April 11, 2024. The Washington Post/Getty Images

Lessons from Arizona

As a result of the Arizona court’s ruling, both law and politics in the state have been thrown into disarray.

Due to an earlier order about how and when the 1864 law could go into effect, the law cannot be enforced for at least 45 days, and that delay may lengthen if different groups keep fighting about the case in court.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has said that her office will not enforce the ban, and an executive order bars local prosecutors from charging people for violating it.

Both Republican and Democratic politicians in Arizona have said that they want to pass a new law restricting abortion in less severe ways than the 1864 law, but attempts to do so have resulted in angry disagreements on the floor of the Legislature.

The confusion and controversy in Arizona shows the broader problems of zombie laws. Most people in Arizona were surprised that the law exists. Many people on either side of the political spectrum do not like it, but the zombie has come alive in the aftermath of the state Supreme Court’s ruling. And each blockbuster Supreme Court decision runs the risk of setting more free in other states.

 

Dara E. Purvis, Professor of Law, Penn State

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

Trump’s confession? Legal experts say his post-court rant could be a “big issue” going forward

As the second day of Donald Trump's criminal trial wrapped up Tuesday, the former president told reporters outside the courthouse that he was innocent of charges that he falsified business records to cover-up his payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. In doing so, Trump may have accidentally confessed to his guilt by pinning the crime directly to himself.

"I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense. Some accountant, I didn’t know, marked it down as a legal expense. That’s exactly what it was, and you get indicted over that?" Trump said. "I should be in Pennsylvania and Florida, in many other states. North Carolina, Georgia, campaigning."

Law professor Jessica Roth told CNN's Anderson Cooper that if the comments were placed before the jury, Trump may come to regret his unintentional candor. "When he started to say, 'I marked it down as legal expenses,' my ears perked up because it’s been a little bit unclear exactly how the state is going to prove that Trump falsified the records because many of these entries may have been made by the accountants for the Trump Organization," she said.

Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin concurred, saying that the comments are "gonna be a big issue in the case."

“How is the government gonna prove that Trump knew and initiated or at least supported the idea that these payoffs were recorded as legal fees?" he continued, "He said, ‘Mark them down.’ Now, as Jessica said, he sort of caught himself. But, you know, that that video could be played before the jury, no question.”

Trump faces 34 felony counts leveled by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who accuses the Republican candidate of trying to unlawfully influence the 2016 election with his clandestine payments to Daniels, who claims she had an affair with the former president. Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen, was convicted for his role in the scheme and served a year in prison.

Ex-official assures right-wingers: Trump just “cloaking” his actual “extreme” plans to get votes

Donald Trump is pretending to moderate his views, recently speaking out against a national abortion ban that polls show would be widely unpopular and cost Republicans more elections. But as HuffPost's Christopher Mathias reported, a former Trump staffer says the MAGA faithful can rest easy knowing — just by who he's surrounding himself with — that the former president would "actually govern in a more conservative and more aggressive fashion" if he returns to the White House.

William Wolfe served in both the Defense Department and State Department under Trump. On X, he continues to offer support for the president amid complaints about "anti-white racism" and other right-wing grievances.

On a recent conference call with other X users, as reported by HuffPost, Wolfe sought to reassure other conservatives who might think Trump is going soft.

“I actually think there’s wisdom in cloaking some of your power levels and maybe some of the things that you’re trying to do, and then once you secure power, and you have it, you govern in a more extreme position,” Wolfe said. “I think Trump is one of the first Republican candidates I’ve ever seen in my lifetime who has done that.”

Wolfe argued that the extreme policies of any future Trump administration can be sussed out by Trump's staffing. The former president has already installed loyalists at the Republican National Committee, ensuring that all staffers publicly proclaim their belief in the "rigged" election myth. He has pledged to bring back Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser who now leads a Christian Nationalist speaking tour that promotes deranged conspiracy theories on issues ranging from Ukraine to vaccines.

The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, meanwhile, is widely seen as a playbook for a second Trump term, calling for a purge of the federal bureaucracy as well as bans on gay marriage and pornography, for starters.

“I am confident with the people that I see lining up to be with Trump in a second term that regardless of what the rhetoric looks like during this campaign season, that he would actually govern in a more conservative and more aggressive fashion in the White House,” Wolfe said. “That’s something that I think we need to be comfortable with and maybe we should use ― maybe even some other conservative Republicans out there who want to run for office and gain power and use it to do radical scary conservative things should consider doing.”

“She knows her own destiny”: Anna Sawai is her own savior in “Shōgun”

At some point last year, Anna Sawai struggled through an existential crisis. Proving that such paroxysms can descend on anyone at any time and anywhere, the 31-year-old recalls being in Hawaii when it hit her.  

Regardless of how well her career was going, she says she couldn’t help wondering: “Why? What am I doing? I was away from my family and all alone in Hawaii, and I was like, if I'm not spending time with the people that I love, no matter how beautiful this view is or the good the food is like, it's nothing.”

Such a malaise is natural for anyone, but Sawai may have been still letting go of Mariko, her doomed noblewoman and the heart and soul of FX’s “Shōgun.”

“It was hard to separate from her at times,” Sawai recalled during a chat that took place in Pasadena before the series premiered. “Even on weekends, I would feel the weight of her . . . It was not always easy. “

In the 1980 adaptation of James Clavell’s novel Mariko’s main attributes are her tragic circumstances and exoticized beauty, both of which draw the author’s white protagonist John Blackthorne to her. The FX version’s creators and showrunners Rachel Kondo and Justin Marks transform that portrait, making Cosmo Jarvis’ Blackthorne far more dependent on Mariko than the other way around.

Sawai demonstrates how a performance made of subtle emotional expression, minimal physical movement, and quietude steadily ramps up to the tour de force ninth episode, “Crimson Sky.”

Sawai is accustomed to switching things up in a career that includes a stint in the Japanese pop group FAKY, a supporting part in “Pachinko” and the lead in the “Godzilla” universe series “Monarch: Legacy of Monsters.”

“We didn't want to tell the story where a white guy comes and saves Mariko."

Playing Mariko challenged her to set aside her physical versatility to play a character whose expression is primarily internalized, whose movements are restrained and whose expression is stoic, even when her abusive husband fires an arrow that passes so close to her face that it brushes her hair.

Kondo and Marks expand Mariko to make it plain to the audience that most of her restrictions are self-imposed. Mariko is a character who constantly expresses her yearning for death with most of those surrounding her assuming that wish comes from a desire to be freed of her family’s shame.

Sawai’s Mariko is also informed by a life spent in an unhappy marriage, separated from her best friend and thwarted from attaining her greatest potential. She’s highly intelligent, skilled in combat, the equal of any man.

Being born a woman — the daughter of a named traitor no less — freezes her in place.

We need your help to stay independent

“Crimson Sky” enables her to finally exercise her strategic prowess, as Mariko travels to Osaka in a scheme concocted by her liege Hiroyuki Sanada’s Lord Toranaga. She would expose his rival Ishido (Takehiro Hira) for dishonorably taking members of high-ranking families hostage by appearing before him and Ochiba no Kata (Fumi Nikaido), her childhood best friend and mother to the late ruler’s son and heir.

ShogunFumi Mikado as Ochiba no Kata and Anna Sawai as Toda Mariko in "Shogun" (Katie Yu/FX)In their court, and through Sawai, we see her flex an electric might in her stillness, standing in front of a corrupt lord and refusing to accept his disrespect.

 “I am no peasant to be trodden on,” Mariko declares without any shame or guilt in her voice. “My line has been samurai for 1,000 years, and I will never be captive, or hostage, or confined. I am free to go as I please, as is anyone.”

This is her first move in a battle of bluffs. First she announces to the court that she’s been ordered to escort Toranaga’s wife and consort home from Osaka. Mariko attempts to leave but watches as her samurai retinue is slaughtered; she swings a naginata, a weapon similar to a polearm, attempting to fight through herself only to be pushed back.

 “I am no peasant to be trodden on."

Then she swears that she’ll commit seppuku for failing to comply with her lord’s orders, only to have Ishido relent at the last moment, realizing Mariko’s ritual suicide will create a rebellion among the upper class. Ishido relents to save face, but Mariko’s victory is short-lived. He arranges for shinobi assassins to kill her quietly, only for her to sacrifice her life in an explosion to save everyone around her.

Her fate is similar to Clavell’s original rendering of Mariko, but the new “Shōgun” pulls more influence from the historical figure upon whom Mariko is based: the female samurai Hosokawa Gracia who, like Mariko, was a Catholic convert.

The NBC miniseries painted her as an adulteress. No joke — a commercial describes her as such, which isn’t that far off from how the book portrays other female characters.

When Sawai read Clavell’s 1975 novel, she also found the women to be very sexualized, making her appreciate the 2024 series’ reframing.


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


“We didn't want to tell the story where a white guy comes and saves Mariko. She doesn't need anyone to save her. She's not looking for that,” Sawai adamantly insisted. “She knows her own destiny. And I think that Justin knew that we had to portray her in that way.”

ShogunAnna Sawai as Toda Mariko in "Shogun" (Katie Yu/FX)But Sawai also wants to push back against any reflexive interpretation that the series is implying that powerful women must die in this story, pointing to Ochiba and others as proof that’s not the case.

A meaningful life, Sawai said, does not have to be defined by death but, as Mariko showed, by having a purpose. Realizing that may have sparked a new fear: “I’m scared that I'm not going to find someone as impactful to play as Mariko,” Sawai admitted, “because I gave her my all and I hope that people see the depth in her.”

Based on the widespread acclaim she’s received, that’s not a problem. According to her, though, the reviews of her performance, while appreciated, hold less meaning for her than her hopes for what Mariko and other memorable “Shōgun" characters inspire. 

“I want people to reflect on their own life. Really think about it. Because otherwise, you know, you don't,” she said. Then she laughed before adding, “I mean, maybe people do. But I think it's a good thing to reflect on.”

New episodes of "S​hōgun" stream Tuesdays on Hulu and premiere at 10 p.m. Tuesdays on FX.