Laughing at a diminished Donald Trump won’t diminish the MAGA threat

There is nothing funny about Donald Trump and the extreme danger to the country and world he represents. To laugh now is a dangerous distraction and waste of energy in what will be a long battle to save America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy.

Humor is, of course, subjective. There is much that one could potentially make fun of about Trump the man. His physical appearance belies his claims to godlike status. His extreme ego is a cover for his equally, if not more, extreme fragility. Trump lacks intellectual curiosity and does not read yet believes himself to be a genius who is an expert on all things. There are many other aspects of Donald Trump that one could reasonably consider to be funny.

Trump also possesses great comedic timing, is very entertaining, and in another reality would have been an excellent late-night variety show host. In all, there is something magnetic and compelling about Donald Trump. His detractors are loathe to admit this because they would then have to admit that they too are oddly compelled towards him even as they detest him. Evil can be very charismatic.

The laughter and humor, if at all, should stop here.

Why do so many people continue to insist on laughing in the face of Trump?

In his role as the leader of a tens of millions strong political cult Trump is now claiming to be a messiah, and type of prophet chosen by god and “Jesus Christ” to be the country’s first de facto dictator. Public opinion polls show that more than a quarter of Americans actually believe that Trump has been chosen by God to be the leader of the country.

Trump and his lawyers are continuing to argue that he is somehow above the law, and while president (and if he returns to power) will have king-like powers to order his enemies murdered or to accept money for political and other nakedly corrupt acts.

On Tuesday, a Federal appeals court rejected such claims as a violation of the Constitution and basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. The judges' ruling left no room for evasion or interpretation, using clear and strong language such as:

"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government"….

“[F]ormer President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches"….

"We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter…”

Immunity ruling boosts chances of a speedy Jan. 6 trial for Trump

Trump is channeling Hitler and the Nazis with claims about America’s blood being poisoned by non-white human “vermin” and “Democrats” and other "traitors" from “within." Instead of being repelled by such energy, Republicans and other Trump supporters increasingly embrace such hatred.

There is nothing funny about any of this.

When and if Trump or his successors take power in 2025 and beyond, the civil and human rights, freedom, dignity, and safety of entire groups of people deemed to be “the enemy”, “not real Americans”, “disloyal”, or otherwise targeted by the Trump regime and the MAGA movement will be imperiled.

To be able to dismiss these fears is to enjoy a certain type of privilege where one imagines oneself or their group as immune and safe from the type of neofascist and other authoritarian assaults that Trump and his movement are promising (and have been enacting). Such safety is an illusion. At the New Republic, David Rothkopf explains why Trump and American neofascism are an existential, almost unprecedented threat to the country and its future:

For the past nearly 250 years, when the United States faced a grave threat, our people rose up and sacrificed whatever it took to defeat it. From the American Revolution to the Civil War to the menace of the Nazis or Soviet communism, we were willing to do what we had to do to defend what we valued most about this country.

Today, as it did once before, in 1861, the greatest peril confronting the country comes from within. Then as now, it was a threat that sought to divide America, and it was a threat founded in racism, contempt for our Constitution, and a twisted sense of what was worth preserving from our past.

The new threat, of course, is led by Donald Trump.

In recent days, we have watched as the vast majority of leaders of the Republican Party, including many of Trump’s former foes, from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz, have lined up behind the twice-impeached, frequently indicted former president. Nikki Haley can stay in the race as long as she likes, but the primaries are now effectively over. The worst president in our history is, arguably, stronger within the leadership ranks of the Republican Party than he has ever been. He is now the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history. As a consequence, the great question before the rest of us is whether enough of us are ready to do whatever is necessary to defeat this threat as we have all those that have come before.

Sadly, there is reason to believe that this time we may not meet the challenge. Right now, Donald Trump is one of two people who could be our next president. The race, at the moment, between him and President Joe Biden, is too close to call.

That it seems a choice at all is what should mortify us. It is a sign that many in our society are blind to reality. And it is a sign that the rest of us, who understand both reality and what is at stake, have not yet done our job communicating to one another, to our friends, family, and communities what must be done to defend our country and our system.

None of this is funny.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

In his recent essay “Trump’s Brownshirts”, Robert Reich warns that Trump and his movement are channeling some of the darkest chapters in human history:

During the German presidential elections in March and April 1932, Brownshirts assembled Alarmbereitschaften, or “emergency squads,” to intimidate voters.

On the night of the Reichstag election of July 31, 1932, Brownshirts launched a wave of violence across much of northern and eastern Germany with murders and attempted murders of local officials and communist politicians and arson attacks on local Social Democratic headquarters and the offices of liberal newspapers.

When five Brownshirts were sentenced to death for the murders, Hitler called the sentences “a most outrageous blood verdict” and publicly promised the prisoners that “from now on, your freedom is a question of honor for all of us, and to fight against the government which made possible such a verdict is our duty.”

A chilling echo of these words can be found in one of Trump’s recent speeches in Iowa, in which he claimed that his supporters had acted “peacefully and patriotically” on January 6, 2021. “Some people call them prisoners,” he said of those who were serving sentences for their violence. “I call them hostages. Release the J6 hostages, Joe [Biden]. Release them, Joe. You can do it real easy, Joe.”

As I’ve said before, America is not the Weimar Republic on the eve of 1933, and Trump is not Hitler. But it is important to understand the parallels.

That Donald Trump still has not been held accountable for encouraging the attack on the U.S. Capitol, or for provoking his followers with his blatant lie that the 2020 election was stolen, continues to galvanize an army of potentially violent Americans.

Again, none of this is funny.

In a recent essay at the New York Times, author and humorist David Kamp engaged in some critical self-reflection about the wisdom of making fun of Donald Trump in a time of such peril.

So you might think I’d revel in our current golden age of Trump mockery. When “Saturday Night Live” returns this week, we’re likely to see him incarnated by the comedian James Austin Johnson, who uncannily recreates Mr. Trump’s fragmentary locutions and deteriorating speaking voice as it whipsaws from a bellow to a gargle to a whisper.

But — no offense to the talented Mr. Johnson — I’m done laughing. We’ve reached a point where the guffawing has to stop.

By now, many of us have had a good chuckle at Mr. Trump’s ridiculousness: the talk of injecting bleach into the bloodstream, the hand gestures that make him appear to be playing an accordion. But the stakes are too high to treat him as a figure of fun — and I say this as someone whose foundational story as a professional writer involved concocting Trump jokes. We need a moratorium on making fun of Mr. Trump.

He continues:

For one thing, ridiculing Mr. Trump is no longer an effective tool against him. Like some kind of cyborg insult comic, he’s developed a knack for absorbing and redirecting the barbs hurled his way. He internalized and weaponized Spy’s tactic of using belittling epithets, propagating such nicknames as “Crooked Hillary,” “Sleepy Joe” and “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer.” He pulled a similar trick with the term “fake news,” which was popularized by Jon Stewart as a lighthearted description of “The Daily Show.” In Mr. Trump’s vindictive mind, “fake news” was reprocessed and deployed to mean media outlets and news coverage that he doesn’t like.

What’s more, in the Spy magazine era, Mr. Trump was just a local nuisance, a braggart presiding over a foundering casino-hotel empire. When he reconstituted himself as an entertainer, starring in “The Apprentice,” he began to pose a danger of a different magnitude….

I realize I run the risk, in making this case, of looking as if I’m missing the whole point of political humor in a free country. Isn’t laughter what gets us through our darkest hours? Isn’t one of the purposes of satire to shine a light on the folly of the wicked and misguided?… The difference is that Chaplin, an Englishman who made his name in America, was operating from a position of moral strength. His adopted homeland was the world’s beacon of democracy, while the guy he was sending up ran a country that had gone terribly wrong.

This time, we, the United States, are the country that runs the risk of going terribly wrong. The Hynkel-ing is coming from inside the house. So let’s treat this situation as seriously as it warrants.

Well, sure — in normal times. But not when the foundations of our democracy are under threat from a former president who wants to be a dictator on “Day 1.”

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

Kamp’s essay did not receive as much attention as I would have expected from the “the conversation” and the 24/7 news machine. In many ways this reaction is to be expected: Kamp told uncomfortable truths that are not easily dismissed.

Why do so many people continue to insist on laughing in the face of Trump, the MAGA people, and the larger neofascist movement and the collective danger it represents?

People laugh at what they don’t understand. People also laugh when they are scared or hysterical. People laugh as a psychological defense mechanism when confronted by a reality that they cannot reconcile and resolve with their expectation of what they heretofore deemed to be normal. People will laugh to keep from crying.

There are other people who laugh at and make fun of Trump and the MAGA movement and the right-wing more broadly because it is financially lucrative to do so. For members of the news media, making fun of them also feels good and is much easier than consistently telling the public about how dangerous this moment is, and that Trump, who continues to be tied with Biden in public opinion polls, has a much higher chance of winning the 2024 Election than many people want to admit.

Is there any role to be played by laughter and humor in opposing Trump and the larger fascist movement? Of course.

Strategic mockery (consistently targeting Trump's weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and perceived strengths as part of a larger plan of mobilizing against him and his movement) by the Lincoln Project and other pro-democracy organizations can potentially be very effective. It is also a reminder that a second Trump regime and a victory by the American fascists is not inevitable or permanent. President Biden and other leading Democrats and national leaders should also mock and make fun of Donald Trump. Given what is known about his personality and mind, Donald Trump in all likelihood becomes extremely unsettled and enraged when he is confronted in that way.

But laughter and mockery by themselves, and not in conjunction with the hard work and organizing and other real sacrifices that will be necessary to defeat Trump and his MAGA people and the larger Republican fascist project and movement, is at best empty and at worse enabling such forces in their plan to end American democracy.

Ultimately, the best time to laugh will be once the 2024 election is over, and Trump and the larger neofascist movement have been defeated not just on that day, but in the years and then decades ahead. The laughter will have then been earned.

And if Trump and his fascist forces and their allies “win” the 2024 Election, and he becomes America’s first dictator? Laughter will be an essential means for resisting and maintaining hope in the face of hopelessness. Many of those Americans who will be laughing out of terror when Dictator Trump takes power will wish they had not been laughing so much before when there was still a chance to stop him and his successors.

about this topic

Partial recall: Memory experts explain what’s normal forgetfulness — and when you should worry

Do you know where you left your keys? What's the name of that Oscar nominated actor — the one who's not the frontrunner? Is today Tuesday? Do you remember when you were vice president? And is the possibility that you're not sure of any of those things terrifying to you? Roughly 6 million Americans currently have dementia — a number expected to only increase over the next decade as the U.S. population ages.

And because of dementia's high hereditary connection, it means the children and grandchildren of all those individuals face an unnerving risk in our own futures as well. In a world of escalating demands, sleep deprivation and distraction, how can we aging Gen Xers and Millennials — especially those of us with a legacy of dementia in our families — distinguish between typical stress and age related forgetfulness and something more concerning? And is there anything we can do to stave it off?

Our memory records very little of our lives. So how does the brain reconcile our sense of self?

As we get older, our bodies change, and that includes the squishy stuff between our ears. The brain shrinks, blood flow to the region decreases, hormones shift, and suddenly you're struggling to recall the name of that person who got kicked out of the dorm freshman year.

"With aging in general, memory goes down," says Charan Ranganath, PhD., author of the new book "Why We Remember: Unlocking Memory's Power to Hold on to What Matters." This can make it very hard to tell the difference in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's, "where it's just barely starting to have an effect," he says.

"Chronic stress is terrible for the prefrontal cortex."

Compounding the confusion is that in our anxious world, many of us feel more scattered than ever. I am still haunted by my experience of a few months ago, when an exhausting, overworked schedule turned my ability to compete even simple tasks into a test of mettle. "You had a glimpse into what dementia feels like," Sara C. Mednick, author of "The Power of the Downstate: Recharge Your Life Using Your Body's Own Restorative Systems" had told me at the time. It felt like a nightmare.

"Chronic stress is terrible for the prefrontal cortex," says Ranganath. "Technology isn't a bad thing, but we get a lot of alerts from our phones or our watches. Every time I shift my attention and then I go back to what I was doing before, my prefrontal cortex is working just to get back up to speed on what I was doing before I got distracted. When you're constantly getting distracted like that, it uses up a lot of those attentional resources."

This can leave us feeling tired, with a harder time focusing.

"It's stressful," Ranganath says. "That will reduce your ability to focus on what's distinctive, and stay focused on what's happening."

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

In those circumstances, it's challenging to make memories, let alone summon them. Sometimes, though, we forget stuff because it literally just doesn't make a big impression in our minds.

"When we form a new memory, there's this ecosystem of other memories that we're dropping it into," Ranganath explains. "It's not just a matter of having a memory, but being able to access it the right way. If I have a desk full of cluttered yellow Post-it notes and I'm trying to find the one where I wrote my password for this email account I never use, I'm never going to find it amidst those other ones. But if I'm looking for one, and it's hot pink, it sticks out relative to everything else. In the same way, if you have a memory that is very distinctive from everything else in that memory ecosystem, it's going to be easy to find. Sometimes it happens, but other times it requires intention. Many things compete for our attention. The problem is, all those factors sap the prefrontal cortex."

How do we know, then, what falls in the range of whatever passes for "normal" forgetfulness and what's concerning?

"Occasional forgetfulness, such as misplacing keys or forgetting an appointment, is a common aspect of stress or aging," says Elvis Rosales, the clinical director at Align Recovery Centers. "These instances are usually sporadic, and do not significantly interfere with daily life. However, when forgetfulness becomes more frequent, impacts one's ability to complete everyday tasks, or is accompanied by changes in mood, behavior and personality, it may signal something more serious, such as the early stages of dementia."

"Distinguishing between normal aging and potential early signs of cognitive decline is crucial."

Rosales adds that "Especially for Gen Xers and Millennials, distinguishing between normal aging and potential early signs of cognitive decline is crucial. For those with a family history of dementia, this awareness becomes even more critical. It's well-documented that genetics play a role in the risk of developing conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. But," he says, "lifestyle choices and environmental factors also significantly impact cognitive health."

Regular exercise, a diet rich in antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids, staying mentally active through learning and problem-solving activities and ensuring consistent social engagement can all contribute to a healthier brain, Rosales advises. "Furthermore, managing stress through mindfulness practices, adequate sleep and seeking professional help when needed are pivotal in promoting overall mental well-being."

Ranganath also says that our loved ones can be our best barometers of how we're doing cognitively. "My rule of thumb would be if somebody came in complaining that their memory was getting worse, often their memory was okay," he says. "But if a relative came in telling them that their memory was getting worse, then there was something wrong. Often that's a sign, if people around are aware you're forgetting more."

He says that other potential red flags include heightened disorientation. "If you find yourself getting totally lost and disoriented, not just lost in the sense of, you can't find your way to the place, but lost in the sense that you don't even know where you are, or if you find yourself not knowing what month it is, that's a problem. If you don't remember something that you said in conversation, that's normal. If you don't remember that the conversation ever took place, that might be something to be concerned about."

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Smart self-monitoring and self-care doesn't just mean trying to stay on alert for memory loss, though. "It's also important to address the psychological impact of having a family history of dementia," says Carlos Escobar, clinical director at Real Recovery in Florida. "The knowledge of a potential increased risk can be anxiety-inducing. Seeking support through counseling or support groups can provide emotional relief and practical strategies to manage this concern healthily."

And, he says encouragingly, "While a genetic predisposition can increase risk, it's also empowering to know that lifestyle choices can play a pivotal role in brain health. Engaging in regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy diet, keeping mentally active through learning new skills or hobbies, and staying socially connected are foundational steps that can contribute to staving off cognitive decline. Additionally, routine medical check-ups that include cognitive screening tests can be a proactive approach to monitoring brain health over time."

While the risks and horrors of dementia are serious, the occasional brain fart, particularly when we're sleep-deprived or stressed, shouldn't be something to get even more sleep-deprived and stressed about. Ranganath says, "I think where people really worry needlessly is when they get into, 'I can't think of the name of that actor. What's his name again? Oh, God, it's on the tip of my tongue.' And then it comes to them a week later, that's fine. That's totally normal."

about memory

Expert: A two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians might actually be closer than ever

As the war in the Gaza Strip enters its fourth month, on the surface it might seem like possibilities for long-term, peaceful solutions are impossible. Even before the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel by Hamas-led forces from Gaza, many analysts were already declaring the idea of a two-state solution dead.

There are real barriers to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a separate Israel. For example, the current Israeli government rejects the creation of a Palestinian state, and Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. After Oct. 7, some analysts think the barriers are even more insurmountable.

As a scholar of political violence and conflict, I think the unprecedented scale of violence in Israel and Gaza is creating equally unprecedented urgency to find a solution, not just to the current violence, but to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Few, if any, historical conflicts neatly compare to the one between Israelis and Palestinians. But there are similarities in the fall of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s, when growing international pressure and an intensifying war focused attention on an unsustainable system – and pushed people to find possibilities for peace that previously seemed impossible.

The fall of South African apartheid

In 1948, the white-nationalist Afrikaner National Party was elected to run South Africa, a country that had already been controlled by a colonial white minority government.

The National Party formalized racial segregation policies in a system known as apartheid, an Afrikaans word that means “apartness” or “separateness.” Apartheid ranked people by racial group, with white people at the top, Asian and people of mixed heritage lower, and Black people at the bottom with the most restrictions and fewest rights – for example, to live or work where they chose.

A Black man leaves a segregated public bathroom in Johannesburg, South Africa, while a white man enters the bathroom on a different side in 1985. William F. Campbell/Getty Images

Apartheid resulted in deep poverty and indignity for Black communities, quickly generating anti-apartheid social movements that South African police tried to violently suppress.

The collapse of apartheid policies in the early 1990s is often attributed to a combination of South African resistance and the economic pressure brought by international anti-apartheid boycotts of South Africa.

There was another major factor, though: South Africa’s “border war” in Namibia and Angola.

Since 1948, South Africa had imposed its apartheid policies over a neighboring region it occupied after World War II, then called South-West Africa, which is now Namibia.

Like Black South Africans, people in South-West Africa resisted apartheid. Beginning in the 1960s, South Africa’s military began employing local militias in South-West Africa to combat a Namibian independence movement. Soon after, South Africa attempted to expand its control over neighboring Angola, which was in civil war after winning independence from Portugal.

The war in South West Africa and Angola became a proxy for the ongoing Cold War and Western countries’ fear of communism spreading. The U.S. supported South Africa’s army and pro-Western militias, while the Soviet Union and Cuba supported pro-independence fighters. Cuba would eventually send 30,000 troops to fight on the ground on Angola’s side.

By the 1980s, the conflict was escalating into wider war, threatening to pull the United States and Soviet Union into direct conflict.

South Africa was forced to mobilize its reserve troops, and white South Africans began protesting at home. It was becoming clear that not just the war but the country’s brutal apartheid system was not sustainable, lending credibility to those who wanted a democratic solution.

The mutually destructive war had no clear end or military solution. South Africa and opposing armies were also running out of money to keep fighting.

This stalemate pushed Cuba, Angola and South Africa to a peace deal in 1988, and South Africa withdrew its forces.

The war with Namibia continued, but not for long.

South African Prime Minister P.W. Botha resigned in 1989 after losing the support of his own far-right party for his failure in the war and inability to impose order. In 1990, Namibia declared independence.

That same year, the new South African government began rolling back apartheid policies, paving the way for historic elections in 1994 that were won in a landslide by anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela.

South Africa’s involvement in its border war is different in many ways from Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. But there are also similarities that may offer guidance.

Nelson Mandela celebrates his win for president in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1994. Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images

A way toward two states?

For more than half a century, Israel has controlled the borders of the West Bank and Gaza. Home to 5 million Palestinians, these areas exist in a kind of netherworld between being part of Israel and being separate, sovereign entities. Israel controls their territory, but Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza cannot vote in Israel and do not have basic rights or freedom of movement.

It is a situation that many analysts have long understood is unsustainable, as it has repeatedly given way to extreme fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. Yet with the U.S. and other powers firmly backing Israel as a strategic ally, few could see realistic possibilities for change.

The shocking scale of violence in the war is changing that. About 1,200 people were killed and 240 were kidnapped in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack. In Gaza, Israel’s war has killed more than 27,000 residents, mostly civilians.

I think that this violence, along with the threat of a wider war breaking out, is upending the once-remote idea of significant change in the region.

Nearly the entire population of 2 million people in Gaza have been displaced from their homes and face dire humanitarian emergencies due to food, water and power shortages, foreign aid blockages and the destruction of Gaza’s hospitals.

With Houthi militants in Yemen entering the conflict and threats from Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, the U.S. is wary of being pulled into another war in the Middle East.

Pressure is growing internationally for a cease-fire – and a two-state solution.

The U.S., the European Union and China all voice support for a two-state solution, and Saudi Arabia has made the possibility of a historic accord with Israel contingent on it.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that a two-state solution is the “only path” to peace.

Pressure is mounting in Israel as well, as people continue to protest for the Israeli government to make a deal and bring 130 hostages still captive home alive.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approval ratings are tanking. Israel’s economy is shrinking. And the Israeli government is increasingly divided over the war effort, with Netanyahu losing support in his own far-right party.

There remain large obstacles to realizing a two-state solution. There is also growing international consensus that a two-state solution is the only acceptable outcome of the current violence.

In my view, the conditions unfolding in Israel and Gaza are beginning to reach a breaking point, similar to the conditions in South Africa that formed prior to apartheid’s defeat.

Benjamin Case, Postdoctoral research scholar at the Center for Work and Democracy, Arizona State University

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

“I know what the hell I’m doing”: Biden fires back at special counsel’s memory comments

Hours after special counsel Robert Hur released a report concluding that President Biden did "willfully" retain classified documents from his time as vice president, depicting him as "well-intentioned, but sometimes hapless and forgetful" in his explanation for why it would be difficult to pursue a prosecution in the matter, Biden himself addressed his comments in a last-minute addition to his schedule for the day.

Speaking from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, DC., Biden lashed out at Hur, saying, “I am well-meaning. And I’m an elderly man. And I know what the hell I’m doing. I’ve been president – I put this country back on its feet. I don’t need his recommendation.”

Getting worked up on the issue of his age and memory being frequently called into question, Biden got into a heated exchange with CNN’s MJ Lee, who asked why he is best equipped to take on Trump in a November general election.

“Because I’m the most qualified person in this country to finish the job I started,” Biden shot back.

In an unfortunate flub, made minutes after defending his own memory, Biden mistakenly referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the president of Mexico while answering questions from reporters about hostage negotiations and humanitarian aid in the Gaza strip, according to CNN.

Watch that moment here:

Here's the moment where Joe Biden left the podium, came back, and then called the leader of Egypt the "president of Mexico." pic.twitter.com/lpM2qvh1Yf

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 9, 2024

“Lots of people won’t like this”: Professor says racial resentment is key to Trump’s election appeal

I imagine that lots of people won’t like this article. They’ll feel attacked. They’ll feel it’s unfair. The depth of that response will show just how deeply rooted American politics is, and has always been, in racial fears.

The centrality of race to our politics is clear in the current presidential campaign. The most common campaign slogan is from the campaign of Donald Trump: “MAGA” – Make America Great Again. The slogan indicates that the U.S. was once great but has fallen from greatness.

So what caused America’s fall?

Former president Trump introduced MAGA as his campaign slogan when he began his presidential run in 2015. Central to his announcement, and repeated endlessly since then, is his claim that illegal immigrants assaulting our border are an existential threat because, he claims, they are rapists, criminals and other kinds of predators.

His anti-immigrant campaign is steeped in race. When criticizing what he calls the country’s “open borders,” he isn’t referring to Canada. In fact, he hopes, he says, for more immigrants from Norway and other predominantly white nations.

The fearsome immigrants, the “others,” are the ones who have darker skin than most white Americans; their racial identity is written on their faces. How do we distinguish these immigrants from other Americans who have darker skins? There’s no need; the former president has warned us about them as well. You know, the earlier immigrants, from countries he referred to as “s***hole countries.”

Social scientists like me have been able to demonstrate that concern about race has long been central to Trump’s appeal. As the U.S. begins another presidential campaign in which Trump is likely to be the GOP nominee, here’s what we have found:

Racial resentment key

Researchers showed that the second-strongest determinant of individuals’ vote for Trump in 2016 and 2020 – first, of course, was the voter’s party identification – wasn’t people’s economic fears or their commitment to individual freedom. It was respondents’ racial resentment, measured by agree-disagree questions such as, “Whites in the U.S. are more discriminated against than Blacks,” and “Blacks are getting advantages from elites that Blacks have not earned.”

Substantial numbers of Americans, including one-third of white respondents, claim that white Americans face either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of discrimination in the U.S. Among Republicans, well over half claim that white people are discriminated against, a larger percentage than acknowledges discrimination against Blacks, Latinos or Asians.

White Americans’ racial resentment increased substantially during the Barack Obama presidency. Even many 2008 Obama voters soon found that the media focus on Obama becoming the nation’s first Black president, at first so exciting, was hard to swallow on a day-to-day basis.

The U.S. is not now “post racial,” free from racial prejudices or discrimination, nor has it ever been.

It’s not easy to argue seriously that white people are more discriminated against than Black Americans. Such a claim withers in the face of hard facts: that the average Black employee earns just 70% of the average white employee’s wages; that the median white household in 2021 had nine times as much wealth as the median Black household; that Black Americans, especially Black men, are jailed in much higher proportions than white Americans are; or that the homeownership gap between Black and white Americans is substantial, at 44% versus 73%, and growing.

Even reports from white Americans themselves belie the notion that they are more discriminated against than people of color. White people are less likely than other racial groups to report that they have experienced negative responses from other people. And among Black adults, “those with self-reported darker skin tones are more likely to report discrimination experiences than those with lighter skin tones” – added evidence that observed racial differences affect the way people are treated.

The homeownership gap between Black and white Americans is substantial, at 44% versus 73%, and growing. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Anxiety deepens resentment

The centrality of race in American life is nothing new.

Race was the reason that a large portion of the U.S. – the South – could not have been legitimately defined as a democracy for most of the nation’s history. How could a region that deprived a large portion of its citizens of the right to vote systematically, in law and practice, on the grounds of their race be considered democratic?

But racial resentment seems to deepen in times of anxiety, when many people seek a specific target for their fears rather than deal with a vaguer sense of dread. The U.S. recently experienced an enormous source of anxiety: More than 1.1 million Americans died of a virus that affected virtually every aspect of day-to-day life, from our education and travel to the nation’s budget and public health.

The U.S. has also faced social-demographic change at a speed that those with racial resentment may find threatening. In just 20 years, from 2000 to 2020, the U.S. Census found that those who identified as non-Hispanic white dropped from about 75% of the population to 58%, though the two years’ measures are not completely comparable. These threats to the public’s health and to the image of the white American that so many traditionalists hold can encourage racial resentment.

However understandable it may be, it’s hard to argue that racial resentment, or any other hatred rooted in immutable differences, benefits U.S. society. Some segments of society do benefit from racial resentment, of course, and they will resist losing it as a campaign tool to protect their privileged status.

But if the U.S. is to fully realize the American ideals of freedom, opportunity and democracy for all, the country is going to have to face the reality of continuing discrimination against people of color and “others” of all types. Americans will need to not just talk about race but to listen, even if they don’t like what they hear.

As I said, lots of people won’t like this story.

Marjorie Hershey, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Indiana University

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

Trump adviser Peter Navarro ordered to report to prison for four-month sentence

Peter Navarro — the former Trump White House aide sentenced to four-months after being found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress for dodging a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee — has been ordered by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to report to prison after rejecting his bid to remain free during his appeal process.

In his denial of Navarro's bid, the federal judge said that the possibility of him succeeding in his appeal was not enough of a basis to postpone his sentence, which was handed down in January, having also shot down arguments that he had “testimonial immunity” from the subpoena he avoided "because of his position in the White House during the events that preceded the Jan. 6 attack," according to Politico.

“If anything, the record demonstrates just the opposite,” Mehta wrote in the 12-page opinion, adding that “Defendant’s cynical, self-serving claim of political bias poses no question at all, let alone a ‘substantial’ one.”

If this ruling keeps its shape, Navarro is positioned to be the first member of Trump's crew to serve time for crimes relating to efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.

T-Pain says he stopped writing music for country artists because of racism he’s experienced

T-Pain may be known for his hip-hop hits like "Buy U a Drank" but he's dabbled in writing country music too. Unfortunately, his love for that genre has soured.

Even though the rapper has written songs for country musicians, he says he's stopped taking credit for them because of the racism he's experienced. In a TikTok the musician posted, he said that country music inspires a lot of his music. "Good music is good music,” T-Pain said. “I don't give a f**k where it comes from or what style it comes in.”

“Country music is where I get all my harmonies, country and gospel music. That's where all my harmonies come from,” the Grammy winner said. He acknowledged that some people feel "like it's not cool to listen to other genres of music.”

How “Fast Car,” a 1988 hit, became the vehicle that travels between cultural divides in 2024

However, the artist said that his experience working in the country music industry was what drove him away from admitting he worked as a country music ghostwriter. He didn't disclose which artists he ghostwrote for in the video.

"I done wrote a lot of country songs. Stopped taking credit for it because, as cool as it is to see your name in those credits and s**t like that, the racism that comes after it is just like, ‘I'll just take the check,’” T-Pain said.

"‘Don't put me on that s**t,’” the singer laughed. “‘I'll just take the check, bro, never mind.’”

In a past episode of the radio show "The Breakfast Club," the singer also shared that he writes “a lot of country music for huge country artists who would rather not have it known that I do this."

He even lived in Nashville for two years while doing so. "I literally lived at the studio," he said. "I parked my bus at the back of the studio, just lived on my bus at the studio and just went in there every day."

Nashville was where he met artists like Taylor Swift, who he did a parody song with of her song “Love Story,” titled “Thug Story,” at the 2009 CMT Awards. That city was also where he met Luke Bryan, Rhett Akins and Dallas Davidson. "I’ve written a lot of s**t for very important country artists,” T-Pain said.

T-Pain isn't the only Black artist who has worked in country music; there is an influx of new Black country artists dominating the predominantly white and conservative genre. These popular artists range from the likes of Kane Brown, Allison Russell, Lil Nas X, Brittany Spencer, Joy Oladokun and Rhiannon Giddens, who are redefining what country music looks and sounds like.

However, it isn't easy to be a Black artist doing country music because of today's tense political climate when any topic or song can be fuel a culture war. Hit artists like Jason Aldean, Oliver Anthony and Morgan Wallen, along with their songs, are often held up by conservative politicians weaponizing race and class to represent what they claim are American values.

Despite this constant push and pull, progress is still being made for Black artists in country. Thirty-five years after Tracy Chapman released her folk song "Fast Car," it became a No. 1 hit — even though it took Luke Combs, a white country singer, covering it for it to achieve that feat. She recently received her flowers for the song at the Grammys during a duet between Chapman and Combs, bridging the disconnect between Black artists and country music.

about country music

The Supreme Court, scrambling to save face, may delay Trump’s insurrection ruling

The Supreme Court’s credibility is at an all-time low. The last thing the court needs is the perception that it made a craven decision on the question of Donald Trump’s constitutional disqualification on the Colorado ballot for engaging in insurrection. But based on the oral arguments before the court Thursday, it looks like form will likely triumph over substance potentially doing the institution further injury.

The Trump disqualification case, Trump v. Anderson, could bury the court deeper in public esteem, especially if the court majority swallows some of Trump’s weakest arguments such as his claim that only “officers of the United States” are covered by the disqualification provision and that the president isn’t an officer of the United States. Unfortunately, at oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch and, surprisingly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed attracted by this claim.

They assume that the drafters decided to focus on excruciatingly fine distinctions in uses of the word “officers” while equally assuming that the drafters got busy doing other things and forgot to prevent a person who tried overthrowing our government from winding up running it from the most powerful post in the land—the presidency. Neither of these justices grappled with the absurdity of this assumption.

The impartial thing for the Supreme Court to do would be to uphold the Colorado disqualification ruling. But, if the court overturns it, it must do so without demolishing what’s left of the pedestal on which it once stood so high.

Likewise, the court will hurt its credibility if it swallows Trump’s “chaos and bedlam” argument. This was much discussed during the oral argument where fears of conflicting decisions among the states were raised, particularly by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

But this argument forgets that preventing chaos and bedlam is precisely the high court’s job. It has the final say over who is covered by the disqualification provision, how it is implemented, what constitutes an “insurrection” for purposes of the language, and what evidentiary standards courts should apply when adjudicating claims under it. Once it decides these issues, any decisions by states that don’t comply with it can be summarily reversed. If it’s the fact findings the court is worried about it can choose to independently review the facts of the Trump case and affirm or overrule the lower court findings—again creating a ruling the states must follow.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Justice Brett Kavanagh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to swallow another Trump red herring that only Congress can breathe life into the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 language. But the language they rely on says Congress may pass legislation to enforce the provision. It does not say that Congress must pass legislation.

The language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is simple and requires no torment to interpret and apply: “[n]o person shall…hold any office…under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States… shall have engaged in insurrection… against the same.” If the court chooses to ignore it on the grounds hotly debated at oral argument, the court majority risks more than just getting this case wrong.

The current court majority, particularly Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch, support the legal doctrine of “textualism.” Put simply, textualists once claimed that judges should simply read the law and do what it says. If the justices use textualists arguments to refuse to see these simple words as a coherent whole, they will reveal that their textualism has morphed into pretextualism—little more than a smokescreen for imposing their own preferences. They will effectively proclaim that if a justice doesn’t like the implications of one set of words, they can simply pick a different set of words to obsess over until they are tortured into producing the result the justice wants.

With it impossible for the court to avoid losing face if it ignores the Constitution’s plain language, a credible delay might be its best hope. Two law professors pointed out in the Wall Street Journal that the 20th Amendment provides that, “if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.” This suggests that the court should judge qualifications only after the election. If Trump loses, the problem goes away, but if he wins the court will face a heavy burden.

Still, the impartial thing for the court to do would be to uphold the Colorado disqualification ruling. But, if the court overturns it, it must do so without demolishing what’s left of the pedestal on which it once stood so high. Following oral argument, it’s not looking good.

about this topic

No charges as result of special counsel concluding Biden “willfully” held classified documents

After nearly a year-long investigation into whether or not President Joe Biden and his staff broke the law in their handling of classified documents during and after his time as vice president, a 345-page report handed down by special counsel Robert Hur concludes that, no, they did not.

Focusing on the circumstances surrounding how and why certain documents from the Obama administration ended up at an old office space and Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home, Hur finds that Biden did "willfully" retain the materials and "was critical of their handling," but that this “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Furthering that prosecuting Biden would be “unwarranted."

According to The Washington Post, Hur said it would be "difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness,” with the outlet adding that "the report portrayed Biden as well-intentioned, but sometimes hapless and forgetful."

Per reporting from The Hill, "Biden has maintained he did nothing wrong, and his team has repeatedly noted that his lawyers quickly notified the National Archives and cooperated with the Justice Department after discovering the documents."

Despite grand jury investigation, officers may not face charges in Uvalde shooting response

After more than a year of pressure to file criminal charges against some of the Texas law enforcement officers responsible for the botched response to the Robb Elementary School shooting, local prosecutor Christina Mitchell last month convened a grand jury to investigate.

But even after that monthslong review is complete, law enforcement officers may not face criminal charges, legal experts say. That’s because police officers are almost never criminally prosecuted — and charges for failing to act are even more rare.

Grand jury proceedings in Texas are kept secret and it’s not typically known how cases are presented to jurors who decide whether there’s enough evidence to formally charge someone with a crime or proceed to a trial.

It’s unclear whether Uvalde’s District Attorney plans to present evidence to grand jurors that some victims would have survived had medical responders started treatment earlier. Hundreds of officers who responded to the shooting waited 77 minutes to breach the classrooms, where a gunman used an AR-15 rifle to indiscriminately shoot students and teachers in two adjoining fourth-grade classrooms. Nineteen students and two teachers died in the May 24, 2022 shooting.

The Texas Rangers in August 2022 asked Dr. Mark Escott, medical director for Texas Department of Public Safety and chief medical officer for the city of Austin, to look into the injuries of the victims and determine whether any victims could have survived. Four of the victims are known to have had heartbeats when they were rescued from the classrooms.

But one year later, Mitchell’s office told Escott it was “moving in a different direction” and no longer wanted the analysis to be performed.

“It’s unclear to me why they would not want an analysis such as this done,” Escott said.

Escott said he was never given access to the autopsy reports or hospital and EMS records. Based on the limited records he did review, he believes at least one individual may have survived had police officers intervened earlier.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland visited Uvalde last month to present findings from a scathing 575-page federal report. He said lives could have been saved if officers had confronted the shooter earlier, instead of ignoring established mass shooting protocols.

The DOJ report also noted that at least one deceased victim was alive at 11:56 a.m., 20 minutes after officers entered the school.

Mitchell has not responded to The Tribune’s multiple requests for comment. It therefore remains unclear why she halted the survivability study, which could have provided critical information to the grand jury.

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, said the Uvalde families deserve accountability and clarity on victims’ survivability.

“That they halted the study is very disturbing to me,” Gutierrez said. “It seems to me that there is some unwillingness to tell the truth.”

Gutierrez called the shooting response “the worst law enforcement response in the history of the United States” and said he believes victims could have survived had police acted more quickly.

A DUTY TO PROTECT

Even though police training instructs officers to confront a shooter, hundreds of officers responding to Robb Elementary waited over an hour to confront the gunman

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that officers do not have a constitutional “duty to protect,” even if they have been trained to do so. And even if the Uvalde grand jury decides to indict officers, prosecutors would then have the difficult burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers were under a specific legal duty to act and that in failing to act they caused a specific harm.

“There’s a big difference between what is morally right and what the law actually requires,” said Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law and former police officer. “I’d be very surprised if there was a straightforward path to criminal prosecution.”

The U.S. Justice Department’s report found failures in leadership, command and coordination at the scene of the shooting. The biggest error, the report stated, was that officers wrongly treated the situation as a barricaded subject incident instead of an active shooter, despite evidence to the contrary.

Several officers resigned or were fired in the months following the shooting. Pete Arredondo, former chief of the school district’s police department, was fired by the school board in August 2022. He was one of a handful of officers named in the DOJ report.

Kirk Burkhalter, a professor of law at New York Law School, said he suspects that law enforcement officers could face three possible criminal charges: manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and abandoning or endangering a child.

Those first two charges would require the prosecution to prove that the officers “caused the death of” an individual. Evidence that any victims may have survived the attack had officers intervened more quickly could support the charge. It’s not clear if Mitchell’s office had someone pursue such evidence after scrapping the survivability report.”

Similar studies have been done following other mass shootings, such as the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. In that study, researchers reported that 16 of the 49 victims had potentially survivable wounds had they received faster medical care and made it to a hospital within an hour. Still, the officers who responded to the Pulse shooting in 2016 weren’t criminally charged.

Even if the prosecution could prove victims would have survived with a faster police response, they will also have to demonstrate that the officers acted either “recklessly” or “negligently” through their inaction.

Lawyers said they are not aware of previous cases where police officers have been successfully prosecuted for failing to act.

Last year, a jury acquitted a former school resource officer who stayed outside during the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The officer faced seven counts of felony child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury. The state’s argument that the officer had a duty to protect students failed to win favor among the jury.

Some legal experts speculated that community pressure played a role in the convening of a grand jury in Uvalde.

“I think the DA may be trying to create some goodwill in the community and maybe address her political concerns for her future,” said G.M. Cox, a former chief of police and lecturer at Sam Houston State University. “The reality is that it’s going to be tough to file a criminal case.”

Disclosure: Sam Houston State University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We can’t wait to welcome you to downtown Austin Sept. 5-7 for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival! Join us at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event as we dig into the 2024 elections, state and national politics, the state of democracy, and so much more. When tickets go on sale this spring, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/07/uvalde-shooting-grand-jury/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

“This food is the flavor of America”: Author Grace Lin on the power of Chinese-American food

The seed of inspiration for author Grace Lin’s ninth and newest children’s book was actually planted almost 20 years ago, right after the release of her 2004 book “Fortune Cookie Fortunes.” She found that in so many cases, when speaking about fortune cookies, people would say, “Oh, fortune cookies aren’t really Chinese . . . with some sort of disdain or disgust. Lin added “as an American-born Asian person who has struggled with her identity . . . I could easily see the same words about me.”

So, Lin took it upon herself to “show this kind of food some respect,” though she says that it took her many years to ultimately put this book together because she needed to find self-acceptance in her own identity before she could make it.

"Dumpling Daughter" reveals how "the best dumplings take patience, time and experience"

“Because just like being an Asian American, Asian American food is not something to be ashamed of or to scorn,” Lin said. “Yes, every Chinese dish served in an American restaurant has been adapted and changed. Yes, most do not have the flavors of traditional Chinese cuisine and are unlike what you would find in China. But American Chinese cuisine is the flavor of resilience, the flavor of adaptability, the flavor of persistence and triumph. Above anything, this food is the flavor of America. So, I hope the book gives people a new respect for this part of our culture — or, at the very least, I hope it makes eating Chinese food more enjoyable!”

The result is “Chinese Menu: The History, Myths, and Legends Behind Your Favorite Foods,” which explores the folklore behind your favorite Chinese dishes — and is a magnificent book to read through as a way to celebrate the upcoming Lunar New Year on Feb. 10.

Chinese Menu by Grace Lin cover (Photo courtesy of Little, Brown Books)

To compile “Chinese Menu,” Lin worked with Izabelle Brande, a research assistant, in order to ensure that some of the lore and stories she's heard over the years —especially ones linked with particular dishes, recipes or ingredients — were as factually-based as can be. "With her help, I was able to obtain and read secondary sources for the stories I had so I could verify what was accurate about them,” she said. “She also found a lot of stories that I didn't know about, so she was invaluable. I know that the book would not have the quality it does without her help.”

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

Lin's favorite story in the book is the tale about White Hair Silver Needle tea, "which involves an evil dragon and an Ingenious girl who outwits the dragon to collect the tea needed to save her village. The reason I love it is because I can remember how enthralled my daughter was when I read the story to her.”

Dragon Well Tea, illustration from Chinese Menu by Grace Lin (Photo courtesy of Little, Brown Books)

One particular tale from “Chinese Menu” tells of how dumplings once apparently cured a village’s frostbitten ears. When I asked for clarification, Lin said that dumplings were actually invented by an ancient Chinese doctor named Zongjin, who “made the dumplings with warming herbs and peppers” and “he made his dumplings ear-shaped to help them remember what the medicine was for.”

Of course, it's unclear if this worked as originally intended. “But people couldn't stop eating them,” Lin said. “And now, we still eat them!"

Author Grace Lin (Photo courtesy of Danielle Tait)

Working through the research for this book also helped Lin parse through stories she had been told as a child and assess which were actually grounded in truth. This also speaks to the way in which the line between factual and fictional gradually blurs as the years go by, in everything from the details of family histories to the histories of beloved foods For instance, she grew up thinking that Marco Polo ate scallion pancakes in China, loved them and then, upon arriving back in Italy, tried to get chefs to make them for him — who inadvertently invented pizza.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

"I discovered that [this story] is just a made-up myth,” Lin said. "The first printed version I could find . . . is a parody in a Chinese newspaper."

When speaking about the link between Chinese food and Chinese-American food, Lin says that "This food is something unique to the United States but has roots, a history and a tradition in China." She adores her mom's scallion pancake recipe (which is included in the book!), but noted that "the food my mother served at home and the food that was served at our local Chinese restaurant was not that similar" — except for the scallion pancakes. On special occasions, Lin's family would also celebrate at a Chinese restaurant, though, so foods like Mu Shu Pork and Kung Pao Chicken are "celebration food, delicious and special" for Lin. "Even though I eat from Chinese restaurants fairly regularly now, I still have that feeling that this is food of joy."

Daji Invents Chopsticks, illustration from Chinese Menu by Grace Lin (Photo courtesy of Little, Brown Books)

With "Chinese Menu," Lin wanted to present Asian folktales with "respect and appreciation . . . not from the stance of 'isn't this story weird?', [but instead] the attitude of 'isn't this story so marvelous?’”

According to Lin, when she began working in the publishing industry in 1999, there was a dearth of children’s books centered on Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) heritage, and those that did exist were difficult to find or sometimes included “cringeworthy stereotypes, or — just as bad — portrayed Asian culture incorrectly." It’s taken the work of many children's authors, including Laurence Yep, Linda Sue Park and Lisa Yee, to change some of those perceptions. Through “Chinese Menu,” Lin hopes to build upon their work and “show the common humanity that Asian characters have with readers.”

“And what better way to do that than with food?” Lin asked.

about this topic

CNN panel roars with laughter after Jake Tapper cuts of Trump’s rant over SCOTUS ballot hearing

Former President Donald Trump rebuked Thursday's Supreme Court hearing pertaining to his eligibility to run on the Colorado primary ballot, dubbing the case a "phony hoax" in remarks outside his Mar-a-Lago residence.

The comments came during Trump's first public appearance since the more than two-hour proceeding kicked off and included digs at President Joe Biden alongside self-exaltation around his time in office, according to Mediate. Upon focusing on the Supreme Court, Trump said the proceedings were a "very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue.”

“'Cause right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas, with the weaponization of politics,” Trump continued. “They weaponized it like it’s never ever been weaponized before.”

The former president went on to address the spate of legal battles he's facing, leveling unfounded claims that, it's "totally illegal, but they do it anyway, and it has to stop, every one of the court cases that I'm involved, every single one, civil — whether it’s the attorney general’s or the district attorney's.”

He went on to reiterate claims of election interference he often makes on social media.

“Every one of these cases, you see comes out of the White House,” Trump said. “It comes out of Biden, it’s election interference."

The former president's ramblings, which also touched on the border, China, Russia's war on Ukraine and inflation, were cut short — on CNN, at least. When Trump veered into discussing the violence in Gaza and the Middle East, host Jake Tapper cut him off, saying, "I think we've gotten all the legal analysis we're going to get out of President Trump." The move earned him an outburst of laughter from the other panelists.

Trump "wants to talk about himself," conservative lawyer George Conway said upon recovering from his laughing fit. "He doesn't want to talk about the Supreme Court and say, 'Oh, the Supreme Court did a nice job today.' He just wants to talk about what's on his mind and himself."

“It’s like your old life died”: Felicity Huffman reflects on college admissions scandal fallout

In an interview with The Guardian, former "Desperate Housewives" star Felicity Huffman said she's still sifting through a myriad of emotions five years after taking part in a college admissions scandal. Huffman in May 2019 pleaded guilty to to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud after paying $15,000 for someone to administer and correct her eldest daughter's college entrance exam, boosting her score. Huffman served 11 days in prison, was fined $30,000, and ordered to do 250 hours of community service.

The interview was conducted on the set of "Hir," a London-based play in which Huffman has a lead role. “How I am is kind of a loaded question,” she said. “I guess I’m still processing.

“I did a pilot for ABC recently that didn’t get picked up. It’s been hard," she continued. "Sort of like your old life died and you died with it. I’m lucky enough to have a family and love and means, so I had a place to land.” Huffman also acknowledged that the scandal now follows her. “I walk into the room with it,” she said. “I did it. It’s black and white. I’m not in any way whitewashing what I did, but some people have been kind and compassionate. Others have not.

The FBI investigation into the scandal, dubbed "Operation Varsity Blues," determined that wealthy parents had paid college counselor William "Rick" Singer to assist their children in obtaining admission to elite universities by increasing their college exam scores or falsely presenting them as top athletic recruits.

“Off-ramp”: Legal experts say hearing suggests even Supreme Court liberals may rule in Trump’s favor

Even some of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Thursday of a Colorado court’s decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the court’s conservatives in expressing skepticism about states’ ability to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

"I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States," Kagan told attorney Jason Murray, who represents a group of Colorado voters. "What's a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?"

“It’s just more complicated, more contested and, if you want, more political,” Kagan also argued.

Jackson questioned whether the 14th Amendment applies to the presidency.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson grills Trump lawyer’s claim that Jan. 6 was “not an insurrection”

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns about the stakes in the case.

"It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," he said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that “it just doesn’t seem like a state call.”

Trump attorney Jonathan Mitchell argued that states cannot even ban an “admitted insurrectionist” from the ballot because the amendment only applies to someone “holding” office and because Congress could vote to lift "that disability after the election” by issuing a waiver.

Mitchell also argued that the president is not an “officer of the United States” under the amendment, which also drew skepticism from justices on both sides.

Mitchell also argued that Jan. 6 was a “riot” and not an insurrection and that the constitutional ban is not “self-executing” because it could be overridden by Congress.

“True crisis”: Clarence Thomas role in Trump case is “shocking” ethical violation, Dems say

Murray rejected Mitchell’s claim that the president is not an officer of the U.S.

"President Trump's main argument is that this court should create a special exemption to Section 3 that would apply to him and to him alone," Murray said.

"President Trump disqualified himself," he later added.

Legal experts widely predicted that the court would overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and reinstate Trump to the ballot — and that even the court’s liberals may join the conservative majority.

“Based on today's argument, it sure sounds like a clear majority of justices (including perhaps one or more Democratic appointees) will issue an opinion that finds that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is not ‘self-executing,’ which would put Trump back on the ballot,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

Michigan Law Prof. Leah Litman predicted that Roberts’ questioning signaled that the court is likely to rule that “states can’t disqualify federal officeholders” without congressional permission.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

“It’s becoming clear they are going to hold states can’t disqualify,” wrote Georgia State Law Prof. Eric Segall, predicting “Trump is going to win this case.”

Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, agreed that it seems “pretty clear” based on the questioning that the court is likely to rule that states cannot disqualify federal officers.

“Important to note that the liberal Justices are not pushing back on this argument about the federal interest here. Suggests the cake is already baked. Perhaps they've also been discussing the immunity case and whether to let that go to trial and not grant a stay next week,” he tweeted, predicting that it “would not be surprising to see a quick 9-0 or 8-1 ruling” reversing the Colorado decision with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor the only “question mark.”

Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas, predicted a ruling “between 7-2 and 9-0 for the very specific proposition that states can’t unilaterally disqualify candidates running for President on the ground that they engaged in insurrection.”

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

“I'm sensing we get an 8-1 decision with Sotomayor in dissent on a very narrow question that will make no sense but effectively punt the issue for another day,” opined Georgia State Law Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis.

“I’m starting to think the ‘off ramp’ here is the Supreme Court says there’s a difference between running for office and holding office and then they wait for Judge Chutkan to get a trial going, see what happens in November, and then revisit the substantive question if needed,” he predicted.

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal criticized the attorneys for the Colorado lawyers.

“You need to say about the other side, ‘you are gutting the Constitution, Donald Trump,’" Katyal said on MSNBC. "You need to say to the court, ‘look, for years you have staked yourself on a strict construction of the document, on the original intent of the document. The original intent was to clear against Donald Trump.’ You need to be using their methodology that they have used to say, look, you have to be consistent with what you have said before. We heard none of that today. I'm not sure why. That makes it, frankly, a really easy case for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in favor of Donald Trump."

about the Trump ballot challenge

Colorado’s food aid backlog is so severe that it’s “under a federal corrective action plan”

Another state is experiencing an extreme backlog with food aid applications and recertifications.

As Jennifer Brown writes in "The Colorado Sun," "Colorado is so slow at processing applications for food assistance that it ranks in the bottom five states and is now under a corrective action plan with the federal government." While it varies per county, this means that many Coloradans who are reliant upon programs like SNAP or WIC are struggling. "The bottom line is that people who rely on nutrition assistance, formerly referred to as food stamps, are going hungry while they wait for the government to verify their applications," Brown wrote.

Food insecure Alaskans struggle as food stamp backlog becomes untenable for staffers to process

Shelley Banker, the director of the office of Economic Security at the state human services department told the publication that "these aren't just numbers to us."

"They are people," Banker said. "We know that feeding people is important. That’s why we’re working with our partners in the counties to really dig into this and to understand what is happening.”

Employees are working through the backlog, which ostensibly was worsened due to the pandemic, as also recently seen in Alaska. "Colorado is severely out of compliance with federal requirements," according to the USA's Food and Nutrition Service, which wrote on October 3 that "this has resulted in a hardship to needy households across Colorado who are not consistently receiving access to SNAP benefits within 7 or 30 days."

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

A resident named Julie Lafasciano stated that she applied to renew her benefits back in November and hasn't heard back at all. She now calls almost daily. "The food stamps literally put food on my table," she told The Colorado Sun. "If I didn't have the food stamps, I wouldn't have food."

According to Brown, Pueblo County, for example, "processed just 26% of food assistance recertifications on time from December 2022 to October of last year." The same employees handling and processing these applications are also handling applications for Medicaid.

In addition to the backlog, food assistance participation is now at an all-time high, with an increase of 35% households filing for assistance since 2019. Many counties are attempting to use automation to help further work though the backlog.

about this topic

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson grills Trump lawyer’s claim that Jan. 6 was “not an insurrection”

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson grilled Trump lawyer Jonathan Mitchell over his claim that the Jan. 6 Capitol attack was not an insurrection.

The court on Thursday heard arguments in the former president’s appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring him from the state’s primary ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause. Jackson noted that the Colorado court concluded that the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 to halt the count of electoral votes “qualified as an insurrection” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“What is your argument that it’s not?” Jackson asked Mitchell. “Your reply brief says that it wasn’t, because I think you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government.”

“That’s one of many reasons,” Mitchell replied. “But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence.”

Jackson questioned if a “chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?”

“No, we didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either,” Mitchell said. “None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things. But it did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section 3.”

Justice Jackson: "So, your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?"

Jonathan Mitchell: "We didn't conceded that it's an effort to overthrow the government either…this was a a riot. It was not an insurrection." pic.twitter.com/dq7gEX9au5

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2024

“Top Chef” to return for its 21st season with an all-new host

Bravo’s hit reality competition series “Top Chef” is slated to return on March 20 with a new lineup of contestants alongside an all-new host and location. Season 21 marks the show’s first return to the Midwest since season four, which was set in Chicago.

“The cheftestants must bring their A-game and inspiration to Wisconsin this season as they go head-to-head in a slew of challenges honoring the state’s traditions, local staples, and fresh produce,” Bravo shared in a press release with Food & Wine. “From a cutthroat cheese festival featuring some of Wisconsin’s Award-winning cheesemakers to showcasing the versatility of Door County cherries and Wisconsin-grown cranberries, there’s no room for error as the judges narrow down the competitors each week to find this season’s winner.”

The show’s biggest announcement is its new host. Season 10’s winning chef, Kristen Kish, will be leading the new season after Padma Lakshmi announced her departure last summer. The upcoming competition also features several new rules. For the first time in series history, contestants will have the opportunity to win cash prizes at every Quickfire Challenge. Immunity from elimination is no longer awarded for winning Quickfire Challenges. Instead, immunity will only be available at the Elimination Challenges, making the winning chef safe in the next episode. Head judge Tom Colicchio and perennial judge Gail Simmons will also return to reprise their roles. Season 21 features 15 total contestants.

Watch the trailer for the upcoming season, courtesy of YouTube:

“True crisis”: Clarence Thomas role in Trump case is “shocking” ethical violation, Dems say

Congressional Democrats sounded the alarm after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself in Donald Trump’s ballot challenge given his wife’s role in the former president’s attempts to overturn the election.

Thomas was on the bench Thursday as the court heard oral arguments in Trump’s appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring him from the ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrection” clause.

His wife, Ginni, had extensive contact with then-Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows in the administration’s efforts to overturn his election loss. Thomas previously recused himself in a case related to Jan. 6 architect John Eastman, who once served as one of his law clerks.

“Why is Clarence Thomas even participating in this case?” questioned former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

“Having recused from a prior case related to Jan 6 due to his wife’s involvement, Justice Thomas’s participation in Trump’s ballot case is a shocking and intentional violation of his ethical obligations,” tweeted Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., who served as Democratic counsel in Trump’s first impeachment trial. “Clarence Thomas is not above the law. This is a true crisis at the Court.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., previously called on Thomas to recuse himself.

“He failed to do so. It’s a shame he’s allowing any question of bias to exist, given his family’s reported involvement in January 6th,” he wrote.

Thomas told reporters on Thursday that Thomas should have recused himself in the case "for the good of the court, and the reputation and integrity of the court."

"There's no question that his wife is uniquely positioned in the political debate. I think it would have been in the best interest of the court and their reputation for him to step aside,” he added.

Can kimchi really help you lose weight? Hold your pickle. The evidence isn’t looking great

Fermented foods have become popular in recent years, partly due to their perceived health benefits.

For instance, there is some evidence eating or drinking fermented foods can improve blood glucose control in people with diabetes. They can lower blood lipid (fats) levels and blood pressure in people with diabetes or obesity. Fermented foods can also improve diarrhoea symptoms.

But can they help you lose weight, as a recent study suggests? Let's look at the evidence.

Remind me, what are fermented foods?

Fermented foods are ones prepared when microbes (bacteria and/or yeast) ferment (or digest) food components to form new foods. Examples include yoghurt, cheese, kefir, kombucha, wine, beer, sauerkraut and kimchi.

As a result of fermentation, the food becomes acidic, extending its shelf life (food-spoilage microbes are less likely to grow under these conditions). This makes fermentation one of the earliest forms of food processing.

Fermentation also leads to new nutrients being made. Beneficial microbes (probiotics) digest nutrients and components in the food to produce new bioactive components (postbiotics). These postbiotics are thought to contribute to the health benefits of the fermented foods, alongside the health benefits of the bacteria themselves.

What does the evidence say?

A study published last week has provided some preliminary evidence eating kimchi – the popular Korean fermented food – is associated with a lower risk of obesity in some instances. But there were mixed results.

The South Korean study involved 115,726 men and women aged 40-69 who reported how much kimchi they'd eaten over the previous year. The study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, which specialises in researching the country's national dish.

Eating one to three servings of any type of kimchi a day was associated with a lower risk of obesity in men.

Men who ate more than three serves a day of cabbage kimchi (baechu) were less likely to have obesity and abdominal obesity (excess fat deposits around their middle). And women who ate two to three serves a day of baechu were less likely to have obesity and abdominal obesity.

Eating more radish kimchi (kkakdugi) was associated with less abdominal obesity in both men and women.

However, people who ate five or more serves of any type of kimchi weighed more, had a larger waist sizes and were more likely to be obese.

The study had limitations. The authors acknowledged the questionnaire they used may make it difficult to say exactly how much kimchi people actually ate.

The study also relied on people to report past eating habits. This may make it hard for them to accurately recall what they ate.

This study design can also only tell us if something is linked (kimchi and obesity), not if one thing causes another (if kimchi causes weight loss). So it is important to look at experimental studies where researchers make changes to people's diets then look at the results.

How about evidence from experimental trials?

There have been several experimental studies looking at how much weight people lose after eating various types of fermented foods. Other studies looked at markers or measures of appetite, but not weight loss.

One study showed the stomach of men who drank 1.4 litres of fermented milk during a meal took longer to empty (compared to those who drank the same quantity of whole milk). This is related to feeling fuller for longer, potentially having less appetite for more food.

Another study showed drinking 200 millilitres of kefir (a small glass) reduced participants' appetite after the meal, but only when the meal contained quickly-digested foods likely to make blood glucose levels rise rapidly. This study did not measure changes in weight.

Another study looked at Indonesian young women with obesity. Eating tempeh (a fermented soybean product) led to changes in an appetite hormone. But this did not impact their appetite or whether they felt full. Weight was not measured in this study.

A study in South Korea asked people to eat about 70g a day of chungkookjang (fermented soybean). There were improvements in some measures of obesity, including percentage body fat, lean body mass, waist-to-hip ratio and waist circumference in women. However there were no changes in weight for men or women.

A systematic review of all studies that looked at the impact of fermented foods on satiety (feeling full) showed no effect.

What should I do?

The evidence so far is very weak to support or recommend fermented foods for weight loss. These experimental studies have been short in length, and many did not report weight changes.

To date, most of the studies have used different fermented foods, so it is difficult to generalise across them all.

Nevertheless, fermented foods are still useful as part of a healthy, varied and balanced diet, particularly if you enjoy them. They are rich in healthy bacteria, and nutrients.

Are there downsides?

Some fermented foods, such as kimchi and sauerkraut, have added salt. The latest kimchi study said the average amount of kimchi South Koreans eat provides about 490mg of salt a day. For an Australian, this would represent about 50% of the suggested dietary target for optimal health.

Eating too much salt increases your risk of high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke.

Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

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

Designer Zac Posen on what it takes to craft “Ryan Murphy fabulosity” and nailing a Met Gala look

When you start your dream career at 16 years old, like Zac Posen did, it is bound to go through lush and transformative phases. The fashion designer and former "Project Runway" judge opened up about the evolution of his career during our "Salon Talks" conversation. He talked about designing Met Gala looks for stars like Claire Danes and Katie Holmes, refusing to dress Melania and Ivanka Trump, and launching and closing his own label. "I don't live with regrets," Posen said. "I'm thrilled I'm here right now." Most recently, Posen has taken over as executive vice president and creative director of Gap Inc.'s four brands – Gap, Banana Republic, Athleta and Old Navy – and ventured into costume design for the Ryan Murphy-produced FX limited series "Feud: Capote vs. The Swans."

In this "dream come true" assignment working with Murphy, Posen reimagined the timeless gowns in the third episode of "Feud: Capote vs. The Swans," which centers on the historic Black and White Ball hosted by Truman Capote at New York's Plaza Hotel in 1966. The process of creating interpretations of unforgettable socialites like Babe Paley (Naomi Watts), C.Z. Guest (Chloë Sevigny) or Slim Keith (Diane Lane), took endless amounts of research, Posen shared, but the fun was working with and watching the star-studded female cast. "These are all actors at the top of their game who as characters themselves are really strong, who are playing strong characters." He said they understood "the balance between high theatricality, elegance of a time period through Ryan Murphy's production."

And on the designing front, while Posen closed his brand in 2019, he said a new collection is "definitely" in his future. Watch my full interview with Posen here on YouTube, or read the transcript of our conversation below.

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

This show is about unveiling the inner society and high society of New York City through the eyes of Truman Capote. What did you learn about how fashion played a role in making or breaking 1960s socialites?

Fashion played a huge role. It's a character in these ladies' lives and a lot of people's lives. It's a very transitional moment in the history of style and fashion. It's a moment when the old world that we think of as meeting the contemporary world that we think about today. A lot of elements of what we see in New York City today have parts that existed then. It's this combination. It's a moment of a formality in a society, in this one specifically, when people still wore hats and gloves. I use that just as an overarching theme to think about this moment and period.

At this moment in history, New York and society was being challenged culturally and historically, and there was an incredible character and writer, Truman Capote. Truman Capote had played and existed and grew within New York society. He dreamed of it. He wanted to get to New York as a writer and he was like a child star. Truman was a writer. He was a child star; he got attention for that. He then wrote other successful novels, some we know of, “Breakfast at Tiffany's,” a little one, but then he used that to enter into his dream world that he had always fantasized about.

Like many other stories, it all goes back to the mother. His mother really dreamt of entering into a better life and into New York society. She loved glamour. She was quite beautiful. In fact, in her journey, she even left a young Truman as a child, came to New York and had this other new life. Truman begged her new husband to change his name and that's how he got the name Capote. He got a changed name, and she really desperately wanted to be part of this world, so he used his career to enter in, befriend and become the center of this. He was celebrated, and they loved him. He was a great character and a great entertainer.

He was an “it boy” and then, he went away. He went away to do a very unusual piece for a publication and he wrote “In Cold Blood.” At that point, somebody that had been celebrated became deeply respected. It was a huge success, it was a huge transitional moment for him in terms of, probably, his self-respect, his ego, but he also in this long period of time away, had a whole new perspective on this world that he so loved, that he was part of, but never actually really part of. He was always a guest and the entertainment.

Your part of this world is that you're a costume designer for one of the episodes. You create the gowns for episode three for his iconic Black and White Ball. You've done costume design work before on “The Outfit.” What was it like transitioning from “The Outfit” to “Feud” and getting to work with actresses like Naomi Watts, Molly Ringwald, Chloë Sevigny?

Truman got to this place and he said, "I'm going to throw myself a ball." He started to hand-select who he thought was interesting, who he liked. Obviously, he had to fill a certain quota socially, but he was going to throw the ball of balls. It was the rage at the time. Just to give context, there had been other black and white balls that had happened, and it started to be a thing. He was throwing his. He had the money to do it and he was going to do it.

When I came to start doing the costumes for this, this was a very different kind of project. I met the director, Gus Van Sant. He came over for dinner two summers ago now, and he said, "I'm doing some location scouting, Zac, and we're thinking about doing Truman and his ladies." At that point, I said, "Well, if you're going to go anywhere in the realm of Charles James gowns," which a lot of these great ladies were the clients of the great Charles James, a designer who was very sculptural and somebody that I understand inherently the work he did, "I'm your guy." Then, he texted me a few days later and said, "Well, actually I'm looking at a later period of time."

"It's about making somebody feel beautiful, empowered, strong or whatever they need in that moment."

I went into this deep dive into Truman Capote debaucherous at 54 with C.Z. Guest, who's played by Chloë, and these very strange Ron Galella photos. Then, he said, "Well, maybe something in between that time period a few years earlier, what got him to that place." It was a tease. He said, "Why don't you talk to Ryan Murphy's costume designer and producer, Lou [Eyrch]?" Then, Lou came over, and I'm a big, big fan of her work. She's one of our greats. I had pulled out all my research, the beginning of it, which were like 35 books, collecting all the different elements I could find about these ladies. We spoke, and she said, "Great." She said, "I think this is going to be great. Let's hear what Ryan has to say."

I waited and I was nervous; I was like, "OK, maybe it's not going to happen." Then, I was at a dinner, I was in line at a buffet and there was Ryan. I said, "Ryan, did you know about this idea that Gus and I had?" He said, "Well, why don't you do the black and white ball scene?" Then, I waited some more until I was like, "OK, well, this is not happening." Then, finally, I got a call from Lou, who said, "Ryan's back in town. Come to this address. We're filming a scene and we'll review what you're going to do."

It was a few days before Thanksgiving. I came there, and it was in a historic building setup that I'd never been to in New York. They had recreated it as the great hairdresser [Mr.] Kenneth's salon. It was a full 1960s salon. I got to sit in an AD chair just to watch behind. I saw this scene with Calista [Flockhart] playing Princess Lee Radziwill getting her hair done, and it was magical.

At that point, I got called in. Ryan said, "Come on. Let's go." We talked and we laid out this idea of recreating the Black and White Ball. What would be the themes? What was I thinking about? We thought of this idea of creating an aquatic menagerie. How do you elevate the theatricality of this? It's not, per se, an exact replica timepiece. There's artistic liberty. We're working through the world of Ryan Murphy, through the lens of Gus and then, in these new interpretations of these historic characters. So, then, I just got busy. I had to rush.

Drama and imagination: The iconic stylist behind “Sex and the City” on what fashion should be

What would you say was on the mood board for each character? They're all so vastly different, but their styles are in this era of 1960s fashion. My favorite was Slim's gown.

Oh, good. Thank you. It’s a jumpsuit. It's pants.

Really?

Yeah, because Slim wore pants. I went into crazy research. I found a VHS of a CBS recording of the entrances of the ball, which production hadn't had. A woman, Deborah Davis, who wrote a great book on the ball, had that. I was doing some investigation for this down to material. I was trying to find deadstock materials that could match the time period, finding flower blocks at the time that would've been from 1964. I really went there. It was crazy. We were running around the city. It was so quick that I knew I just had to get the materials. Then, I built it three-dimensionally.

Slim, as a person, historically, there was no representation that I could find, no illustration, no video, no photos of what she wore to the ball. Now, Slim was a real style icon but, at that moment, it seems that she went through a side entrance. She definitely was there. Apparently, people thought it was not so much fun in actual reality. Lee Radziwill had fun because she had a great date, and there's a million photos of her dancing throughout the ball, her and Katharine Graham. The famous photos of her and her dress are in the Smithsonian.

So, I had a lot of artistic liberty [with Slim]. She was a great traveler, so I thought large, wide-leg pants. There's the famous photos of her in a tuxedo and a red jacket and I thought, "Let's build on that," and I came up with this jumpsuit. I was like, "Here's her entrance in this crazy taffeta hooded cape that sweeps in."

I'm her walker in that scene. You can't see, but we made this Michael Jackson-y tilted hat and I'm her walker.

An Easter egg for the viewers.

Exactly. I'm the one who swings the coat around in that scene, and that was fun, but Diane Lane was incredible. Working with all of these performers, a lot of these incredible women, I have had long-standing relationships with. Demi [Moore] is like my soul sister. We have been working together pretty much since early in my career and we have a great collaboration. Chloë, I've known since my teens in New York and have dressed her. I've never made costumes for her. It's very different. Naomi Watts, I've worked with and dressed her for many red carpets. Molly, we became very good friends through this process. Jessica Lange as the Black Swan and the apparition was this dream come true. I'd worked with her, but I'd never made a grand costume that had to encompass every era in one outfit. I wanted to go from the teens, her time in the South through up to the '60s in one outfit.

"When we look back at all of this in 50 years from now, it's going to look like its own interesting cultural phenomena of some form of pageantry."

It was a blast and they were all so nurturing. They take it very seriously. These are all actors at the top of their game who as characters themselves are really strong, who are playing strong characters, understanding the balance between high theatricality, elegance of a time period through Ryan Murphy's production, through the eyes of Gus Van Sant, a lot of different elements.

Anyhow, it was really cool. I draped these pieces on mannequins, I presented them to Ryan and to Lou, they would give notes, approve it, we'd assign them. I padded the mannequins to the body and then, two or three weeks later, we were doing fittings. I worked with a freelance studio in New York that's incredible. I don't have my own studio. I'm a one-man show with a great creative assistant and some interns. Then, this amazing studio where we quickly over Christmastime made them. Then, come first week of January, we just fit them and we started making them. Then, the masks were added and we made the masks. It was fun.

It sounds like so much work, but I think it was just the best part of the show, in my opinion. There's nothing better than seeing your personal touches in this work.

I'm glad you got the '60s. That means a lot. It was joyous. For me, it's a dream come true to work with Ryan. He's somebody we've met over the years for many, many years, and we've really always wanted to do a collaboration. Through this, I got to meet Lou and see her as a master of building these characters and how she works.

It's quite something. It's really down to every detail. To be able to use an imagination and to go even just what are your dream black and white illustrations through history, of different other masquerade balls and saying, "OK, how did we get to this masquerade ball?" You look at Beardsley drawings or all these different crazy elements that got us here, things from the '30s and what that got you to that place. Building each character is really, really cool.

You've gotten to this place in your career now where you are doing costume design work. You are a designer. You've been a judge on “Project Runway.” You have done it all, I would say. Did you ever think that you would get to this point in your career, that it would go this way?

I always dreamed for it to. I don't live with regrets. I'm thrilled I'm here right now. I still do one-of-a-kind pieces and I'm always doing interesting projects. I love theater and I love working with great imagineers that are combined with entertainment, but artists and these performers that are at their highest level. It's just rare in culture today and in television, everywhere to see something where production level is — I just have never seen it to that level of care on all levels and to be a small part of it, I feel very lucky and humbled. I had a blast the whole time through.

Fashion superstar Zac Posen on his new career documentary: "What's the point? To make people dream"

Your career has been so long-standing, your work is prolific, but you started in the industry at 16, pretty young. Looking back now, what would you tell yourself about these life-changing moments?

You can't crystal ball life. You can mood board, but you can't control the weather. A really wise person when I started a business in fashion said, "Well, fashion's like weather, and you can't control it, and I wouldn't invest in it, either." I think for me, I feel like it's just begun. Every different project is its own journey and, if you put your heart into it, it will take you to the next place.

"These are the cool things you dream about as a kid."

Sometimes, things surprisingly find purpose in different ways and you've got to be open to the ride. You've got to be in this for the work. I think for me, although there is such a showmanship to the work that I've done over the years, it's really about making an actor or a customer feel really beautiful and empowered in there. I learn every time. I keep learning every day. This project, these shapes in this time period were not something always the most comfortable . . . I was like, "OK, baby doll tubes? Like that? It could be surface here, but how do we up it?" In the process, we came up with this word, Ryan Murphy fabulosity. It all had to be upped. It had to be upped and more and more.

I was like, "OK." Then, we get taffeta cape and it's entrances and that fine line, but these are the cool things you dream about as a kid. I came back full circle. I created these in the studio in the loft in Soho that I grew up in and my dad's a painter. I was working in his painting studio within his space. All the paints are there, his paintings are there, but then I was working within that. It's where I started my company, it's where I grew up and it was just this full circle moment of being three years old, playing with my LEGOs, my sister's dolls, pieces of fabric and materials, just building it in that way and thinking of the theater that's going to come to play.

We are now approaching award seasons, Met Gala season, all of the things that keep us all busy pop culture-wise. Some of your most iconic looks have come from these red carpet moments, specifically the LED Claire Danes dress that we all love. What is it designing for these women, like Oprah, Michelle Obama or Gwyneth Paltrow? What is it like to dress the most powerful women in the industry?

I like powerful people. I like people that take ownership in general. It's fun. Again, it's about making somebody feel beautiful, empowered, strong or whatever they need in that moment. I'm there to feel it out. You try to be a dress therapist, in a way. I don't know, it's that thing that I used to, when I would work with a lot of performers, be like, "Well, what roles do you want to play?" Then, it's how to think about that in some capacity to where they are now for something, it's like a teaser. It's a costume of red carpet life, which is not reality. It's all some interesting performance.

I look at the videos of people going to the Black and White Ball and it is so extra, but they're understated extra at the time, of the time period and the style. It's very interesting. If you saw people showing up to the Oscars like that, well, first of all, "You'd be like, wow, what a stylish Oscar [look]," but it would also look over the top in a way, even though they're understated, in a way.

I think when we look back at all of this in 50 years from now, it's going to look like its own interesting cultural phenomena of some form of pageantry. I don't know how that will reflect with how we look at our values of today, culturally. What I will say is that it will always probably bring attention to some incredible performances and artistry. As a designer, it's wonderful if your work can be associated with the work of the actor or artist that's wearing it, or First Lady.

And, you're not one to shy away from politics and the intersection of fashion and politics. You've refused to dress people like Ivanka and Melania Trump. Why is it important for you to take a stand where you lie politically and do you feel like it's your social responsibility as a designer to dictate whoever you dress or have opinions about these things?

"I love making collections. I definitely will make collections in my future."

I think that, as a gay man, for me specifically with those dressings, that was really serious. I don't have my business anymore, but as a business owner who, at the time, employed and also as an openly gay public figure, I just represented that and I also employed people of all preferences and identities. That was fighting against it. For me and those kind of issues, that's really important when I had my own business.

As you find yourself in different roles within life, sometimes, you have the ability to do that but, when I did, I did take a stand and I think that's a really personal choice. Politics and having a brand have become very polarizing, even human brands and for me, I think politics can be actually very dangerous on social media. Especially as we enter into our reality being blurred with AI and augmented realities, it can be very confusing as we are moving into another living force that is digital and that the supercomputers have their own algorithms that can build names. It's a whole world, but I think we have to be really careful. I think the most important thing that I feel is to respect one another. Clothing can be a unifier for that. Beauty can be and art can be.

If that's my small place to make people around the world think for one second, to take them away from their everyday, if it's one moment in a show with a taffeta cape that's there that can connect and they might even know they're not connected. They don't, around the planet. Everybody on Hulu that has the luxury of Hulu or FX, that kinetic, electrical, it's like a haptic osmosis.

Like you've mentioned, though, you've taken a step back from this larger fashion world and you've been working as a one-man show and it's really shown, but people really miss your designs and your collections. What would you tell those people that are still looking out for your work?

Well, I'd say, great question. Creativity is a lifelong pursuit. I think that there's different periods of how that gets expressed and I think it's really interesting and important to be able to take different stops along the train. I think that's important. It's not necessarily getting off. You're still in motion, always, planets in motion, but it's different elements of moments.

I love making collections. I definitely will make collections in my future. How that represents itself…I like to have this perspective to look at it in a different way today. The amount of collections with this perspective that just exist in the world seems insane to me right now, it feels strange, and I think that there's other elements and other parts of the market that I'm just interested in right now. That's what I'd say.

Watch more

"Salon Talks" about fashion

More “navigators” are helping women travel to have abortions

Chloe Bell is a case manager at the National Abortion Federation. She spends her days helping people cover the cost of an abortion and, increasingly, the interstate travel many of them need to get the procedure.

“What price did they quote you?” Bell asked a woman from New Jersey who had called the organization’s hotline seeking money to pay for an abortion. Her appointment was the next day.

“They quoted me $500,” said the woman, who was five weeks pregnant when she spoke to Bell in November. She gave permission for a journalist to listen to the call on the condition that she not be named.

"Impossible to enforce": Attempts to ban abortion travel are scare tactics, legal expert says

“We can definitely help,” Bell told her. “We can cover the cost of the procedure. You just tell them you have a pledge from the NAF.”

Bell is one of a growing network of workers who help people seeking abortions understand what’s legal, where they can travel for care, and how to get there.

Most callers are like the woman from New Jersey — people in the early stages of a pregnancy who can’t afford the $500 cost of a medication abortion.

These “navigators” can often recite from memory the names and locations of clinics throughout their region that offer abortion services at a given point in a pregnancy. Often, they can then name the hotel closest to the clinic. And some are so familiar with the most common airports for connecting flights that they can help patients find their next departure gate in real time.

State abortion laws have always varied, so helping people access legal abortion services isn’t new, but the amount of travel needed to get care has risen sharply.

In the first six months of 2023, nearly 1 in 5 abortion patients traveled out of state to get care, compared with 1 in 10 in 2020, according to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, a national nonprofit that supports abortion rights. That increase in travel, even for early-pregnancy abortions, has sparked a corresponding rise in the need for case managers like Bell.

Most callers are like the woman from New Jersey — people in the early stages of a pregnancy who can’t afford the $500 cost of a medication abortion. But with elective abortion banned almost entirely in 14 states and after six weeks in two more, the logistics of ending a pregnancy at any stage have become more complicated.

“People are being forced later into pregnancies to access care” because of the difficulty of arranging travel over long distances and the chilling effect of the bans, said Brittany Fonteno, president of the NAF, a nonprofit professional organization of clinics that provide abortions. “It increases the cost of care and has a devastating impact on people.”

After hanging up with the woman from New Jersey, Bell told a woman from Georgia that she likely wouldn’t need to pay the $4,800 bill for her 24-week abortion. Half the money would come from the National Abortion Federation and Bell would contact local organizations that have their own abortion access funds to find the rest. Once the money was sorted, the woman told Bell she couldn’t decide whether she should drive more than 14 hours to Washington, D.C., for her care or buy a plane ticket. Her appointment was the following week.

“I was looking at flights, but most of them won’t be there at the time that I need to be there,” she told Bell, a former librarian who talks to as many as 40 callers a day. The Georgia woman said she had $1,200 saved for the trip. Because of the length of a second-trimester abortion procedure, she would likely have to stay in Washington for three nights.

“Sometimes we can help with travel,” Bell told the Georgia caller. “Book the flight and hotel to see if the $1,200 covers those things, also meals and ride-shares from airport to hotel. Factoring in all of those expenses, if you feel like $1,200 doesn’t cover that, reach back out to me immediately.”

Since July 2022, NAF case managers like Bell have helped patients pay for nearly three times the number of hotel rooms and plane, train, and bus tickets each month as they did before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The most requests for financial assistance have come from people in Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama — populous states with strict abortion laws. Calls are also longer and more involved. The nonprofit now spends $200,000 a month (up from $30,000 a month before Texas instituted a six-week-ban in 2021) and is still not meeting the need, Fonteno said.

Will Roe v. Wade ever be restored? How certain legal challenges could reinstate abortion protections

In 2020, Fonteno’s organization employed about 30 full-time hotline operators. That number rose when Texas passed its six-week ban. And since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, the line has employed 45 to 55 people, said Melissa Fowler, the NAF’s chief program officer.

Other reproductive health organizations — at the local, regional, and national levels — have also added staff like Bell. Planned Parenthood affiliates, including some in states with full bans, now employ 98 people known as patient navigators. Most were hired after Dobbs, said Danika Severino Wynn, vice president of abortion access for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She estimates 127,000 people have relied on these navigators since July 2021.

Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in Portland, Oregon, has hired three abortion patient navigators since Roe was overturned, according to spokesperson Sam West. Abortion is legal in Oregon, with no restrictions, but that doesn’t mean everyone has equal access to services. One of the new navigators speaks Spanish and focuses on the rural parts of the state, where services are sparse.

The clinic declined a request for a journalist to listen in on calls with its navigators, citing patient privacy. The two other navigators focus on helping callers who are from out of state (usually Idaho), are younger than 15, or are in their second trimester.

Lawyers contacted for this story who are familiar with current state laws said patient navigators are unlikely to be at legal risk for their work helping people connect with abortion services, though it could matter which state they are sitting in when they offer help. For example, an Idaho law stating that adults in Idaho are not allowed to “recruit” minors to get an abortion could apply to navigators if they answered the phone in Idaho. That law, along with many others in states with bans, is being challenged in court.

Back at her desk in Georgia, Bell took a call from a 20-year-old woman in North Carolina named Deshelle, who was seeking financial support for a second-trimester abortion. Deshelle talked with KFF Health News a few days later, speaking on the condition that only her middle name be used, to protect her privacy.

On the day Deshelle became pregnant, it was legal to get an abortion in North Carolina at up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. About six weeks later, when she discovered she was pregnant, she went to a nearby clinic to have a medication abortion. She went to the first appointment to fill out paperwork. She was required by state law to wait 72 hours before returning to get the abortion pills. She was also given an ultrasound she didn’t want. The image of the embryo rattled her and she skipped the second appointment.

By the time Deshelle decided again to go ahead with an abortion, she was nearly 15 weeks pregnant and the North Carolina law had changed. By July 1, nearly all abortions after 12 weeks were banned. She would have to go out of state.

As abortion access shrinks, people are stockpiling pills. But it's not always those who need it most

With the help of NAF navigators, Deshelle made an appointment at a clinic in Virginia, where a 15-week abortion is legal. Her mother drove but did not support Deshelle’s decision to end the pregnancy. Then there were protesters. By the time Deshelle got inside, she was crying. She met with a provider but decided once again not to go through with the abortion.

None of that came up on her call with Bell in November. By that time, Deshelle was 26 weeks pregnant. It was her second time calling the hotline and her third time trying to get an abortion. She just wanted to know if she could still get financial assistance. The cost of her care had escalated from about $500 when she could have gotten a medication abortion to $6,500 for a multiday abortion procedure.

Bell took her cue from Deshelle and stayed focused on logistics. She approved funding to cover half the cost of the procedure and secured a donation to cover the rest. She confirmed that Deshelle had a place to stay and the required companion to go to the clinic with her each day. Then they hung up. The rest of the journey was Deshelle’s alone.

“This isn’t what I want, but I think it’s the best choice for me,” Deshelle said from just outside the waiting room on the first day of the procedure. She read aloud from a pamphlet about the medications she’d be given and the timing of it all. Then her name was called.

A week later, after it was all over, she still felt she’d done the right thing.

“You literally have to be really strong to abort your baby and be OK,” she said she’d tell anyone else in her situation, “and you also have to be really strong to be a single mom.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

about abortion

Hillary Clinton drags “useful idiot” Tucker Carlson for Putin interview

Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on Wednesday put Tucker Carlson on blast after he teased an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, likening the ex-Fox News host to a "puppy dog" of the Russian leader.

Her scathing rebuke came in response to a question from MSNBC host Alex Wagner's about what Carlson's upcoming interview says about him, Putin and right-wing media.

"Well, it shows me what I think we’ve all known," Clinton said. "He’s what is called a 'useful idiot.' I mean, if you actually read translations of what’s being said on Russian media, they make fun of him. I mean, he’s like a puppy dog. You know, somehow, after having been fired from so many outlets and the United States, he– I would not be surprised if he emerges with a contract with a Russian outlet because he is a useful idiot."

The former secretary of state went on to lament Carlson's penchant for pushing falsehoods and parroting Putin's "pack of lies about Ukraine." She said that the Russian leader's acceptance of the interview is unsurprising given he could use Carlson's platform to further lie about his goals in Ukraine.

Carlson has been a vocal critic of the United States' military aid to Ukraine since Russia invaded the country in February 2022. The right-wing media personality has promoted conspiracy theories about Ukraine building bioweapons to use against Russia and disregarded Putin's track record of authoritarianism while painting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "dictator."

The interview is "really quite sad," Clinton continued, because it's a sign that some Americans at this moment "are like a fifth column from Vladimir Putin."

“There is a yearning for leaders who can kill and imprison their opponents, destroy the press, lead a life that is one of impunity and bound by any laws," she added. "There’s a yearning among certain people in our country for that kind of leadership. And I find that absolutely gobsmacking terrifying.”

Hillary Clinton nails it again, calls Tucker Carlson a “useful idiot”. (Video: MSNBC) pic.twitter.com/Tl9iulMAdW

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) February 8, 2024

Republicans are sticking to Trump — they’re about to reap the whirlwind

Welcome to the whirlwind.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional lawyer, says he doesn’t believe the Republicans can win this fall. “They are floundering to find something to run on,” he said. “They’re losing all over the place. They don’t want solutions, they want problems. With them it’s rule or ruin. Either they want to rule everything or ruin our chances of progressing. That’s a fascistic strategy.”

According to Raskin, the Republicans won’t accept the result of elections unless they win, and are using immigration as a campaign issue for Donald Trump — who may well be ineligible to run for office. “I don’t think he’s legally qualified to be on the ballot,” Raskin said. “It’s clear to me that section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies Donald Trump because he participated in an insurrection or rebellion. He violated his oath.” Raskin hopes the Supreme Court will come to the “unavoidable” conclusion that Trump is ineligible for the presidency.

Like I said, the whirlwind.

Trump could face "draconian remedy" if CFO's possible perjury deal goes through

In 1984, in a place called Rio Bravo just south of Laredo, Texas, a double-wide trailer burst into flames.

As the flames grew in intensity they became a whirlwind of fire that consumed the trailer and another structure nearby.

That serves as an apt metaphor for today’s Republican politics, and not just on the southern border.

The trailer owners were unable to do anything about the fire because the subdivision they lived in had no running water, or even electricity. At the time of the fire they were also busy fishing a friend’s trailer out of the Rio Grande, where it had been swept after a sudden deluge of rain.

Rio Bravo was, at the time, a subdivision situated next to the Rio Grande, carved out of rented land by a greedy Texas land developer who sold parcels in “open contracts” to undocumented immigrants. Business was so good, he opened a second illegal subdivision (later called “colonias” — a common term in Mexico — as they became popular throughout the Southwest). He named the second one “El Cenizo.”

That’s right. He called the second one “The Ash.” You can’t make that up.

Covering the border between Texas and Mexico was one of my earliest assignments as a reporter. One of my first run-ins with the Trump administration occurred because of Trump’s incredibly obtuse policies regarding the border. At the time I confronted White House press secretary Sarah Sanders — now the governor of Arkansas — about the practice of caging young immigrant children.

She, of course, claimed to be a Christian and also claimed to be more credible than most reporters. She lied then. She lies now. And Don the Con did not understand, either then or now, the root cause of illegal immigration or how to solve that problem. Trump is not alone. It is an emotional issue, one that nearly every politician has fumbled and few of us understand. It isn’t about criminals marauding through the countryside. It is about hope, despair and disinformation. The U.S. government and the businesses that want a constant supply of cheap labor are responsible for continuing the problem.

Donald Trump has never understood what's driving immigration, but he isn't alone. It is an emotional issue, one that nearly every politician has fumbled and few of us understand.

There has been no meaningful legislation concerning illegal immigration since the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1985, which, for the first time, made it illegal to hire undocumented immigrants. In the 40 years since that became law, few if any large companies have ever been prosecuted for hiring any of the millions of immigrants who work in agriculture, construction, thoroughbred racing and numerous other industries. It’s the promise of jobs and a chance to live out the American Dream that drives the “crisis” on the border that has been with us for at least 40 years.

America needs cheap labor. Immigrants from Mexico and Latin America (and other places much farther away) need jobs. In response, there has been a steady deluge of political garbage out of every White House since the Reagan administration, aimed at criminalizing a story of hope in search of votes.

As the rain continued to fall in Los Angeles this week, causing catastrophic mudslides and flooding, the political rain in Washington also continued, and with similar results.

It engulfed the GOP shortly after sunset on Tuesday, when the House failed by four votes to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas — for reasons that even some Republicans could not fathom. Rep. Tom McClintock of California, for instance, voted against impeachment for the simple reason that House Republicans failed “to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.” To proceed, he said, would “stretch and distort the Constitution.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Brian Karem's weekly column

The world is in disarray right now. But nothing is in more disarray than the Republican Party, as it suffers both the whirlwind of fire brought about by its own need to generate issues for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the deluge of stupidity unleashed by those who do his bidding in Congress. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene led the charge in that latter deluge, one of the few things she does with aplomb. She even claimed that Democrats had hidden members on the House floor to confuse the GOP majority as they voted to impeach Mayorkas. Apparently she can’t count to four even if she uses all of her toes. House Speaker Mike Johnson is so inept that he appointed Greene as a spokesperson. He also can’t count votes. Majority Whip Tom Emmer couldn’t find a way to get four more votes from his own caucus. Republicans have vowed to go after Mayorkas again once they figure out how to count. Is there a better definition of incompetent?

None of this has anything to do with “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional necessity for impeaching officeholders. There is nothing more grimly amusing than watching the GOP’s three-ring circus — which is both led by Donald Trump and staged exclusively for his benefit.

Trump lost twice on Tuesday. He couldn’t get the votes he wanted to impeach Mayorkas and he lost his bid for “total immunity” in his Jan. 6 criminal case, when three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court delivered circuit judges offered a unanimous and airtight opinion against him.

The world is in disarray. But nothing is in more disarray than the Republican Party, as it suffers through the chaos and stupidity caused by its own need to generate issues for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

To understand the depth of Trump’s despair, you may be tempted to count the ketchup bottles at Mar-a-Lago. Or you could read at least part of the 57-page court decision which found that Trump can be criminally charged. Meanwhile, the GOP couldn’t muster anyone brighter than Greene to speak up about it. “When they came to Washington to protest, you called that an insurrection,” she said. “But when Biden was inaugurated and this Capitol was surrounded with National Guard troops, none of you stood there and called that an insurrection.”

The congresswoman from Georgia proves, once again, that you can be a whirlwind of fiery rhetoric while deluging the populace with extreme ignorance. Oh, and she wants the House to pass a resolution stating that Trump was no insurrectionist. So there is that.

At the same time the House GOP was trying to impeach Mayorkas, it was also just saying no to a Senate compromise bill that would provide more money and infrastructure on the border along with more support for both Ukraine and Israel. A standalone bill to fund aid to Israel, backed by the GOP, also failed on Tuesday. The border bill failed in the Senate Wednesday, and now that robust body, dominated by aging white men who suffer from incontinence, will have to take up separate funding bills for Ukraine and Israel.

“All of this is just to give Trump something to run on,” Raskin told me. “My colleagues in the Republican Party are subverting the process for a man who embraces fascism.”

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

The failures keep mounting, but don’t expect Mike Johnson to take any responsibility for his part in the fiasco on the House side. He told reporters, “I don't think that this is a reflection on the leader, I think this is a reflection on the body itself." Well, here’s a reminder: He’s the head of that body.

Johnson has promised that any bipartisan legislation sent to the House from the Senate regarding immigration will be “dead on arrival.” Of course Johnson says the border is “an overwhelming emergency” and should be dealt with promptly — but apparently not so much of an emergency that the GOP is willing to accept a compromise solution to a problem that has been ongoing since the last century. The Senate plan — negotiated by James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican; Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat; and Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent — would strengthen border security and reduce illegal immigration. The Border Patrol union even supports it – and those folks are not liberal Democrats.

Don’t expect a solution anytime soon. We will get nothing but empty words as Trump’s tempest in a very nasty teapot continues. He wants to delay border legislation indefinitely, so he can run on the issue and take credit for any solution — but only after he wins, which is looking increasingly uncertain the closer we get to Election Day. The decision to deny him immunity seems ironclad, and relies on one of the oldest landmark Supreme Court cases — Marbury v. Madison — to do so. That decision gives courts the ability to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. So it could be argued that if the Supreme Court takes up Trump’s immunity case and rules in his favor, it will overturn more than 200 years of judicial decisions and eliminate the Supreme Court as an equal partner in government.

To quote the D.C. Circuit decision: “As the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained: No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. … That principle applies, of course, to a President.”

The court also found that the president is “amenable to the laws for his conduct,” and “cannot at his discretion” violate them.

Finally, the court found that Trump was a “citizen,” not a king: He “lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.”

Harry Litman of the Los Angeles Times offered an explanation on X of what took the D.C. circuit so long: “They opted, probably from the start, to make it per curiam — basically one voice. That gives it even added force. And that might have required extensive compromising negotiation to get it just right.”

That means the Supreme Court might actually refuse to hear Trump’s appeal on the immunity case — something he fears and that many court watchers say is possible now that the D.C. Circuit has done the heavy lifting and penned an exquisite opinion. At any rate, even if the Supreme Court takes up the case, many experts believe Trump will still face a criminal trial, at the latest, by fall.

In the short term, do not expect any legislation regarding immigration to pass the Senate or House. Expect Donald Trump to use the time to raise money while he continues to fight his battles in court and keeps his political party running interference for him.

After Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson and Mitch McConnell; after its inability to pass any legislation, the Republican Party is undeniably broken, unable to lead and woefully lacking in common sense.

Trump’s last wild ride in the public domain is in its death throes. His whirlwind is consuming him. His supporters are holding on, and those who need him the most, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, are defending him so they can stay as relevant as possible (and perhaps evade criminal charges) in a world that increasingly sees Trump and his minions for what they are; soulless hacks with a need and desire for great personal power at the expense of humanity.

What this means for the GOP is obvious: After Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson; after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; after its inability to pass any legislation, the party is undeniably broken, unable to lead and woefully lacking in common sense. It is dedicated to the edification and protection of one of the worst politicians ever to rise to prominence in our republic.

Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, described him as “a person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about.”

Lead? The GOP is incapable of that. Follow? It won’t follow anyone except Trump, and it will never get out of the way — unless we collectively kick it to the curb. Or right into that whirlwind.

from Brian Karem on America in 2024

“Awful and unethical”: Legal experts say Judge Cannon could face removal for “disturbing” order

Legal experts sounded the alarm after the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to keep government witnesses secret.

Smith’s team opposed making information public that could reveal the identity or any personal identifying information of any potential witnesses in the case or any transcripts or other documents they may have provided, citing concerns about witness intimidation.

Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in Trump’s favor on the matter, writing: “Following an independent review of the Motion and the full record, the Court determines, with limited exceptions as detailed below, that the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue.”

Former prosecutors: "Screw up" by Judge Cannon could lay groundwork for Jack Smith appeal

Cannon questioned Smith’s concern for witnesses, writing that “the Special Counsel’s sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing.”

The Press Coalition, which is comprised of major media companies, also asked the court to unseal Trump’s redacted motion in unclassified form, citing public interest.

Jeremy Foley, a Berkeley College law professor who specializes in judicial ethics, told Newsweek it is "unusual for a judge to make classified documents public."

"Before doing so, Judge Cannon was required to weigh the factors favoring disclosure: potential aid to the defense and the public interest argument asserted by the media groups against those identified by the government: release of the documents could harm national security, impair an ongoing investigation, or compromise potential witnesses in the case," he said.

"If the government is concerned that the judge's order will cause harm, it can seek emergency relief from the 11th Circuit, which could stay the order pending review. We should know very soon if that happens," Foley added.

"Particularly troubling": Ex-US attorney alarmed over Judge Cannon's "oddly scheduled" docs meeting

The order raised concerns among legal experts who have long worried that Cannon may be tilting the case in favor of Trump.

“Judge Aileen Cannon continues to make rulings that are disturbing,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack. “Perhaps we’d view any one of them, on their own, as a judicial aberration. But the pattern of ruling upon ruling that is out of the legal mainstream and results in delay well past the point where this case should have been ready for trial is something that shouldn’t be ignored. Judges should not put their fingers on the scales of justice either for or against a defendant or any other party. Here, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that the scales are being tipped.”

Smith’s “best option” may be to ask Cannon to reconsider, but the judge’s “dismissive tone towards the government suggests that there is little they can do to persuade her,” Vance wrote.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

A big test will come next week when Cannon holds a hearing under Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), where she will make rulings on what classified material in discovery can be used at trial. Trump is expected to seek additional delays in the case, asking Cannon to postpone the deadline for some pre-trial motions and revisiting his presidential immunity and Presidential Records Act claims that “border on being frivolous at this point, and using them to further delay this case would be a travesty,” Vance wrote.

“The time for Smith to decide whether to actively seek Cannon’s recusal, or at least hint to the Circuit that it’s merited, will be after the Section 4 hearing rulings are issued,” Vance noted. “Forced recusals are rare. But at this late date, even if the 11th Circuit were to move quickly, as it has in the past, and force Cannon to step aside, it would take a new judge some time to get up to speed. There are no quick fixes for the damage Judge Cannon has done,” she added.

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

Longtime Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe said he hopes Tuesday’s order “will trigger a motion to remove her.”

“The 11th Circuit might well agree this was the last straw. Compromising national security is a bridge too far,” he tweeted.

“It is impossible to overstate how awful and unethical is Aileen Cannon,” added Norman Ornstein, emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “Clearly has no business being a judge at any level.”

about the Trump documents case