Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Jon Stewart mocks sleepy Trump: “Imagine committing so many crimes, you get bored at your own trial”

Comedy Central host Jon Stewart on Monday mocked former President Donald Trump for reportedly falling asleep during his criminal trial in New York over hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

During Monday evening's episode of "The Daily Show," the host flamed Trump after The New York Times' Maggie Haberman reported that he appeared to doze off while sitting in the courtroom.

"Forty minutes ago, you wrote an observation that, I was very surprised. 'Trump appears to be sleeping. His head keeps dropping down and his mouth goes slack.' Tell us about that," CNN host Jake Tapper told Haberman in a clip played by Stewart.

“Well, Jake, he appeared to be asleep,” she replied.

“Hey, Jake, what part of head down, eyes closed, drool coming out of his mouth, do you not f*****g get over here?” Stewart joked in an Italian accent. “He’s snoring. He’s doing the honk shoo. He’s doing the ‘mi-mi-mi-mi-mi.' He's asleep.”

Stewart did not let up on his criticisms of Trump, alluding to Trump's other impending criminal indictments in three other jurisdictions.

“Imagine committing so many crimes, you get bored at your own trial. In case you've lost track, this is the trial where Trump allegedly paid hush money to an adult film star that he slept with and then allegedly falsified business records to cover it up. Or as Trump would put it. . .” Stewart said as he aired a clip of Trump telling reporters after court adjourned on Monday that "this is political persecution."

"This is a persecution like never before. Nobody's ever seen anything like it . . ." Trump said in the clip. "It's an assault on America and that's why I'm very proud to be here."

“Well, it’s true,” Stewart said. “Trump is always very proud to be part of any assault on America.”

We need your help to stay independent

But then Stewart explained that even if the prosecution is stretching the validity of these illicit alleged crimes, it isn't persecution because it's not like Trump is Nelson Mandela or Jesus.

Ironically, the show then juxtaposed Stewart's statement with Trump calling himself Mandela at a rally and referring to himself as Jesus in his Truth Social posts. However, Stewart called upon his "Daily Show" correspondents live at the courthouse to address the trial. Obviously, standing in front of a green screen, Desi Lydic, Ronnie Chieng and Josh Johnson all fought for what hypothetical team Trump was on. Johnson clinched a win in the argument when he said Trump was "Team O.J."

Comparing Trump to the late O.J. Simpson, football legend and the man acquitted for first-degree murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, "Most importantly, their obvious guilt didn't deter their loyal fans, who their think they're innocent or don't care they're guilty," Johnson said.

"Personally, I'm excited for the moment in the trial where Trump will drop his pants and say 'if the glove don't fit you must acquit," Johnson finished out the segment. 

"The Daily Show" airs Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. on Comedy Central and streams on Paramount+

Trump falsely claims Judge Merchan won’t let him attend his son Barron’s graduation

Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Monday that “Conflicted and Corrupt New York State Judge” Juan Merchan intends to prevent him from attending his son Barron's high school graduation ceremony.

Merchan, who is presiding over Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan, actually suggested that the Republican candidate could attend his son's May 17 graduation, provided that the case is on track.

“It really depends on how we’re doing on time and where we are in the trial," Merchan said Monday, as the Associated Press reported.

But Trump did not let the facts get in the way of a rant on TruthSocial, where on Monday evening he bemoaned his “unfair” treatment. In a 172-word complaint, Trump resorted to name-calling and lamented the “fake” and “bogus ‘Biden Case." The former president anchored his outrage by appealing to his followers’ pathos, asking how they would explain the predicament to his 18-year-old son, who is “a GREAT Student at a fantastic school.”

Trump's misleading claims were echoed by his other son, Donald Trump Jr., who likewise stoked right-wing outrage. "Pure evil," the younger Trump posted on X. Eric Trump also chimed in, calling Merchan “truly heartless in not letting a father attend his son’s graduation.”

Like any other criminal defendant, Trump could face arrest should he miss or disrupt the court proceedings, as Merchan reminded him on Monday. The former president is accused of falsifying business records to cover up a hush payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Daniels alleges that she had an affair with Trump in 2006, a few months after Barron was born to his wife, Melania.

“Borrowed time”: As we shatter temperature records, experts worry we’re in “uncharted territory”

Our rapidly heating planet is regularly shattering records these days. December through February was so warm — in fact, the hottest winter on record in the U.S. — it's been described by some climate experts as a "lost winter." Last year also set new records for global surface temperature, hottest summer and ocean heat content. Perhaps most ominously, the world averaged temperatures 1.4º C higher than pre-industrial levels during those 12 months.

"The situation (the temperature trend) is bad enough as it is — there is no reason to sensationalize."

Now the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service revealed that March 2024 was 1.68º C warmer than pre-industrial times, prompting one NASA scientist (Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt) to warn the BBC that humanity is now in "uncharted territory." This is the tenth month in a row to be the warmest on record for its respective month of the year.

Schmidt, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Salon that "the long term changes in climate are already having effects on the probabilities of some extreme events (heat waves, intense rainfall, soil moisture drought, etc.)" Schmidt's observation was echoed by the Copernicus deputy director Samantha Burgess, who said in a statement that although the Paris climate accord threshold has not been breached (because the figure has not sustained at that level for a full year), "the reality is that we’re extraordinarily close, and already on borrowed time."

Nevertheless scientists warn that this should not be misconstrued as meaning every future month will be hotter than the one that came before it. The latest series of months have been the hottest ever recorded, yet in itself that does not guarantee that the upcoming months after the summer will also break records or that extreme weather events will worsen. Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climatologist from the University of Pennsylvania, unpacked this for Salon.

"If the current model predictions are correct, and we transition toward La Niña over the next few months, we’ll actually see a return toward the trend line" in terms of global temperatures, Mann said. Within the ENSO (El Niño and the Southern Oscillation) pattern in the tropical Pacific, El Niño is the warm phase and La Niña is the cool phase, meaning La Niña can mitigate some of the deleterious effects of climate change. Even so, when La Niña subsides, the overall trend line of rising global temperatures will continue unless humans reduce their carbon emissions.

The bottom line according to Dr. Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), is that "we need to be careful about reading too much into one or two years" given the ENSO cycle's impact on recent temperatures and its likely lowering of future temperatures. "The situation (the temperature trend) is bad enough as it is — there is no reason to sensationalize."


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


"In the USA, watch out for a vigorous hurricane season in the Atlantic, affecting the eastern seaboard."

"It’s the trend line we should be talking about and worried about," Mann also said. "It will breach 1.5º C in a decade in the absence of concerted efforts to lower carbon emissions."

Schmidt framed understanding the trend line in the broader context of the questions being discussed in the scientific community. He identified two main points: First, scientists want to see if long-term climate change projections remain on track; and second, scientists want to comprehend the anomalous heat of the recent few months.

"The answer to the first is yes – in general, and the answer to the second is still ambiguous," Schmidt said. "There is good evidence that the last 12 months have been particularly anomalous, for reasons that will include El Niño, and aerosols, and internal variability etc. but the exact breakdown is still unclear, but depending on what we find, it might have implications for the first question."

Regardless of why exactly temperatures are rising — how much of it is the ENSO cycle and how much of it is climate change — scientists agree that climate change is, at the very least, a significant contributing factor. As such, humanity is in a sense already past an important threshold in terms of what we should expect from our planet as a result of our carbon emissions.

Dr. Twila Moon, the deputy lead scientist and science communication liaison at the NSIDC, says that humanity is "already in uncharted territory" when it comes to climate change because "extreme and record-setting weather events are happening more often, impacting local communities [and] international economics." Moon expects there will be increasingly dire effects from climate change such as rising sea levels (which cause coastal erosion and create problems with sewage and drinking water system) and prolonged wildfire seasons (including worsened wildfire smoke and longer heat waves).

We need your help to stay independent

In addition to humanity being in "uncharted territory" with its global temperature records, our species is achieving other dubious distinctions. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that "other announcements have noted the record high increases in greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, so that the cause of global warming (us) has not abated at all in spite of many valuable efforts." He added that China and India remain two of the major culprits, explaining why "climate change will continue, largely unabated for now."

Trenberth added, "In the USA, watch out for a vigorous hurricane season in the Atlantic, affecting the eastern seaboard."

Moon had specific advice for populations everywhere, since all of us will have to cope with climate change.

"It is critical that we act now both to make changes to our buildings, community connections and economic systems to be more capable of dealing with extreme events (e.g., insulating buildings help to keep people comfortable in heat and cold, while also save energy/money) and we act to decrease creation of heat-trapping gasses from burning oil, coal, gas and other activities," Moon said.

“No more games”: Legal experts says judge already put “out of control” Trump’s lawyers on notice

Donald Trump has two modes: attack, and pout when the attack doesn't land. But as a criminal defendant for the first time in his life, he is having to acclimate himself to an environment where he can’t make or break the rules – and where punishment for the kind of brash defiance that plays well on Truth Social could land him behind bars.

The adjustment process will no doubt be difficult. On Monday, Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the first ever prosecution of a former president, made it abundantly clear to Trump and his legal team that it will be he and the New York criminal justice system calling the shots from here on out.

Particularly striking was an exchange Monday afternoon between Merchan and Trump lawyer Todd Blanche. Prosecutors had drawn attention to Trump’s social media posts attacking his former personal attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels, the woman whose silence he is accused of illicitly buying off with a $130,000 payment ahead of the 2016 election. Trump, his attorney argued, had fired off the posts in question because they had disparaged him first.

Merchan, who earlier prohibited such attacks on witnesses, instructed Blanche to come back with a written argument as to why Trump shouldn’t be held in contempt (prosecutors want the posts deleted and the former president fined).

“When you respond, direct me to any portion of the original gag order or the subsequent gag order that says there is an exception to the gag order if Mr. Trump feels he is being attacked,” Merchan said, as reported by Business Insider. “I don’t recall inserting that anywhere in either gag order.”

Merchan also several times ruled in Trump’s favor, such as barring prosecutors, at least for now, from submitting as evidence as the “Access Hollywood” tape in which the presumptive Republican presidential nominee boasted of sexually assaulting women.

“I think he is no nonsense,” Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor, said of Merchan in a Monday night appearance on MSNBC. He pointed, in particular, to the judge’s ruling that the defense team must submit, in just 24 hours, the full list of exhibits they intend to present at trial, rejecting pleas for more time by noting that Trump’s lawyers had repeatedly found a way to multitask and rapidly filed numerous, lengthy motions before.

We need your help to stay independent

“What the judge did is [say]… ‘no more games, if you do not produce every piece of evidence you intend to use, it’s precluded,’” Weissmann noted. “I thought that was a very strong, definitive ruling by the judge. So I think he is going to run a very tight ship. He strikes me as somebody as in the mold of Judge Kaplan, the judge who had the two E. Jean Carroll cases, so I think we’re going to see a very efficient trial being conducted here.”

The E. Jean Carroll cases did not turn out well for the former president, who was twice found to have defamed a woman he had raped. Efficiency is decidedly not the preference of the criminal defendant, whose go-to legal strategy has been to delay and delay again his day in court.

That strategy has worked so far in Florida, where Trump’s classified documents case is being overseen by a federal judge that he himself appointed. In New York, by contrast, the judge appears committed to a speedy trial – a fact that’s already causing apparent distress.

On Monday, reporters in the Manhattan courtroom witnessed Trump confronting Blanche, his lead attorney, and demanding he push back harder on Merchan’s 24-hour deadline for that list of exhibits.

Catherine A. Christian, a trial lawyer who previously worked for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, told MSNBC that the exhibits issue is unlikely to be a major factor in the case. But the apparent quarrel between Trump and his lawyers points to another important question: Can the guy behave himself? And that – throwing tantrums in a courtroom where juror will be present – could have a much greater impact on the verdict, with legal experts noting that Trump’s habit of acting out when he doesn't get his way will not play well with those charged with judging his guilt (a fact his own own lawyers have no doubt tried to impart).

“It’s going to be a long trial for Mr. Blanche because [Trump] is out of control,” Christian said. “He is one of those clients that you hope to not have because, if he’s acting this way now, he’s going to do it throughout the trial.”

The history of the real “Mary & George” queer love story

Throughout history queer relationships have existed in many forms but "Mary & George" highlights a royal queer relationship between between George Villiers (Nicholas Galitzine) and King James I (Tony Curran).

Based on the book, "The King's Assassin: The Secret Plot to Murder James I," the Starz period drama is about the Villiers — mother and son Mary (Julianne Moore) and George, plotting to snake their way into the good graces of King James. The duo gained social and political power as a result of Mary molding George into a tool to appeal to James and his sexual and romantic desires. 

Mary's success landed her and George a close, personal relationship with the king alongside being given significant titles of Countess and Duke of Buckingham. At the time, this made George one of the first commoners not of royal blood to be given a dukedom. James and George's relationship lasted a decade, after their meeting in 1614 and staying together until James died in 1625.

Their companionship began when Mary sent George to France to be educated as a member of high society. He returned to England as a changed man, and soon after as "Mary & George" illustrates, George caught the eyes of the king. According to the creator of "Mary & George," D.C. Moore told Business Insider, it was normal practice to "put hot young men in front of James to try and lure him and try and get a new favorite in place," calling it "the game of the age."

However, James, known for his countless dalliances in court, already had a male lover, a Scottish man named Robert Carr. Robert held the title Earl of Somerset bestowed to him due to favoritism. But that would soon change as opponents of Robert lobbied for the social ascension of George. This led to the commoner gaining favor with the king, ultimately replacing Robert in status and nobility. After Robert lost his standing with the king, George was promoted to Master of the Horse in 1616. In the next few years, he would be promoted to the Earl of Buckingham, the Marquess of Buckingham and eventually the Duke of Buckingham in 1623.

The relationship between George and James deepened as George spent years moving up the court's social ladder. While it is true that James was married to Anne of Denmark, had fathered seven children and reportedly had a mistress in Scotland — George was the king's closest personal and political confidant. Some historians have cited the relationship as "James's last and greatest lover." Restoration work on James' place found a secret passageway connecting the lovers' rooms, BBC reported. While the nature of their sexual relationship has also been questioned, their personal letters to each other have leaned toward the assumption they were together, Smithsonian Magazine said.

In 1617, James said in response to criticism of his relationship with George that he loved him "more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled." He continued, "Christ had John, and I have George."

Another letter from James between the lovers in 1623 said, "God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear father and husband."

We need your help to stay independent

George reciprocated the sentiments, writing back, "I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had." He continued, "I desire only to live in the world for your sake," and "I will live and die a lover of you."

George also famously once wrote to James, asking "whether you loved me now . . .  better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog."

In the final years of their relationship and James' life, the pair clashed on policy but their relationship was still steadfast. George was reportedly at James' bedside during his death likely from fever in 1625. However, the duke, unpopular to most people in court, was accused of murdering the king. Just three years later, George was assassinated by a disgruntled lieutenant who was led into a disastrous battle by George. George was survived by his wife a wealthy daughter of an Earl, Katherine Manners and his four children.

A world war in waiting: After Iran’s attack, it’s almost here

An act of war. I’ll just bet you didn’t see or hear those words in any coverage over the weekend of Iran’s aggression from the air on Israel. What else can we call 120 ballistic missiles; 170 armed drones; 30 cruise missiles? That’s what Iran fired at Israel Saturday night. One report I read said the barrage was fired from three countries in addition to Iran: Iraq, Yemen and Syria. How would you feel if you were walking down the street on Saturday night in Chicago or Indianapolis or Phoenix or Seattle, and suddenly you began to hear the sound of explosions, and you looked up and saw streaks of flaming debris from exploded missiles falling to the ground? Would it feel like you were witnessing a war on the city where you live, on your country?

You bet it would, especially when you consider what went into the Iranian attack. Iran knew that Israel has spent the last few decades building its so-called Iron Dome missile defense capability – a complex system of radars and anti-missile missile launchers that encircle its military installations and population centers like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and the cities in Israel’s north within striking distance of Hezbollah missiles. We can be certain that Iran spent days if not weeks preparing for Saturday night’s strike, working out a plan to launch its barrage of drones and missiles to reach targets in Israel in a swarm that might overwhelm Israel’s anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense system.

Defending against even a few missiles is an incredibly complex task. The missiles and drones must be picked up on radar far enough out from their targets that they can be engaged by anti-missile missiles fired from the ground and from Israeli aircraft stationed along Israel’s eastern borders. Neither Jordan nor Israel has admitted it openly, but it seems likely that Jordanian airspace was opened to Israeli warplanes defending Israel from the Iranian attack. Jordan admitted on Sunday that it had opened its airspace to “allied” forces — and Britain and the U.S. announced that their warplanes had shot down multiple drones as they flew toward Israel. Nearly the missiles and drones fired on Sunday were shot down, according to Israel and the Pentagon.

Some of the shootdowns took place over Iraq, Syria and Jordan, according to Pentagon reports on Sunday. The Washington Post reported that two squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles were deployed to intercept drones headed for Israel. One squadron was based in North Carolina, and the other in the U.K. The Air Force fighters can be used as air-to-air fighters, as bombers, and for what the Pentagon described as “deep interdiction.” This means U.S. fighters were lingering in airspace in the 1,000 miles between Iran and Israel, backed up by AWACS air defense command-and-control aircraft and aerial refueling tankers supplying fuel to the F-15’s to keep them airborne for hours at a time. The Pentagon said on Sunday that U.S. aircraft were involved in shooting down about 70 Iranian drones. Two U.S. destroyers based in the Mediterranean shot down between four and six ballistic missiles, and a U.S. Patriot battery based in Irbil, Iraq, shot down at least one Iranian ballistic missile as it crossed Iraqi airspace on its way toward Israel.

So, many of the drones and missiles Iran aimed at Israel were shot down before they even reached Israel. Still, in the early hours of Sunday morning in Israel, a swarm of ballistic and cruise missiles got through the outer defense ring and had to be engaged by Israel’s Iron Dome defense. Shooting down a large number of missiles that arrive all at once is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. The ballistic missiles must be picked up and tracked on radars while they are outside the earth’s atmosphere. As they close in on their targets, other Iron Dome radars begin tracking them, and each missile is assigned by a missile defense control system to individual anti-missile missile launchers which fire at the individual missiles to shoot them down. 

Multiple anti-missile missiles can be fired at individual targets, but it is preferable if each incoming ballistic or cruise missile is assigned to a specific anti-missile missile launcher, and a single missile is dedicated to bring down the enemy weapon.

In a swarm attack such as that launched against Israel by Iran, all of this is happening at once — the tracking of ballistic missiles, their assignments as targets for individual Iron Dome anti-missile batteries, and their acquisition by the anti-missile missiles themselves so they can reach their targets and shoot them out of the sky.

On Iran’s end of the attack is a similar attack scenario, just as complex. The Pentagon has said that Iran’s attack came from multiple countries, each of which is a different distance from Israel. Ballistic missiles fired from western Iran have about a 12-minute flight time to Israel. Fired from eastern Iran, their flight times would be longer. There are reports that some ballistic missiles were fired from Yemen by Houthi militia, and those missiles would have a still longer flight time. In order for the ballistic missiles to hit their intended targets in Israel in a swarm, dozens of calculations had to be done to determine launch times for individual ballistic missiles, and since cruise missiles take hours, not minutes, to reach their targets, they had to be launched even earlier.

Iran is playing a dangerous game of military chess against the United States and its allies in Europe and the Middle East, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

You get the picture. It took nationwide coordination by Iran’s military, with launchers located in multiple countries, to achieve the swarm attack they made on Israel. The attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, was done by a swarm of more than 300 Japanese fighters, dive bombers, altitude bombers and torpedo bombers. The Japanese planes were launched by six aircraft carriers stationed off the coast of Hawaii and timed to hit multiple targets in and around Pearl Harbor beginning at 7:48 a.m. The attack caught U.S. fighters on the ground and U.S. warships anchored and at dock in Pearl Harbor by surprise. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the act of war that forced this country into war against Japan and, after the Nazi regime allied itself with Japan, war with Germany as well.

Iran is playing a dangerous game of military chess against the United States and its allies in Europe and the Middle East, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Iran has been supplying Russia with the same kinds of drones it launched against Israel on Saturday night, and has helped Russia build its own manufacturing capability to produce several designs of Shahed drones to use against Ukraine.

North Korea has allied itself with Russia in its war on Ukraine, supplying the Russian military with ammunition for its 152mm howitzers. CNN reported in February that North Korea’s arms factories are “operating at full capacity” to supply Russia with howitzer rounds and multiple launch ground-to-ground rockets. Russia, in return, has agreed to supply North Korea with badly needed food stocks.

There is no evidence that China has joined in supplying arms and ammunition to Russia, but China has been busy elsewhere creating headaches for the U.S. and its Pacific allies, mainly in the South China Sea. China has built military installations by expanding sand spits in order to support air bases and resupply stations for its navy. China is currently involved in a kind of shadow war with the Philippines over control of islands in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines, leading Manila to offer the U.S. land and maritime facilities to build new American military bases on the islands.


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


Eliot Cohen, who holds the Arleigh Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has an excellent article in the current Atlantic on what he calls the “coalition of the malevolent” that has emerged between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. He makes the point that Iran’s attack Saturday on Israel is the first “daylight” attack Iran has made from its soil against its main enemy in the Middle East, and links Iran’s attack to the open violence that China is waging on the Philippines and Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine. It’s all part of a greater assault on the “rules based international order,” according to Cohen.

Over the weekend, practically the entire U.S. punditocracy devoted itself to worrying about Israel’s response to Iran over the coming days and weeks, and whether it will lead to what they call “a wider war in the Middle East.” Cohen makes the point that there is already a wider war going on in a wider region that includes most of the world except the Americas and Australia, although that country has begun to feel threatened by China’s moves in the South China Sea, as have Vietnam and Indonesia.

At the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a coalition of right-wing “America first” lunatics were trying to lull this country to sleep with talk about taking care of what goes on within our borders before worrying about what’s happening overseas.  

Sound familiar? World War III hasn’t started yet, but it’s time to wake up and watch out. That goes double for one of our two political parties that is in lockstep with Mr. America First himself, Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was already a mess — now he’s falling asleep during his own trial

"Study in contrasts" is an entirely inadequate phrase to describe the different experiences of President Joe Biden and Donald Trump over the weekend. Regardless of one's opinion about the conflict in the Middle East, there's no doubt that Biden spent Saturday overseeing an impressive multinational effort to shoot down hundreds of Iranian drones, preventing what could have been a devastating attack on Israel. Meanwhile, Trump spent Saturday night babbling for more than an hour at a crowd of thousands in Pennsylvania, who gamely ignored their leader's incoherence enough to cheer whenever he dropped some of the buzzwords they know so well from Fox News. 

Trump has never been big on making sense, but close observers have noticed that he's suffering a rapid decline from his already low standards lately. Saturday was a particularly cringeworthy demonstration, with Trump frequently drifting off into nonsense and stumbling over his own words. 

For some reason, he felt he had to talk about the battle of Gettysburg, with the usual adjective dogpile he uses to distract people from the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about, and probably couldn't tell you who won. (It was the Union.) 


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


This contrast between Biden's steady leadership and Trump's mental decompensation is only going to get starker now that Trump's first criminal trial is finally underway in a Manhattan courtroom. This is not like Trump's civil trials, where he could show up when he felt like it, or not at all. As a criminal defendant, he is required to sit in court every day. If he tries to hold campaign events at night or on the weekends, he's going to be exhausted. He can sometimes barely speak clearly as it is. Add weariness and stress, and the confusion will likely rise even further. The trial had barely started when Trump hit his first wall. 

Trump knows that's a bad look, which is why he tried to conceal it with brute-force lying. As Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported, Trump’s campaign sent out a fundraising email shortly before the trial adjourned for the day, claiming he had just "stormed out of court." In reality, he spoke to reporters listlessly and with uncharacteristic brevity, while looking thoroughly wrung out.  

Being in court every day is hard enough for normal people, but Trump is likely to make it much harder on himself with his bad personal habits, starting with his well-documented unwillingness to sleep like a normal person. While most of us were sound asleep at 5:30 on Monday morning, Trump was going full-tilt on Truth Social, with his usual mix of hysterical lies, poor grammar and random capitalization. He's also frequently known to post social media tirades at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. 

That early hour probably wasn't a one-off, either. Getting Trump ready for court likely means a lengthy session to lacquer on his makeup and coax what remains of his hair into that fluffy combover. As president, he apparently concealed that process by calling it "executive time," often not rolling into the Oval Office much before noon. But now all that has to get done before he shows up in the morning at court. No wonder that on day one of this trial it looked like no amount of Diet Coke and bronzer could conceal his fatigue.

Trump's infamous legal strategy of endless delay won't do him any favors either. On Monday morning, at the risk of angering potential jurors by making them wait even longer, Trump's lawyers tried to drag the process out with a bunch of noisy arguments about what evidence will be allowed at trial. As Politico's Kyle Cheney pointed out, the snail's-pace proceedings makes it likely the actual trial itself won't start for weeks to come.

Trump is understandably focused on fending off that day when a jury foreman reads the word "guilty" out loud — but in terms of maintaining what is left of his tattered mental acuity, that's not a great strategy. It means many more days of Trump trying, and likely failing, to handle the pressure of being a criminal defendant while running a presidential campaign. As his regular meltdowns on Truth Social and at his rallies suggest, it's not like he's able to put the trial aside to focus on, let's say, social or economic issues. 

Trump is understandably focused on fending off that day when a jury foreman reads the word "guilty" out loud — but in terms of maintaining what is left of his tattered mental acuity, that's not a great strategy.

Stormy Daniels will likely be prevented from using the colorful descriptive terms she's employed in media interviews, but on the witness stand she will be asked to recount what sounds like a miserable and effectively coerced sexual encounter with Trump. His former "fixer," Michael Cohen, may have credibility issues the defense will certainly bring up, but Cohen can respond that whenever he lied, he was doing it for Donald Trump. There's at least one recording of Trump sounding like a two-bit gangster, and there may be others. Most importantly, Trump himself knows how guilty he is, which is probably why his eye-bags seem to be expanding at a rate that no amount of Sephora products can conceal.  

As rich as he claims to be, Trump lacks many of the resources other wealthy defendants, or even ordinary people, might have. He's 77 years old and doesn't take care of his health, probably because thinks doing that would be doing an admission that he's not the genetic superman he so often claims to be. Most people have a network of family and friends to rely on, but the people around Trump are mostly leeches and hangers-on, not folks who genuinely have compassion for him. He was eventually able to hire top-notch lawyers for this case, but that was a struggle. As the Washington Post reports, "most prominent white-collar practices have no interest in taking on such a controversial and combative client as Trump." 


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


Trump's struggle to hold it together came up in court on Monday, regarding the gag order he has consistently tried to ignore. He complains incessantly about the judge forbidding him from talking about witnesses, jurors or court staff in public, but has already violated the order by posting vitriol about Cohen on Truth Social. As Judge Juan Merchan indicated, this looks to be a cut-and-dried transgression. 

There is absolutely no reason to feel sorry for people who choose to work for Trump, but one is almost tempted to have some sympathy for the impossible situation his campaign team find themselves in. If they try to push out their candidate's public utterances on social media, they're just creating more video clips of Trump saying stuff that damages him: bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade or drifting into bizarre monologues about killer whales, windmills and the deep state. What little hope they ever had of running a "disciplined" campaign has been dashed, since his already shaky emotional control cannot stand up to these circumstances. If they pull him off the campaign trail, on the other hand, then only Trump news anyone sees will be about this trial. Besides, it can't be good for fundraising to deprive the faithful of their opportunity to inhale the reported hamburgers-and-underwear aroma of their beloved former president. 

The smart move, no doubt, would be to keep Trump at home when he's not in court. Sure, Democrats would seize the opportunity to mock him as old and tired — but every time Trump gets in front of cameras these days, he removes all doubt. But all of this is likely moot. Trump is so profoundly narcissistic that having to sit still in court all day every day would break his already fragile mind. He needs those cheering crowds to make him feel better about himself, which can only mean that the library of startling, nonsensical, meme-worthy video clips will just keep on growing.

Former GOP insider: Trump has “reprogrammed a generation” to fight against democracy

The first of Donald Trump’s four criminal trials is finally underway in Manhattan. This trial, on campaign-finance charges related to Trump's alleged "hush money" payments to Stormy Daniels, is truly historic, marking the first time in American history that a current or former president has been tried for criminal offenses.

A guilty verdict in combination with the outcomes of his three other pending trials in Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C., will clearly have an impact on how many Americans vote in the upcoming presidential election. The potential consequences should not be underestimated, given that current polls show a statistical dead heat between Trump and President Biden.

In an evocative preview published by the Economist, the “hush money” trial is described as a "meld of genres":  

The solemnity of the first prosecution of a former president, who also happens to be running again, will nod to tragedy. Really, though, this is a seedy burlesque, with a bit of farce. The case is about sex, money and blackmail. Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, who will testify against him, once described the conduct at issue as the “filth and muck of politics”…. Every trial is part theatre. This one, slated to run for six to eight weeks (beginning with jury selection), will be a sell-out.

Trump’s criminal trials are historic in other ways as well: They seem to echo the lessons of one of the most dreadful chapters in modern history. In 1923, Adolf Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison for an attempted coup (known as the Beer Hall Putsch) against the state government of Bavaria. He served less than one year, using the time to write the first volume of "Mein Kampf." After his release, of course, Hitler continued his rise to power, becoming the de facto dictator of Germany less than 10 years later.

Donald Trump has already attempted one coup, and the American people were fortunate that it failed. He has never disavowed the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and, not unlike Hitler, continues to threaten violence (including imprisonment and execution for “treason”) against anyone and everyone who oppose him and the MAGA movement.

If Trump is actually sent to prison, the MAGA movement will likely be blunted, if not broken. American democracy and the might then be able to avoid the fate that befell Germany 90 or so years ago.

Miles Taylor served as chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump's first term. He spoke out early about Trump's unfitness for office, as author of the 2018 New York Times “Anonymous” editorial. Since then, Taylor has written two books, “A Warning” and “Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy from Trump’s Revenge.” His new paperback edition of “Blowback” has just been published, incorporating an argument that Trump's second administration will be far more competent and formidable in its assault on American democracy and the rule of law than the first one was.

In the second half of our conversation, Taylor cautions that the existential danger to American democracy posed by Trump, the MAGA movement, and today’s Republican Party will continue well past Election Day 2024. The American people still have the power and agency to defeat those forces, Taylor says, but only if they shake off complacency and apathy and act to defend democracy and freedom — not just at the ballot box but throughout our society.

This is the second installment of a two-part conversation.

How do you assess Donald Trump and his MAGA movement’s danger to the safety and future of the country and our pluralistic democracy?

Look, I’m still a conservative. This isn’t about a Republican coming to the White House. I don’t even think Trump is a real Republican. It’s about a man who’s said he wants to use government as a tool of revenge — and to advance his own self-interest. That sort of intent — sitting atop the spy agencies and military apparatus of the government — writes its own horror story.

How do we locate Donald Trump and the American authoritarian movement as part of a larger global movement to end democracy, which also includes Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and other malign actors?

They are one and the same — reactions to populism. This is where I’ll say that the culprits here aren’t actually the autocrats themselves. It’s us. We’re choosing to empower these people. We can choose not to. The choice we make will define us.

Why do you think the news media and political elites haven't made the global dimension of this threat to our democracy much clearer?

"The culprits here aren’t actually the autocrats themselves. It’s us. We’re choosing to empower these people. We can choose not to."

Attacks on Western democracy from within were not on my bingo card post-9/11. I fear the wayward ex-president will get his way eventually in trying to chip away at the community of democracies. He needn’t win back the White House to execute his vision. Trump has done something more insidious. By co-opting the Republican Party, he has reprogrammed a generation of devotees with his anti-constitutional and anti-democratic views. Copycats will try to fulfill his unfinished plans well beyond his lifespan, an undertaking made possible because GOP leaders have anesthetized their consciences and normalized Trump-like conduct for a decade.

If Trump is defeated this November, will the danger of right-wing political violence decrease? Many experts are concerned that a defeat on Election Day will only amplify the danger from Trump and his followers.

I’ll put it simply. Whether Trump wins or loses, the risk of political violence is high. If he loses, it will likely be far worse than Jan. 6. If he wins, I fear there will be a violent reaction around the country from the far left — a reaction that Trump will use to “justify” a crackdown. Thus, the spiral will begin. There’s no magic wand that can prevent this. We just need to show restraint, urge our neighbors to do the same and condemn political extremism.

Looking back, do you have any regrets about your time in the administration and how you chose to speak out? What do you know now that you wish you knew then?

Six years ago, I sounded an alarm that the sitting president was acting in a way that was “amoral” and “reckless” behind the scenes and that his own staff thought he posed a grave threat to the country. Many people dismissed me and believed Trump’s accusation that I was being disloyal.

We need your help to stay independent

Five years ago, I wrote a book about the deeper extent of instability inside the White House and why re-electing Trump could be catastrophic. Many people dismissed me and believed Trump’s claim that it was a “make-believe book” of “deep state” lies.

Four years ago, during the 2020 campaign, I said that if Trump lost, he would try to stay in office, a situation that could end “tragically.” Many people dismissed me and believed the claims of Trump’s acolytes that he’d do the right thing when the time came.

Three years ago, I assembled GOP dissenters to warn that Trumpism maintained a “viselike grip” on the party and that the anti-constitutional wing would overtake it completely if preventive action wasn’t taken. Many people dismissed me and said the GOP would move on from Trump.

Two years ago, I predicted that Trump would run again for the presidency and would likely lead the GOP field. Many people dismissed me and said Trump would be taken out by the courts first.

Last year, I released this book to explain in precise detail what would happen if Trump or another MAGA figure retook the White House, including the specific ways they would weaponize American government against their foes.

"During the 2020 campaign, I said that if Trump lost, he would try to stay in office, a situation that could end “tragically.” Many people believed the claims of Trump’s acolytes that he’d do the right thing when the time came."

My goal here isn’t to prove that I’m prescient. Nor do I think I should be applauded because predictions about a dangerous man and his mob-like movement keep coming to fruition. What I’ve been saying for years about deeper threats to the American experiment should have been painfully obvious to almost anyone who’s paying attention. Yet far too many Americans are imperiling the future once more by ignoring the clanging and rattling truth that could cause the entire country to come undone.

What do you think will happen next? Where are we in the story of the Trumpocene?

First, I say in the book that America’s survival as the United States is not inevitable, but its demise will become a certainty if we continue down our current path. No free system of government can survive the willful ignorance of its people. But I'm not a fatalist; if I were, I wouldn’t have written this book or spent my life trying to protect our country. In fact, I am an optimist about the trajectory of free societies like our own. A democracy is a living thing. Like most living things, it will fight for its survival by exhausting all available possibilities for persistence, though a spirited effort might not be visible until it’s in mortal danger. That hour will be upon us soon.

Second, I note that America can survive the century if we renegotiate our social contract. By that I mean we should examine the underpinnings of our polity together — from the actual ways we vote and mechanisms for spurring political competition to the very Constitution that binds us. Although it may seem impracticable, a renegotiation will look more appealing in the decades ahead of us, more so, I suspect, in the face of genuine hardship. A people so divided cannot continue forward without addressing their divisions openly; otherwise, they should peaceably separate, or spiral toward a violent end.


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


Thankfully, we are blessed by nature with a say in the matter. Destiny is manifested by decision. So what happens next will depend on our collective willpower as a country and our resolve to eschew the dread of indecision. On that point I feel hopeful, because every guiding milestone we’ve placed on humankind’s trail has been put there by choice. And we can do so once again at a moment of our choosing.

What can the American people do to stop the bureaucrats, advisers and others who will try to orchestrate the Trump dictatorship if he wins this election?

The choice is ours, as it has always been. The founders saw America as an experiment, dependent entirely on our conscious efforts to sustain it and not on preordainment. Some readers will lament these grim forecasts while they loiter in the shadows, contorting logic to justify to themselves why their silence is an exception to the need for all Americans to admit the seriousness of our situation. To those readers I say: I don’t judge you. I’ve been you. I’ve made excuses for staying quiet. But companionship won’t save you from the consequences.

Fewer citizens will make the harder choice. Those who do will start defying their political tribes by calling for civility; they will resist intimidation and reject the moral equivalency crawling into our political discourse; they will put country over party by advocating for system-wide reforms to make our democracy more representative of all views and less prone to upheaval; and they will openly evangelize — through trial and error — the small rituals of civic faith that can restore a democracy. If this is you, then I believe you are America’s last, best hope.

Thanks to a genetic breakthrough, a rare rhino species may be rescued from extinction

As humans continue to encroach on our planet, we are driving a mass extinction that some experts call a "biological holocaust." Since more and more species are dying, it creates an increasing number of genetic bottlenecks, which make animal and plant survival even more difficult.

Take for example the white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), which can be divided into two sub-species that are genetically very similar — but one is relatively thriving while the other is on the brink of extinction.

Scientists using state-of-the-art genetics technology hope to change that — and their recent research published in the journal Evolutionary Applications suggests they might be able to pull it off.

"Doing our best to preserve [rhinos] is really our moral obligation."

Such a feat would not be unprecedented. The southern white rhinoceroses, which is currently the most abundant rhinoceros species in the world, had been culled down to a population of merely 50 to 200 individuals in the early 20th century. Thanks to rigorous conservation efforts, however, the southern white rhinoceros population had rebounded to roughly 20,000 individuals by 2014 (a surge in poaching around that time has since reduced their population to roughly 18,000).

The southern white rhinoceros' cousin, however, faces a much more dire situation. At the time of this writing, there are only two females from the northern white rhinoceros species that are still alive. Even if there was a male around, it would not matter, since both females are past the age when they can carry a fetus to term. Poaching, poorly managed land use and other human activities have taken a massive toll.

While a few decades ago this would have entirely doomed the species, cutting edge advances in genetics technology may offer them salvation. Dr. Aryn P. Wilder — a conservation scientist at the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance — decided to study genetic samples from 12 northern white rhinoceroses that had cytogenetically frozen at the San Diego Zoo. Much to her delight, Wilder found that those dozen samples contain enough genetic diversity that one could resurrect them from functional extinction.

Indeed, not only is there enough diversity to allow rhinoceroses to be reproduced through cloning, but the samples from northern white rhinoceroses are actually more diverse than those of the southern white rhinoceroses. This means that if scientists are able to bring them back, they will be less likely to encounter a genetic bottleneck, in which individual animals are born unhealthy because their parents are too closely related to each other.

Salon spoke with Wilder about this uplifting news, as well as the practical steps that need to be taken next to save northern white rhinoceroses.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Can you explain how your technology was able to determine that there is enough genetic diversity within these 12 samples to avoid a genetic bottleneck?

We sequenced the genomes of individuals from both species, northern white rhinos and southern white rhinos. When you sequence the genome, you can actually measure the amount of genetic diversity in each of those genomes. And we know that the southern white rhino was able to recover without too much inbreeding. So we used southern white rhinos as a benchmark or metric of a healthy enough population. And so then we asked, "Well, do the cells that we have banked in the frozen zoo, do they have enough genetic diversity to recover in a similar way?"

What we found was that, yes, the northern white rhinos actually have more genetic diversity in their genomes than the southern white rhinos, so we know then that they at least have adequate levels of genetic diversity. The other thing that we wanted to look at was harmful mutations in the genome. So we can actually look at genetic variants in the genome or mutations in the genome, and predict how harmful they might be. If those mutations are in a gene that encodes a protein, we can predict what the protein will look like, and we know that if a mutation causes a change in that protein, it's more likely to be harmful.

We need your help to stay independent

We can also look across lots of mammals in other mammal species. If we find that that mutation is very rare or doesn't exist in any other mammal species, and every other mammal species has the same genetic variant, then we would infer that that mutation is actually really important, or that that position is really important in any change to that position and is likely harmful.

Then we counted up all of the mutations in the northern white rhino genome that were harmful and did the same in the southern white rhino, and then modeled over time what those mutations would do in a restored population and whether those harmful mutations would accumulate and cause fitness declines that made the northern white rhino's fitness lower than the southern white rhino.

Then in order to predict what those mutations would do when a northern white rhino population is restored from banked cells in the frozen zoo, we used genomic simulations and we said, "Okay, well if we were to take eight of those individuals from the frozen zoo, clone them and start a population of over 10 generations, what would that look like? What would fitness look like in generation 1, 2, 3 and all the way through generation 10?"

And then we also modeled taking those same eight individuals, starting the population in generation zero, and then every generation after that we introduced one new cell line into — or one new cloned individual back into — the population. Basically modeling this regenerative source of genetic diversity, or this bank of genetic diversity that we have in the frozen zoo, and we found that the populations that had founders reintroduced every generation, they did much better. They didn't suffer any fitness declines like the ones that were just founded once in generation zero and then allowed to to from there over the next 10 generations.


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


"We still need to to use all of the traditional conservation methods that we've always used."

What are the next steps now that this technology has demonstrated to work? 

What these models have shown is that the source of genetic diversity that we have in these cells is enough to restore a healthy population. But in order to restore a healthy population, we need to be able to use these cell lines and actually clone northern white rhino embryos, or create northern white rhino sperm and eggs that then we can use for in vitro fertilization to make an embryo from there.

We need to implant the embryo into a southern white rhino surrogate mother, and she needs to carry her baby to term, and then critically we need to have a habitat that we can release these rhinos into in the wild. They need to have all of the protections that should have been given to them before their population was reduced to just two females. They need to have protection from poaching. They need to have adequate space and healthy habitats for them to live in. 

Do you have any personal stories of interactions you've had with rhinos through your research?

Well, we do have a herd of southern white rhinos here. I've actually never interacted with the northern white rhino because by the time I started at the zoo, there were only three left. There was a male, but he passed away a few years ago. Now it's just the two left. But from what I've seen of the southern white rhinos, the closely related subspecies, they're a very gentle and sweet species. That's not to say that that in the wild they'll be gentle and sweet with you, but I've seen the moms with their babies, and the babies wallowing in the mud, and they're really a unique species — doing our best to preserve them is really our moral obligation.

I want to emphasize again that these new sorts of cellular technologies are only one tool in the toolbox. We still need to to use all of the traditional conservation methods that we've always used. Like I said before, we still need to protect these species and their habitats. We can't just expect that these methods are sufficient to save a species and to end the extinction crisis. This is just one tool in the toolbox, and the reason we have this tool for this species is because we thought ahead to bank these cells. There are increasing efforts to create these biobanks of living cells so that we can have this genetic material for the future. I think that banking species, even before banking cells from species, even before they suffer these really severe declines, is going to be a really critical resource for the future.

“Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed sentenced: How we got here

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the "Rust" film armorer who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the deadly on-set shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday. 

The sentence was the maximum Gutierrez-Reed could have received for loading a live round of ammunition into a prop revolver that went off while held by actor Alec Baldwin in 2021. Aside from fatally wounding Hutchins, the live round also injured "Rust" director Joel Souza.

Gutierrez-Reed, who originally pleaded not guilty, was convicted following a two-week trial in Santa Fe, New Mexico in March. She was remanded to custody at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility while awaiting the results of her appeal, which Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer denied. Prosecutors at the time argued that Gutierrez-Reed "was negligent, she was careless, she was thoughtless," adding that she seemed more “worried about her career” than about those directly impacted by the tragic shooting. 

According to a report from the New York Times, Judge Sommer's sentencing followed the release of summaries of phone calls Gutierrez-Reed made from the detention facility, post-conviction. The armorer in the calls referred to jurors in her criminal case as “idiots,” and said that Sommer was on a "power trip." She also gratuitously claimed that the judge was "getting paid off." In another call, Gutierrez-Reed stated that she was attempting to get her attorney's paralegal to connect with Hutchins' family to speak on her behalf at the sentencing. Additionally, she claimed that she wanted prosecutors to “put Alec Baldwin in jail.”

“Your honor, when I took on ‘Rust,’ I was young and I was naïve, but I took my job as seriously as I knew how to,” Gutierrez-Reed, now 26, said while reading a statement before the court on Monday. “Despite not having proper time, resources and staffing when things got tough I just did my best to handle it.

“The jury has found me in part at fault for this God-awful tragedy but that doesn’t make me a monster, that makes me human," she also said. 

Sommer, however, argued that Gutierrez-Reed had demonstrated little remorse for her actions. “You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon,” the judge said, per Variety. “But for you, Ms. Hutchins would be alive, a husband would have his partner, and a little boy would have his mother.”

“I did not hear you take accountability,” Sommer said, as noted by IndieWire. The outlet also reported that the armorer had conceded to sometimes neglecting to shake dummy rounds to confirm that they were not live. “Every time a gun was loaded with ‘dummy’ rounds, it was a game of Russian roulette,” lead prosecutor  Kari T. Morrissey wrote in a court filing prior to sentencing, per the NYT report. 

“It was my sincere hope during this process that there would be some moment when Ms. Gutierrez took responsibility, expressed some level of remorse that was genuine, and that moment has never come,” the attorney said during Monday's hearing. 

Gutierrez-Reed's legal team refuted the phone calls, painting them as evidence of her “frustration at the system,” and argued that they did not take away from the armorer's “heartbreak and extreme sadness over what occurred on the ‘Rust’ set.”

Ahead of the sentencing, Sommer heard statements from Hutchins' friends and family and Souza, per Rolling Stone. Hutchins' mother, in a pre-recorded video from where she lives in Ukraine, said, “The day of her death ruined my entire life. It’s heart-wrenching to see her child grow without his mother.”

“What I want is simply not possible," Souza said in his statement. "I want that none of this ever happened, that everyone is OK, that lives weren’t destroyed. One moment, the world made sense. The next moment, it didn’t, and it still doesn’t, and I don’t know if it ever will again."

Baldwin has separately pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter, and has a trial set to be underway in July; however, as the NYT noted, a judge is currently considering a defense motion to dismiss the actor's indictment. 

 

Kesha swaps “Tik Tok” lyrics to slam Diddy during Coachella set with Renee Rapp

Kesha wasn't technically slated to perform at the desert music festival Coachella, but the singer's surprise Sunday performance was nothing short of memorable.

Taking to the stage to join Reneé Rapp’s set with a performance of her 2010 hit song, "Tik Tok," Kesha made a notable amendment to the opening lyrics. After being welcomed to the stage by Rapp, Kesha sang, "Wake up in the morning like, f**k P. Diddy!" A video posted online by gossip blogger Perez Hilton shows Kesha and Rapp holding up their middle fingers while singing the line. 

When Kesha debuted the song nearly 15 years ago, the original opening said, “Wake up in the morning feeling like P. Diddy," with the billionaire hip-hop artist featuring on the track with a response to the lyrics: “Hey, what’s up, girl?” 

Kesha's lyrics swap follows the litany of lawsuits aimed at Sean "Diddy" Combs, which allege sex trafficking and sexual assault. A federal investigation prompted a raid of the mogul's estates last month. Diddy's legal woes stemmed from a suit filed by his ex-partner and singer, Casandra Ventura — better known as Cassie — over what she claimed had been a physically and sexually abusive relationship. 

Per The Hollywood Reporter, Kesha had previously changed the lyrics to reflect Ventura's settlement with Diddy in November of 2023. During a Los Angeles stop on her Only Love tour, a day after Ventura and Diddy settled, Kesha changed the opening line to, “Wake up in the morning feeling just like me.” 

Chewing gum has been linked to better diets – but it’s no way to improve your health

The relationship between chewing gum – both the sugary and the non-sugary kind – and whether chewing gum might prevent conditions like gum disease, bone loss around teeth, and caries, was studied in research published in the Journal of the American Nutrition Association in early 2024.

The researchers used data from people who were enrolled in a large population-based study between 2013 and 2019. In addition to reporting on their oral health, participants were also asked questions about their diet, weight and waist circumference – the size of their waistline.

Analysis of the data showed no relationship between chewing gum and oral health.

However, out of the of 15,178 participants in the study, 2.4% reported to chew gum on a regular basis. Gum chewers appeared to have a healthier diet, including a lower intake of added sugars compared to those who don't chew gum.

So, should we all be rushing out to buy gum to chew ourselves to better health?

 

Chewing away at obesity?

The answer is no and here's the reason why.

The study doesn't actually say that chewing gum leads to better dietary choices. All the data tells us is that some of the participants who chew gum also happen to consume fewer refined sugars and have a healthier diet. The research does not find any causality between chewing gum and improved health.

There could be a number of reasons why the researchers found this relationship. For example, it might be that people who try and have a healthy diet might also be keen to keep their teeth healthy and follow the widespread advice that chewing sugar free gum is good for teeth. Or, it might simply be that they like to have fresh breath. Your guess is as good as mine.

In the study, however, gum chewers did not eat less, were no less likely to be overweight or did not have a slimmer waistline. So, no relationship was found between the amount of food consumed, weight and whether or not people chewed gum.

 

Fixes for long-term health

The overconsumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks, foods and processed foods is, unfortunately, very common.
Increased consumption of sugar has led to a sharp rise in the number of people who are overweight or obese and those who have type 2 diabetes.

In addition to the health risks associated with these conditions – and the cost of treating them – they can have a significant impact on quality of life.

The standard medical advice for obesity is to get plenty of exercise and maintain a healthy diet – especially one low in saturated fats, refined carbohydrates and sugar.

This "eat less, move more" approach to obesity treatment has been criticised for being simplistic, overlooking the social and biological factors that can contribute to weight problems. Even so, even this most basic advice – to eat a healthy diet and increase exercise – proves difficult for many.

As anyone who's attempted to kick a habit or to stick to a new year's resolution past January will know, changes to our lifestyle, including diet, are often tough to implement and even trickier to maintain. Seemingly easy, accessible options for weight control like chewing gum, or other social media fads like drinking apple cider vinegar or olive oil, are always welcome and newsworthy, then.

Easy, accessible weight loss 'fixes' are always newsworthy.

In order to claim that chewing gum affects the way we eat – healthier food choices and consumption of less sugary foods – would require a trial where a group of participants are instructed to chew gum and have their food choices and intake compared to another non-gum chewing group.

These studies have actually been conducted, but the reason chewing gum hasn't been included in any health and nutritional advice is that the results of these studies did not provide strong evidence that chewing gum affects what and how much we eat.

It's not the first time chewing gum has been reported to aid weight loss.

So, I am afraid, chewing gum won't help you make the right choices when it comes to food. It's back to us making the difficult decisions, and governments and the food industry promoting healthy food choices; and making sure that healthy food is affordable to us all.

Sandra Sunram-Lea, Professor in Biological Psychology, Lancaster University

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

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef suffers most severe coral bleaching ever recorded

The Great Barrier Reef — a colorful and iconic natural wonder off the coast of Australia that spans an area of 133,000 square miles (344,400 square kilometres) — is suffering potentially unprecedented bleaching due to climate change. Bleaching occurs when coral become stressed due to high temperatures or lack of nutrients and expel the algae that live symbiotically within it. This causes it to turn a pale, bone-white color and eventually kills the coral.

According to a report last week by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, more than half of the 1,000 reefs analyzed (out of more than 2,900 in total) had either high, very high or extremely high levels of bleaching. Only a quarter were relatively unaffected. Perhaps most ominously, the bleaching in many regions stretched as far down as 18 meters (roughly 60 feet). Overall it is the fifth mass bleaching event to impact the reef in eight years.

“I feel devastated,” Dr Selina Ward, a marine biologist and former academic director of the University of Queensland’s Heron Island Research Station, told The Guardian. “I’ve been working on the reef since 1992 but this [event], I’m really struggling with.”

The main culprit behind coral bleaching is rising ocean temperatures. Although bleached coral is not the same thing as dead coral, the fact that it is bleached indicates that it is unhealthy and more vulnerable to death. Unfortunately for the reef, Earth's temperature continues to increase because humans keep burning fossil fuels, which contribute to global heating and climate change, which make bleaching events a regular occurrence.

“What are we doing to stop the reef from being lost?” Ward said. “We cannot expect to save the Great Barrier Reef and be opening new fossil fuel developments. It’s time to act and there are no more excuses.”

“He’s attacked witnesses”: Prosecutors want to make Trump delete some of his Truth Social posts

Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial are seeking to fine the Republican defendant $1,000 each for three Truth Social posts he fired off within the last week, arguing that they violate a gag order. Last month prosecutors successfully obtained an order that prohibits Trump from attacking potential witnesses, jurors, court staff, and relatives of Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

As PBS reported, prosecutors on Monday singled out Truth Social posts that called Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels — both key prosecution witnesses —“two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!” Prosecutors are asking Merchan to not only fine the former president but order him to take down the posts.

“The defendant has demonstrated his willingness to flout the order. He’s attacked witnesses in the case,” said prosecutor Christopher Conroy, who filed the official motion. While he read the posts, reporters with CNN observed Trump leaning forward with his elbows on the table.

Trump's lawyers argued that the posts did not violate the gag order, as they were responses to the witnesses' own statements. "It’s not as if [former] President Trump is going off and targeting individuals," argued Trump attorney Todd Blanche. "He’s responding to salacious repeated attacks by these witnesses."

Merchan will hold a hearing next Tuesday on whether or not to sanction Trump for the posts on his social network. Trump's attorneys have until Friday to file opposing arguments.

“These are trauma tourists”: Christy Carlson Romano rejects “Quiet on Set” documentarians

A former Disney Channel star has spoken out to share why she won't be watching Investigation Discovery's bombshell, "Quiet on Set," a docuseries that airs allegations of systemic abuse at kid's network, Nickelodeon. 

Christy Carlson Romano, known for lending her voice to the titular role on "Kim Possible" and starring alongside Shia LaBeouf in "Even Stevens," acknowledged on this week's podcast episode of "Mayim Bialik's Breakdown" about being approached by ID to appear in a documentary about children's television. "I've chosen not to speak about this with anybody, including ID, who originally came to me looking to see if I'd be interested in a doc like this," Romano said. "I don't know if it was this doc ['Quiet on Set']. But I was approached when I first started advocating three years ago for my own YouTube channel with my own experiences that I did in different and separate episodes, so to speak. I started to be approached by many reality-show-type producers, and they were like, 'Hey, how do we do this?' and I would combat them with saying, 'Hey, guys, the only way we would do this is if we talk about how do we fix it?'

"I felt like there's no hope being inserted into the narrative," Romano continued. "These are people who don't belong to our community. These are outsiders. . . . These are trauma tourists."

Speaking about "Quiet on Set" and her decision to not watch the series, Romano said, "I think that it's extremely triggering. I've made a choice for several reasons to opt out of watching that imagery. I know a lot of the details, I know a lot of the folks involved."

Angel Reese is a top pick for the WNBA draft. Why has she received so much hate?

Women's basketball has never been more popular, which is great for the sport, but comes with the seemingly inevitable downside of its players receiving more scrutiny as fans grow increasingly invested. Such has been the case for Angel Reese, Louisiana State University's power forward who — along with University of Iowa point guard Caitlin Clark — is predicted to be top picks in Monday night's WNBA draft

The 21-year-old star player is at the center of a maelstrom of hate and internet trolling that began last year. When Reese led her team to a national championship against Clark, an interaction that some characterized as "trash-talking" went viral, prompting attacks from basketball fans, commentators and even sports journalists. 

During a post-game press conference last week following LSU's loss to Iowa in a highly-anticipated rematch, Reese showed vulnerability and cried, opening up about the exchange with Clark and telling reporters that she's "been through so much." 

"I’ve seen so much," she continued. I’ve been attacked so many times, death threats. I’ve been sexualized. I’ve been threatened … I’ve been so many things, and I’ve stood strong every single time.”

So why was the leader of 2023's national championship team, an All-American player and this year's Southern Conference Player of the Year, a target of unyielding hate, sexualization and racism? Here's the breakdown. 

Last year's championship game

2023's NCAA women’s basketball final game ended with LSU snagging the win with a score of 102 points to Iowa's 85. During the game, Reese taunted Clark by waving her hands in front of her own face, a nod to the "you can't see me" gesture created by rapper Tony Yayo and then popularized by WWE star John Cena. 

Both Clark and Reese used the gesture during last year's March Madness. Clark waved a hand in front of her face when Iowa beat Louisville, allowing them to enter the Final Four. Clark, who is white, was not criticized by fans and commentators, though. She actually received a nod from Cena himself on social media. Cena congratulated Clark for a historic win and said, "Even if they could see you…they couldn’t guard you!"

However, the same sentiment was not shared when Reese, who is Black, made the gesture. Reese also pointed to her ring finger in front of Clark to insinuate that she and LSU would be taking home the championship, which they did. This gesture is one male basketball stars, including Golden State Warriors guard Stephen Curry, have done in championship games. 

The fallout

The response to Reese's gesture was uncontrollable and devolved into insidious racism.She was called an "a "f—king idiot" by former MSNBC journalist Keith Olbermann, while CBS Sports anchor Danny Kanell called the move "classless."

The Los Angeles Times ran a story in which columnist Ben Bolch referred to LSU players as “dirty debutantes” and “villains.” The racist language was later edited from the article and the LA Times said that the story "did not meet its standards," NPR reported.

Even First Lady Jill Biden showed some favoritism to Iowa after LSU's win. In a statement, Biden said, "I know we'll have the champions come to the White House, we always do, so we hope LSU will come. But, you know, I'm going to tell Joe I think Iowa should come too, because they played such a good game."

As the online hate continued to spiral, AI-generated, deepfake pornography featuring the player began to appear online. Reese took to X to address the photos saying, "Creating fake AI pictures of me is crazy and weird AF."

 

Reese's response and support from teammates 

Last year, immediately after the interaction, Reese told ESPN that she was waiting to do the gesture. "Caitlin Clark is a hell of a player for sure, but I don't take disrespect lightly," she said.

Reese insituated that Clark had disrespected members of her team and South Carolina players. "I wanted to pick her pocket," Reese continued. "But I had a moment at the end of the game. . . I was just in my bag, in my moment."

Following the win, Reese further discussed the interaction on social media. 

"I don't fit in the box that you all want me to be in," Reese wrote. "I'm too hood, I'm too ghetto. You told me that all year. But when other people do it, y'all don't say nothing. So this is for the girls that look like me, that want to speak up on what they believe in. It's unapologetically you. It was bigger than me tonight."

Clark said that she had "no idea" that Reese was taunting her. She was "just trying to get to the handshake line and shake hands and be grateful that my team was in that position."

This year, LSU was knocked out of the March Madness competition by Iowa, in a tense game that ESPN said drew in an audience of 12.3 million views making it the “most-watched college basketball game EVER on ESPN platforms.” 

In a post-game conference, NBC News reported that Reese shared how the racism, sexism and sexualization in the past year had affected her. "All this has happened since I won the national championship," Reese said. And it sucks, but I still wouldn’t change anything, and I would still sit here and say I’m unapologetically me. I’m going to always leave that mark and be who I am and stand on that.”

We need your help to stay independent

Flau’jae Johnson, one of Reese's teammates, said: "I know the real Angel Reese, and the person I see every day is a strong person, is a caring, loving person. But the crown she wears is heavy.”

Fellow teammate Hailey Van Lith also said racism was the reason for the harsh and unrelenting criticism at Reese.“People speak hate into her life," Van Lith said. "I’ve never seen people wish bad things on someone as much as her, and it does not affect her. She comes to practice every day. She lives her life every day."

Van Lith continued, "She lives how she wants to live, and she don’t let nobody change that. That’s the key to life right there. Y’all do not get to her. Let me say it again. Y’all do not get to Angel Reese. So you might want to throw the towel in because you’re wasting your energy.”

“His mouth kept going slack”: Trump appeared to doze off during his first Manhattan court appearance

Donald Trump began his day with multiple posts on Truth Social blasting all the various people he accuses of unfairly persecuting him. The former president appeared to be less energetic as a criminal trial began in Manhattan, however, fading in and out of consciousness while inside the courtroom, The New York Times reported.

"Well, Jake, he appeared to be asleep," the Times' Maggie Haberman said in an interview Monday afternoon with CNN's Jake Tapper. "Routinely his head would fall down," Haberman continued. "He didn't pay attention to a note that this lawyer, Todd Blanche, passed him. His jaw kept falling on his chest and his mouth kept going slack."

"Sometimes people fall asleep during court proceedings, but it's notable, given the intensity of this morning," Haberman added.

At other times, Trump was more animated, whispering to his legal team and reacting to the proceedings with scornful expressions. When Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump's hush money trial, warned Trump that he could be thrown in jail for disrupting the trial, the Republican candidate signaled that he understood.

This isn't the first time Trump might have dozed off during a trial, Haberman told Tapper. "There were other moments in other trials like in the E. Jean Carroll trial, which was around the corner in January, when he appeared very still and seemed he might be sleeping but then he would move," she said.

New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 felony counts in connection to the falsification of business records to conceal $130,000 in hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, a payment made to buy her silence ahead of the 2016 election. Several issues are being dealt with as the trial begins, including routine procedures like jury selection, as well as whether or not Trump should be punished for violating a gag order with his angry Truth Social posts.

 

 

 

Trump is on trial in that NYC courtroom — and so is Judge Juan Merchan

With jury selection now underway in People of the State of New York v. Donald Trump, the skill, wisdom, decisiveness and patience of the trial judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, are on trial along with defendant Trump. 

Here are two immediate ways the judge will be tested: the questions of 1) who will truly be the boss in the courtroom; and 2) whether Trump will find a juror willing to vote to acquit him no matter how strong the evidence is regarding his attempted election interference.

As to the first question, trials often involve lawyers battling with judges for control of the courtroom. A trial lawyer wants the jury looking to him or her as the one in charge, the one to rely upon.

This case is different. The war will be between the judge and Donald Trump. From the get-go, the former president will probe for weakness. He wants the jury looking at him.

We can expect an audible running commentary from Trump, all day every day. (If he doesn't keep dozing off.) You can easily imagine the types of things he’ll say with the jury pool present. 

“Witch hunt!”

“I'm only on trial because a Democrat prosecutor wants me off the campaign trail.” 

“None of us should be here today.”

“You can see this judge is a Trump-hater. His daughter works for Democrats, and so does he.”

These attacks on the court and the process will escalate until they are stopped. Judge Merchan has a plan, rest assured. He understands that Trump will test him, hoping to bait him into overreaction. 

Trump figures he wins either way — judicial inaction allows him to send his messages to the jury. Being treated firmly allows him to keep posturing as a victim for his voters. The court is between the rock of wielding firm control and the hard place of seeking to mute Trump without amplifying his claims of martyrdom.

Like any good lawyer, Merchan must patiently build his case. He’ll start with warnings. When they fail, he must gradually ratchet up the consequences. 

Journalists will eagerly report every one of Trump’s violations of courtroom decorum. Eventually, the sensible majority of Americans will understand that Merchan has no choice but to increase sanctions to avoid a mockery of justice.

Merchan can levy financial fines against Trump, and even against his lawyers if, after being warned, they fail to quiet him. Such fines can continue to multiply until they hurt. 

If Trump continues to misbehave, Merchan can threaten to remove him from the courtroom to a separate room with a video feed and one of his lawyers present. This judge is highly experienced, and will understand that for justice to occur, the jury must see that he, not Trump, is master of the courtroom.

We need your help to stay independent

The second way in which Merchan’s dexterity will be tried involves jury selection. As trial lawyers know, it can be make-or-break between winning and losing. For Trump, the best route to winning is getting a clandestine Trump cultist placed on the jury, ready and willing to hang it. 

The legal test to qualify for jury duty is whether one can make fair-minded determinations based solely on the evidence presented in court. The judge’s task will be to separate impartial-juror wheat from sleeper-cell chaff. 

The process involves potential jurors being sworn, with the judge and the lawyers exploring what they know of the case and whether they’re willing to put aside preconceptions, opinions and bias. (Meanwhile, lawyers use leading questions to educate the entire jury pool  about their theory of the case.)

Judge Merchan has a plan, rest assured. He understands that Trump will test him, hoping to bait him into overreaction. 

Jurors will answer a questionnaire, asking questions ranging from "Have you ever served on a jury before?" to "Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump . . . or for any anti-Trump group or organization?" The judge will excuse citizens who say they cannot be fair, or if, despite asserting fairness, their answers strongly imply the opposite. 

For prospective jurors who remain, it’s the in-person follow-up questions that determine who is empaneled and who will be excused. The parties each get 10 “peremptory challenges” – the right to dismiss potential jurors just because lawyers’ experience and antennae tell them that the person might be leaning against their side. 

Those “peremptory challenges” can be spent quickly. Before using them, lawyers often ask the judge to excuse a prospective juror “for cause” when they sense someone leans the other way, asserting that the juror cannot be impartial. During this process, Merchan will face difficult decisions.

Here's how it might play out — hypothetically, of course:

Prosecutor to potential juror: What do you know about the case?

Juror: Didn’t Trump have some kind of affair?

Prosecutor: Maybe. What would you think about that?

Juror: No big deal.

Prosecutor: Even if he’s a candidate for president?

Juror: Doesn’t matter.

Prosecutor: What if, just before the election, he paid off his sex partner to keep her quiet?

Juror: That’s not illegal, is it?

Prosecutor: What if he won the election, and then falsified his business records to keep the payments secret?

Juror: Doesn’t sound too serious. But if the judge told me that’s a crime, I’d try to follow the law. . .  I mean, yeah, I'd follow the law.

To save a peremptory challenge, the prosecutor might ask the judge to remove that potential juror for expressing doubt about his ability to follow the law. And from the prosecution’s perspective, the juror seemed disinclined to credit the seriousness of Trump falsifying business records to cover up his 2016 election interference. 


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


At the same time, Merchan knows that if he excuses that juror and then Trump is convicted, Trump could later claim on appeal that his right to a fair trial had been prejudiced. But the judge also knows that trial courts have broad discretion in such matters and their decisions are rarely reversed.

Now take this possible scenario:

Trump lawyer: Juror no. 3, you said you watch MSNBC, and follow Laurence Tribe on Twitter, correct?

Juror: Yes, mainly to find out what liberals are saying. I judge for myself.

Lawyer: Can you be fair to my client?

Juror: Absolutely.

Lawyer: How can we be assured of that?

Juror: I watch "Law and Order.”

Trump’s lawyer asks the judge to excuse the person on grounds of political bias. The prosecutor disagrees: The juror said she could be fair. The judge buys that; afterall, jury selection has gone on for days on end, and he wants to start the trial. If Trump’s lawyers have a peremptory challenge left, of course, they can strike that juror anyway.

Judge Merchan has tried hundreds of cases and is sure-footed. But he’ll definitely earn his salary this time. 

Ina Garten said she was up until 3 a.m. to buy tickets to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in Paris

In conversation with People about the upcoming Oct. 1 release of her memoir “Be Ready When the Luck Happens,” Ina Garten revealed that she’s a devoted Swiftie. So much so that the “Barefoot Contessa” star sacrificed sleep to purchase tickets to see Swift in concert next month.

“I'm going to be in Paris in May, and I thought, ‘Wait a minute, isn't she going to be in Paris in May?’” Garten said. “At 3:00 in the morning, I was online, seeing if I could get two good tickets, and I did.” She confirmed that she is indeed going to go see the Eras Tour in Paris, not with her husband Jeffrey Garten, but instead with “a very good friend” who is local to the area.

“Now I'm trying to figure out what I can wear that's sparkly,” Garten continued, speaking about her outfit for the concert.

Garten said she is “totally a fan” of Swift and first met the pop star a decade ago. “I met Taylor actually when Food Network Magazine asked rock stars 10 years ago who their favorite Food Network people were, and Taylor chose me,” Garten recalled. “So she came for a photo shoot for the day, and then we saw each other for a while afterwards. She invited me to lunch and she came back for lunch one day in East Hampton. I just so admire her.”

Garten also saw Swift during her 1989 world tour in support of the singer’s studio album of the same name: “She invited us to come to the party afterwards, and we just had an incredibly wonderful time.”

Swift is also a huge fan of Garten. In October 2022, Swift celebrated the 20th anniversary of Garten's “Barefoot Contessa.” Swift hailed Garten as a “magnificent woman” who “changed my perspective on cooking and reframed it as something relaxing.”

“Manhunt” explores the “what if” aspect of Lincoln’s assassination that impacts the present

While growing up, "Manhunt" creator Monica Beletsky wondered why the neighborhoods in her hometown of Philadelphia were so different from each other despite being so geographically close, as in no more than five- or 10-minutes' distance between them. Most big cities are quilted this way, with working class squares abutting middle- and upper-class areas.

"I think it's just something I always had in the back of my mind. 'Why is it like this?'" Beletsky asked in a recent Zoom interview. "I knew it couldn't be because of people's innate potential. It had to be something more structural."

ABC's landmark airing of "Roots" piqued that nagging feeling, too. A rerun that Beletsky watched when she was younger helped her begin to piece together how her father might walk differently through the world than either she or her mother did.

America's shared history is comprised of countless personal histories, with some puzzle pieces hidden or reshaped along the way. Some lost parts would remain forgotten if it were up to far too many people. Those require some rebuilding through fabrication along with the will to fill in the gaps left unquestioned in often told stories.

This was Beletsky's opportunity and challenge with "Manhunt," the Apple TV+ thriller exploring the search to bring John Wilkes Booth (Anthony Boyle) to justice after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln (Hamish Linklater).

Instead of recreating the nearly two-week cavalry chase meticulously described in James L. Swanson's bestseller, "Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer," Beletsky created an action thriller that cast Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Tobias Menzies) as both the lead investigator and a man struggling to maintain his close friend's political legacy.

ManhuntLili Taylor as Mary Todd Lincoln and Hamish Linklater as Abraham Lincoln in "Manhunt" (AppleTV+)Beletsky's work in TV, including "Friday Night Lights" and "Fargo," enabled her to see the potential in introducing voices to the story that aren't typically represented yet help explain the consequences of what she described as America's "Sliding Doors" moment.

"It's this huge 'what if' for our culture," she said. "If he had lived, what would our society be like today?"

"Manhunt" dispenses with the details of what most Americans learn as part of a basic history class, but here is a refresher nevertheless: Almost 159 years ago to this day, on April 14, 1865, Lincoln and his wife Mary attended a production of "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theatre in Washington.

"It's this huge 'what if' for our culture. If he had lived, what would our society be like today?"

As the Lincolns watched the onstage action, Booth quietly snuck into their booth and shot the president in the back of the head. Lincoln died a few hours later. Booth escaped, setting off a 12-day pursuit that ended with him trapped inside a Virginia tobacco farmer's barn in Virginia, where he was fatally shot.

The drama's penultimate episode, "Useless," depicts that ending in tandem with a precipitous decline in Stanton's health as the stress of the hunt becomes too much for a man with chronic asthma to pit himself against. The hour's title is drawn from Booth's reported last words: "Useless, useless, useless," he is said to have mumbled while staring at his hands.

Building a narrative connection between that moment and Booth's motivation afforded Beletsky to compose a morality-defining monologue for Boyle to deliver, one which also captures his arrogance and smallness.

That much is to be expected from any historic dramatization. Beletsky, however, was acutely aware of how closely this point in American history is observed — and to no small extent mythologized and sanitized.

"I was looking to do something that went beyond what the show is on its surface."

"Manhunt" lingered in development hell for around 20 years before she took on the project. At one point, Harrison Ford was supposed to star in a movie adaptation of the book. From the start, Beletsky said, "I was looking to do something that went beyond what the show is on its surface."

First, she established what she wasn't going to do, which was to make Booth the protagonist. "I think that is what a lot of people tried before me," Beletsky observed, but she didn't want to glorify his white supremacy.

Reading further into history made Stanton a better choice as a hero. Beletsky realized that in the hours between the assassination and Johnson being sworn in the next day, the weight of everything fell on Stanton's shoulders, from establishing the investigation's logistics to protecting Lincoln's political mandate. "He was a de facto president for about 12 hours, and that really fascinated me as a dramatic situation," she said, along with the chance to treat a broadly known historic event as a pre-forensics crime thriller.

"This is a true crime take on American history, and I think that is what makes it accessible for a big studio to take on a project like this," Beletsky added. "I could bring an audience that wasn't just there to learn the history but is there because they like a murder mystery. They just happen to be seeing a show that takes place in the 19th century."

We need your help to stay independent

Most people know the high-level details about Lincoln's assassination. Beletsky, herself, admitted that she wasn't aware until she started working on the story that Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered five days before Booth assassinated Lincoln. "I thought of Lincoln as a two-term president, but the inauguration was like a month before the assassination," she said. "We basically lost his second term, and we lost the mandate that he had by winning the war."

"It was just a huge loss for our society and for our culture," Beletsky continued. "Part of what I wanted to look at and explore with the show is: How did that affect our democracy, and how did that affect our society and our culture today?"

"It wasn't like Black history was something that I had to work very hard to intertwine in the story. It's a part of American history, and it's a part of the story."

The answer is, in a word, Reconstruction — rather, the fact that Lincoln's death ensured it would fail before its full promise would be realized. But that wasn't a story Beletsky could easily sell to a studio; besides Henry Louis Gates, Jr. had already spearheaded a concise PBS documentary series a few years ago.

Instead, Beletsky worked backward from the trial transcripts of Booth's collaborators — another surprise for her, she said — and, in doing so, found testimony from free or former enslaved Black people that she used to create characters who could speak for them.

"There were about 10 witnesses for the prosecution in the trial who, until now, have really been left in the shadows," Beletsky recalled. "It was a thrill for me to find them. It wasn't like Black history was something that I had to work very hard to intertwine in the story. It's a part of American history, and it's a part of the story."

ManhuntLovie Simone in "Manhunt" (Apple TV+)One major character in "Manhunt," Mary Simms (Lovie Simone), is based on a real person who once worked for Samuel Mudd (Matt Walsh), the physician who treated Booth's broken leg while he was on the run. Beletsky sustained critiques for presenting Mary as having been present when Booth was at Mudd's when, according to documented history, she hadn't worked for Mudd for some time.

That is the danger in dealing with a part of history that has "a lot of super fans who love a lot of attention to detail and have that detail memorized," Beletsky admitted. "But all the experts I've talked to are so excited about it because they understand what I'm doing isn't a Ken Burns documentary."

Besides, Beletsky pointed out, a pair of Black girls named Louise and Letty, who were around 11 and 13 years old, were working for Mudd at the time of Lincoln's assassination. Since they didn't testify at the trial, Beletsky employed dramatic license to fill in the blanks through Mary, through whom she also dramatized what it was like for a newly freed person to have received a land grant from the government, only to have the country's new president rescind it to pacify white southern landowners.


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


"We know more about Booth's horse than we know about Mary Simms in the historic record," Beletsky observed. "So that sort of tells you everything right there."

She added: "That's kind of why it's hard to hear sometimes when some of the feedback on the show is 'Oh, I wish she had made it as a movie,' or 'I wish she had made it as one guy chasing another guy' . . . Because it feels like those people are saying, 'Well, we wish that you left these other people out.' And part of my whole point in telling this is that I think stories after the Civil War are few and far between."

New episodes of "Manhunt" stream Fridays on Apple TV+.

Judge warns Trump: Show up to Manhattan hush money trial each day or “there will be an arrest”

Former President Donald Trump can continue showing up for his criminal trial in Manhattan — or, potentially, go straight to jail.

That was Judge Juan Merchan's warning to the Republican candidate on Monday, NBC News reported, as jury selection continues in a case where prosecutors allege Trump conspired to falsify business records, covering up a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

As NBC News noted, the warning is a standard reminder for criminal defendants. But it is the first time the warning has ever been delivered to a former U.S. president.

Katie Phang, a legal analyst with MSNBC, reported that Trump acknowledged his right and responsibility to attend the trial in an exchange with Merchan (who he has repeatedly attacked on Truth Social). Trump also promised to behave himself.

"If you disrupt the proceedings, you can be excluded from the courtroom and committed to jail based on your conduct and the trial will continue on in your absence," Merchan told Trump, per a transcript that Phang posted on X. "If you do not show up, there will be an arrest," the judge continued. "Do you understand?"

"I do," Trump responded.

A new, viral study linked intermittent fasting to cardiac death — but don’t worry just yet

In 2021, Harvard Medical School published a bulletin with the title, “Intermittent fasting: The positive news continues.” According to the authors, in a mounting number of studies conducted on rats, intermittent fasting — a type of time-restricted diet which involves only eating during a set number of hours each day — seems to improve the rodents’ health. They lose weight, their blood sugar improves, their cholesterol drops. 

Humans understandably struggle considerably more with consistent fasting than a subset of the rat population whose diet is entirely overseen by caretakers in lab coats, but the bulletin pointed to research that suggests “the circadian rhythm fasting approach, where meals are restricted to an eight to 10-hour period of the daytime, is effective” for many people, according to metabolic expert Dr. Deborah Wexler, Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Diabetes Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School. 

Especially for people at risk for diabetes, there is some solid scientific evidence that suggests circadian rhythm fasting, when combined with a healthy diet, can be an effective approach to weight loss and can help improve several cardiometabolic health measures, such as blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol levels (though scientists are still debating whether it actually provides different outcomes than simply reducing one’s calorie intake). 

But then, at a late March American Heart Association conference, a new poster was presented that actually linked intermittent fasting to cardiac death. 

Soon thereafter, the organization published a release about the research with the headline “8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death,” which quickly garnered a lot of attention online. As the study’s virality increased, and as mainstream outlets began running headlines of their own like “Intermittent fasting may raise the risk of cardiovascular death” and “Shocking dangers of intermittent fasting diet revealed,” the nuance of its actual contents was flattened, including some crucial limitations of the study — which is to say, adherents of the diet shouldn’t worry just yet. 

What is intermittent fasting and why is it so popular? 

Fasting to lose weight isn’t a novel approach, but the idea of regimented, intermittent fasting first gained mainstream popularity after the 2012 broadcast of “Eat Fast, Live Longer,” a television documentary by BBC broadcast journalist Dr. Michael Mosley. This was quickly followed by the best-selling books “The 5:2 Diet,” which recommends patients eat normally five days a week and in a more intense calorie-deficit the other two days, and “The Obesity Code,” which has the subtitle: “Why Intermittent Fasting Is the Key to Controlling Your Weight.” 

“IF makes intuitive sense,” the Harvard Health bulletin read. “The food we eat is broken down by enzymes in our gut and eventually ends up as molecules in our bloodstream. Carbohydrates, particularly sugars and refined grains (think white flours and rice), are quickly broken down into sugar, which our cells use for energy. If our cells don't use it all, we store it in our fat cells as, well, fat. But sugar can only enter our cells with insulin, a hormone made in the pancreas. Insulin brings sugar into the fat cells and keeps it there.”

We need your help to stay independent

It continues: “Between meals, as long as we don't snack, our insulin levels will go down and our fat cells can then release their stored sugar, to be used as energy. We lose weight if we let our insulin levels go down. The entire idea of IF is to allow the insulin levels to go down far enough and for long enough that we burn off our fat.” 

However, Victor Wenze Zhong, one of the senior authors of the intermittent fasting study presented at the American Heart Association conference, remarked that the “long-term effects of time-restricted eating, including risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular disease, are unknown.”

“We were surprised to find that people who followed an 8-hour, time-restricted eating schedule were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease,” Zhong said in a statement to the American Heart Association. “Even though this type of diet has been popular due to its potential short-term benefits, our research clearly shows that, compared with a typical eating time range of 12 [to]16 hours per day, a shorter eating duration was not associated with living longer.”

How was the study conducted? 

In “Association of 8-Hour Time-Restricted Eating with All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality,” researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Northwestern University, Harvard University, University of Massachusetts Lowell and Wuhan University began with a hypothesis: Eight-hour time-restricted eating, or consuming one’s daily calories across a span of just eight hours, would be associated with a lower-risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality. 

To assess the long-term health impact of intermittent fasting, researchers reviewed information about dietary patterns for participants in the annual 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) in comparison to data about people who died in the U.S., from 2003 through December 2019, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index database.

What were the findings? 

The analysis found a few key pieces of information that seemed antithetical to prior research about intermittent fasting. According to their data, people who followed a pattern of eating all their food across less than eight hours per day had a 91% higher risk of death due to cardiovascular disease. The increased risk of cardiovascular death was also seen in people living with heart disease or cancer and, among people with existing cardiovascular disease, an eating duration of no less than 8 but less than 10 hours per day “was also associated with a 66% higher risk of death from heart disease or stroke.”

“We were surprised to find that people who followed an 8-hour, time-restricted eating schedule were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease,” Zhong told the American Heart Association. “Even though this type of diet has been popular due to its potential short-term benefits, our research clearly shows that, compared with a typical eating time range of 12 [to]16 hours per day, a shorter eating duration was not associated with living longer.” 

In the end, the researchers concluded that time-restricted eating did not reduce the overall risk of death from any cause.

What are the study’s limitations? 

The study had some key limitations, which weren’t really reflected in the headlines about its bombastic findings, namely that this analysis has yet to be peer reviewed or published in full (and, as pointed out by the British Heart Federation, includes different numbers in the study summary and press release). The observational study also relied on self-reported dietary information, which may include errors or distortions, and it’s unclear whether the subjects continued time-restricted eating beyond the two days they reported. 

Additionally, factors that may play a role in health — such as activity level, tobacco and drug use, or socioeconomic status — were not included in the analysis. 

“Overall, this study suggests that time-restricted eating may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects. When the study is presented in its entirety, it will be interesting and helpful to learn more of the details of the analysis,” Dr. Christopher D. Gardner, the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, told the American Heart Association. 

"It needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake."

“One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake,” he said.

“It will also be critical to see a comparison of demographics and baseline characteristics across the groups that were classified into the different time-restricted eating windows – for example, was the group with the shortest time-restricted eating window unique compared to people who followed other eating schedules, in terms of weight, stress, traditional cardiometabolic risk factors or other factors associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes?” Gardner asked. “This additional information will help to better understand the potential independent contribution of the short time-restricted eating pattern reported in this interesting and provocative abstract.”

What now? 

The researchers will continue working on their full analysis to prepare it for peer-review. In the meantime, senior researcher Victor Wenze Zhong has a message for patients concerned about their health. 

“It’s crucial for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the association between an 8-hour eating window and increased risk of cardiovascular death,” Zhong told the American Heart Association. “Our study’s findings encourage a more cautious, personalized approach to dietary recommendations, ensuring that they are aligned with an individual’s health status and the latest scientific evidence.” 

He continued: “Although the study identified an association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death, this does not mean that time-restricted eating caused cardiovascular death.”

 

Judge in Trump’s Manhattan hush-money case declines to recuse himself over daughter’s political work

Donald Trump's lawyers last week filed a request for the judge presiding over his hush-money case to recuse himself due to his daughter's political work. On Monday, Judge Juan Merchan declined.

“There is no agenda here,”  Merchan said Monday, The New York Times reported. “We want to follow the law. We want justice to be done.”

Trump's lawyers had sought a recusal on the grounds that Merchan's daughter works for a Authentic, a firm that has done business with Democrats, including the Biden campaign.

“Authentic and Your Honor’s daughter are making money by supporting the creation and dissemination of campaign advocacy for President Trump’s opponent, political rivals, and the Democrat party,” Trump's lawyers argued in the rejected motion, as The Hill noted. A similar motion was rejected last year, part of a months-long campaign to delay Trump's election interference trial.

Merchan said Monday that the latest Trump motion relied on “a series of references, innuendos and unsupported speculation.” His comment came after a meeting with the state ethics advisory committee, which determined that his daughter’s employment and political donations did not provide adequate reason for him to step aside.

Merchan's decision to stay on the case is a tough if predictable blow to the Trump team, which had been pursuing a strategy to throw as much sand in the gears as possible. With jury selection beginning Monday, that strategy can be said to have failed.

Over the weekend, Trump fumed about his predicament on Truth Social, accusing "a totally conflicted Judge, a Corrupt Prosecutor, a Legal System in CHAOS, a State being overrun by violent crime and corruption, and crooked Joe Biden's henchmen" of rigging the system against him.

The prosecuting team, led by Manhattan District Attorney Adam Bragg, has filed 34 felony charges against Trump, accusing him of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, buying her silence on the eve of the 2016 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

“Every time I buy more, the price drops more”: Trump supporters grapple with Truth Social losses

Investors in Truth Social, the Donald Trump-backed social media platform, watched their share prices plunge from $66 in its public debut in March to just $32 last Friday. But as The Washington Post reported, for Trump's supporters turned investors, the bottom line isn't the point. Their decision to put money in the platform is an exercise in loyalty to Trump, who they not only see as a political leader but also an astute businessman who can turn things around.

One of the investors, Jerry Dean McLain, bought up hundreds of shares collectively worth $25,000. In the last two weeks, he's lost half of that money. But he is putting his trust in Trump. “I know good and well it’s in Trump’s hands, and he’s got plans,” he said. “I have no doubt it’s going to explode sometime.”

Many users of Truth Social, taking the former president's lead, migrated there from Twitter, now X, after the former president accused the platform of silencing him. Being an investor signals additional commitment to Trump and his brand.

"Truth Social has created a free-speech beachhead against Big Tech for a fraction of the start-up and operating costs and the legacy tech corporations incurred, while having no debt, more than $200 million in the bank, and the support of hundreds and thousands of retail investors who fervently believe in your mission," said Shannon Devine, a spokeswoman for Trump Media & Technology Group, an umbrella corporation that controls Truth Social.

Their loyalty may be put to the test as Truth Social continues to hemorrhage money. The company lost $3.5 million since its public debut last month. Trump Media has largely served to enrich its chief executives with generous salaries and bonuses worth millions, even as it lost $58 million last year after generating just $4 million in revenue. And even if Truth Social can claim a devoted following, that following remains tiny compared to the traffic on other platforms.

For now, some investors, like Florida interior designer Toff Schlanger, are willing to dismiss their loses as a product of "stock manipulation" from an "organized effort" to discredit the company by an anti-Trump deep state. At the same time, others have acknowledged the financial losses on Truth Social itself, with one user admonishing Trump: "Come on DJT, every time I buy more, the price drops more."