Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The Supreme Court is now perfectly set up to save Donald Trump

Donald Trump first came to America's attention as a political actor back in 2011, when he became the self-appointed leading voice on the right insisting that President Barack Obama had been illegally elected president because he wasn't born in the U.S. He made all the rounds of the news shows demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate, even claiming that he sent people to Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, and teasing to the "Today Show" audience that "they cannot believe what they’re finding." When Obama produced the birth certificate, Trump claimed "an extremely reliable source" told him it was a forgery. This birther campaign went on for years until Trump was elected president in 2016. And it was all a lie. 

This election is going to test Donald Trump's belief that "his" three justices would save him.

Isn't it so typically Trump that after all that he would be the one disqualified from the presidential ballot? At least that's what the Colorado Supreme Court ruled last night in a case that cites the 14th Amendment barring officers of the government from running if they've participated in an insurrection. The court found that he did that and said the Constitution applies to presidents as well. 

The case is going to the U.S. Supreme Court, of course, as everyone expected. But if anyone thinks the high court will defer to a state supreme court out of their often-stated commitment to "states' rights," I wouldn't hold my breath. It's very likely they'll agree to take it up and will decide it one way or another. This election is going to test Donald Trump's belief that "his" three justices would save him. They refused to step up in 2020 but with potential jail terms looming and unprecedented constitutional challenges facing them, he might just luck out. 

The court was already knee-deep in Trump cases anyway. They will let us all know this week if they plan to take up the special counsel's request that they weigh in early on the question of whether Trump has immunity because he was president when he tried to stage a coup. He filed with both the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as well and they have already said they'll take it up in a couple of weeks so the Supremes may decide to wait until they issue their opinion. 

They also agreed to take up another January 6 case brought by Joseph Fischer, a man who stormed the Capitol that day and is charged with obstructing an official proceeding. If the Court agrees with Fischer that this law has been wrongfully applied, hundreds of people convicted of that crime will have their convictions overturned or the charge dropped. One of them could be Donald Trump who has been charged with that same crime. 

If the court decides that Trump has immunity because he was acting in his official duties when he incited a riot that day, it's game over anyway and the January 6 case is pretty much dead. It's hard to believe they'd do that. Then again most of us didn't think the court would take up Bush v. Gore and order the counting of votes to stop either. Still, it is important to note that this court has shown some restraint with Trump cases so far, including a case in which he tried to claim "absolute immunity" but they ruled unanimously against him. So they may decide that he shouldn't have immunity in this case either, which of course he should not. 

The idea that it was his official duty to call up election officials and say, "So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break," is so ludicrous that it makes your head hurt. 

We need your help to stay independent

But they could really muck things up with a bad ruling in the Fischer case which seems as if it could be their reasoning for taking the case this term. Sure, they'll grant that Trump isn't immune from accountability but they could easily find that all of those patriotic citizens who ransacked the Capitol and threatened the vice president and speaker of the House may have been unruly but that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding wasn't meant to cover those particular crimes. You can bet that Trump's lawyers are going to ask for a stay until they decide it — and that would give the court the excuse they may be looking for to delay Smith's case until after the election. 

The only thing we know at this point is that the Supreme Court is now going to be involved in three major Trump election cases as we go into the election year.

If the court grants Trump a stay until they decide that issue, Smith could drop the two charges that pertain to that law, leaving two others: conspiracy to deny Americans their rights and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. So maybe the court wouldn't see the usefulness in helping Trump out with that. On the other hand, the argument set forth by Fischer, that the law was meant to apply to document mishandling, actually does apply to Trump since he was involved in the fake elector scheme. 

The only thing we know at this point is that the Supreme Court is now going to be involved in three major Trump election cases as we go into the election year. Do we really think the Supreme Court with a six-three right-wing majority, three of whom were appointed by Trump to take the heat for Trump being held accountable for his crimes? 


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


It really should be a 5-3 majority because Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself as former Chief Justice William Rehnquist did in the Nixon case. (He had been in Nixon's Department of Justice before he joined the court.) Thomas has not only been exposed as a thoroughly corrupt judge who really should resign in disgrace anyway (with even more damning evidence coming out just this week) but the fact that his wife was heavily involved in the very insurrection Trump is accused of fomenting makes it even more obvious. He won't and they can't make him. He does what he wants. And in any case, they would still have a majority if they all stick together to protect the former president from the consequences of his actions. Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell saw to that. 

I don't think anyone can predict what's going to happen. If the court does rule against Trump and somehow prevents him from running we know all hell will break loose, but what else is new? Unless Trump is exonerated and wins the election that's going to happen anyway. If the court is smart it will take my colleague Amanda Marcotte's advice and pull the band-aid off sooner rather than later. Maybe they understand that if Senate Republicans had lived up to their responsibilities and convicted Trump in his second impeachment for inciting the insurrection as they should have the GOP and the country wouldn't be in this mess today. But I wouldn't count on it. 

Booting Trump off the ballot isn’t just legally correct — it’s the smart move for the Supreme Court

Let's just get this out the way up front: If Donald Trump is removed from enough state ballots that one of the also-rans vying for the Republican nomination gets to run for president instead, there's a risk that President Joe Biden loses in November. All of those never-Trumpers we thought were our buddies will abandon the #Resistance so fast it will make Democratic heads spin. And the MAGA types could be so angry about losing Dear Leader they will rush the polls to vote as hard against Biden as possible. 

Or maybe the opposite will happen: Trump will whine, cry and blame whoever gets the nomination, convincing enough MAGA types to sit the election out in protest, thus handing Biden an easy victory next fall. 

If SCOTUS loves the GOP, cutting Trump loose is simply the safe move. 

The reality is we're facing a situation never seen before in the United States. A shameless insurrectionist is running for president while under 91 felony indictments. To add to this historic situation, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday banned Trump from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary ballot. The 4-3 decision follows the clear language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment barring those who "have engaged in insurrection" from running for office. Yet anyone who thinks they know how this will play out over the next 11 months is kidding themselves. The one thing that is dead certain, however, is that the Supreme Court justices would be fools not to uphold this decision. 

Banning Trump from the ballot — in all states, not just Colorado — is clearly what is called for by the Constitution. It takes a herculean effort of feigned stupidity to pretend otherwise. The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was written to bar congressmen who joined the Confederacy from trying to pretend all that "civil war" business never happened, is not vague: 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Even people who want to play word games and quibble wars over Trump's role in the January 6 insurrection — and the weeks prior, where he plotted to overthrow democracy — struggle with that one. It doesn't say convicted of insurrection. It doesn't say that you had to be the leader. You merely had to "engage." So even if you want to pretend Trump wasn't the leader, he was engaged in the coup in every way, from the "fake electors" plot to the part where he egged on rioters who were threatening to kill his own vice president. 

"These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection," the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its decision.  

We need your help to stay independent

No one is going to accuse the six Federalist Society justices on the Supreme Court of being bound by the clear letter of the Constitution. As the public has started to realize in the wake of the Dobbs decision and the slow drip of billionaire sugar daddy scandals, the main things the conservative justices care about are pushing their right-wing ideology, helping out the Republican Party and complaining about people who find their corruption unseemly. So fine, if they don't want to do it for the country or the law, then here's an idea: Conservatives of the Supreme Court, do it for yourselves. 

Clearing the way so that Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley can win the Republican nomination solves a lot of problems for the perpetually churlish Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, and not just because it means they never have to talk to Donald Trump again — which seems reward enough! For one thing, it relieves their beloved Republican Party of the squawking orange albatross around its neck. He may be up in the polls now, but history shows that Trump and his election denialism have caused the GOP to underperform in every single election after 2016. Plus, he may be on trial or even convicted by the time November rolls around, neither of which will likely help him in the election. 

Think of it this way: Trump isn't up in the polls. It's more that Biden is down, due to a general malaise and economic complaints from voters. Another Republican would do just as well, and almost certainly better. So if SCOTUS loves the GOP, cutting Trump loose is simply the safe move. 


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


The justices would also be wise to think about what they want life to look like after the election. If a Republican wins, wouldn't it be so much better for them if it was anyone but Trump? As multiple outlets have extensively documented, Trump's goal when he gets into office is to break the law left and right to enact his agenda. The result is that there will be a veritable ocean of Supreme Court cases, as the ACLU and other pro-democracy groups will file a lawsuit in response to every single boundary-crossing executive order Trump signs. 

You have a choice, justices. The next few years of your life can be defined by billionaire-funded fishing trips and arcane tax lawsuits no one cares about. Or it can be taken up by case after case about Trump and his transgressions. Just as a matter of personal comfort, pick the former. Plus, there's a not-small chance that Trump Pt. Deux decides the Supreme Court does not bind him, and just flat out rejects court decisions he doesn't like. If they don't want to see their power even more eroded, the justices should rid themselves of the Trump problem. 

As an added bonus, it would probably do much more than it should to quell the rising tide of hatred of the Supreme Court if they, just this once, actually did the right thing. Surely that has to be worth something to people who seem endlessly peeved that most people don't like them very much. 

Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are true-blue authoritarian nuts who cannot wait to sign off on a chance to help Trump become a fascist dictator. But the rest of them would be wise to consider the strong benefits, to them personally, of getting Washington D.C. back to its normal levels of dysfunction. A truly post-Trump GOP is almost certainly one where the justices can spend their time at cocktail parties and giving speeches at legal conferences in comfort and style. Trump just brings headaches because he'll invent a few dozen novel ways to make their jobs even more difficult. 

Also: It's the right thing to do.

I know doing good moves no needles in the self-interested offices of conservative Supreme Court justices, but it is worth mentioning anyway. What January 6 should have proved above all other things is Trump is a danger to everyone, not just Democrats or queer people or immigrants or women. The second he thought it might give him a shot at illegally grabbing power, he sent a murderous mob to the Capitol, threatening the lives of everyone, not just Democrats. His violent rhetoric and delusions of grandiosity are only rising.

I personally don't relish the idea of a President DeSantis or a President Haley, like I imagine the Republican justices do. (Just don't tell them Biden may still win!) But even though the other GOP candidates suck a lot, they probably aren't going to make a run at overthrowing democracy or using extralegal violence against perceived enemies. If Trump gets the White House again, however, he will not hesitate to use his power to harm anyone his paranoia tells him has crossed him, regardless of party.

Even the justices Trump appointed must know he wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. Just get rid of him, Supreme Court justices. You know, deep down in your hearts, it will be a lot nicer for you when he's gone.

 

Rudy Giuliani’s 90s-era war on art and dancing shows he didn’t change — he was MAGA before MAGA

One New Year's resolution that journalists need to start adopting right this minute: Stop saying Rudy Giuliani has changed. The latest iteration of this annoying truism comes to us courtesy of David French of the New York Times, who argues "Rudy Giuliani isn’t truly Rudy Giuliani any longer," but has experienced a "long descent from a post-9/11 American hero to a mocked, derided and embattled criminal defendant ." French is a never-Trump Republican, but even liberals who should know better have embraced this "fall from grace" narrative. John Oliver on "Last Week Tonight" exclaimed Sunday that the modern iteration of Giuliani is "desperately trying to coast off of the guy that Giuliani was 20 years ago."

There's been some pushback against this line, most notably from Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times. Back in August, Bouie reminded readers that, decades before Giuliani was sued for defaming two Georgia election workers as part of a larger attempt to steal the 2020 election, he was a "scowling demagogue who stoked the flames of chauvinism and racial hatred." The story that Bouie tells, of Giuliani participating in a racist police riot in 1989, is revolting. But wildly, it's also just the tip of the iceberg that is Giuliani's long and ugly history of being the absolute worst. 

Two other stories from Giuliani's time as New York City's mayor have been largely forgotten, but should be revived in light of the MAGA movement going hard on book bannings and other attacks on artists, especially those who are queer or people of color. Before 9/11, Giuliani's biggest national news story was his war on the Brooklyn Museum, who he threatened to shut down because they exhibited art he didn't like. In a move so authoritarian that even Moms for Liberty might balk at it, he also functionally banned dancing in much of New York City. 


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


In late 1999, the Brooklyn Museum scheduled an art exhibit titled "SENSATION: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection," which had first been displayed at the Royal Academy of Art in London. Many of the pieces in the exhibit have become famous, in no small part due to Giuliani's over-the-top histrionics in denouncing the exhibit and threatening to literally shut down the entire museum if they would not comply with his demands to cancel the show. Giuliani claimed to be especially outraged by Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary," which Ofili described as "a hip-hop version" of the classic artistic subject. 

Calling the painting "sick stuff," Giuliani whined, "you can't do things that desecrate the most personal and deeply held views of people in society." He then spent months threatening the museum's funding, using bureaucratic harassment, and of course screaming into every microphone he could find in his censorship campaign. The excuse for all these tantrums was the Ofili used elephant dung as part of his painting material, which Ofili explained is a "way of raising the paintings up from the ground and giving them a feeling that they've come from the earth rather than simply being hung on a wall." Many commentators at the time noted that Giuliani's rage probably had more to do with the fact that the Virgin in this painting is Black. 

The museum sued Giuliani on First Amendment grounds, and eventually won with an out-of-court settlement forcing Giuliani to restore all the funding he'd withheld. But Giuliani had already gotten what he wanted out of the debacle: An opportunity to perform the worst kind of authoritarian politics. Everything about this was MAGA before MAGA. It was anti-free speech, unsubtly racist, anti-intellectual and hysterically sex-negative. It was also a precursor to the Christian nationalism of the current GOP, in that Giuliani treated it as the government's job to shield Christianity from criticism, a stance that is wholly incompatible with the First Amendment. 

The dancing ban under Giuliani is a good reminder that he hasn't just always been a fascist at heart, but that he's also always been a straight up weirdo. "As mayor of NYC from 1994 through 2001, Rudy Giuliani demonized nightlife as our city's bastard child, trying to smooth it over in order to make things safe for tourists and co-op owners," Michael Musto wrote in 2017 in a history of Giuliani's war on dancing for Vice.

The main tool?  The "cabaret" law that literally been passed in 1926, "a bit of archaic legislation that decreed there couldn't be more than three people dancing" in a bar or nightclub at a time, at least without the vanishingly rare and hard-to-obtain cabaret licenses. The law claimed to be targeting "vice," but of course its main purpose was to give police an excuse to selectively target people of color or LGBTQ people. Of course Giuliani was going to bring this outdated law back, and for the exact same racist and homophobic purposes that the law was originally used for. But he was so aggressive about it that dancing became pretty much forbidden in nearly every place that served alcohol. I recall one time shaking my butt a little to a jukebox at a wood-paneled pool bar in New York and the bartender yelling at me, fearful that the place would be fined for even that. 

This was a full decade after the movie "Footloose" came out. Even the Southern Baptists were more evolved, as Baylor University had repealed their dancing ban in 1996. But Giuliani so prioritized enforcement that it took years after he left office for the police to dial back enforcement. The law was finally repealed in 2017, under pressure from immigrant and minority communities who were sick of living in fear. 

Many people in the 90s were full well aware that Giuliani was a bizarre authoritarian. Most New Yorkers opposed his attacks on the Brooklyn Museum, and it was largely viewed at the time as his attempt to get attention for his national ambitions. Writing for Salon in 1999, Cintra Wilson described Giuliani as having a "hubris-rotted cop-brain." The band !!! wrote a song about the dancing ban calling Giuliani "the piggiest pig.

Looking back, it's not just the seeds of MAGA we see in Giuliani's assault on the cultural vibrancy of New York City. The end of his tenure as mayor also had an alarming portend. Using 9/11 as an excuse, Giuliani reportedly reached out to then-Gov. George Pataki and asked for the 2001 mayoral election to be canceled, so that Giuliani could stay in power indefinitely. Giuliani denies the claim, but as he lies about everything, his denials are meaningless. It's no wonder that Giuliani became a leader in Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and through a similar strategy of demanding that someone — the Vice President, the courts, Congress — swoop in and simply nullify the entire vote. Giuliani told everyone who he was decades ago. If only more people had believed him. 

The Trump generation problem: MAGA family values are corrupting children

Donald Trump is continuing to follow the dictator's playbook. As the end of the year approaches, he has become even more bold and unrestrained. He is leading Biden in many early 2024 polls. He has not been significantly punished or restrained by the courts, yet. He has nothing to lose as his MAGA people and other Republican voters continue to be devoted to him. So why would he stop?

Despite Trump’s public threats to be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency if he returns to power in 2025, there are still people with a public platform, so-called experts, who are denying this reality. The MAGA movement is like a train that will soon crush them. Denial will not save them — or us. 

Last weekend at a rally in New Hampshire, Trump continued to channel Adolf Hitler, with his promise to cleanse (White) American society of the “vermin” and human “blood pollution" he believes is caused by non-white undocumented immigrants and migrants:

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country. They’ve poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world. Not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia.”

Of course, leading Republicans and other “conservatives” endorsed Trump’s hatred and threats. A new poll from the Des Moines Register shows how almost half (the number is likely much higher) of Trump’s voters support his invocation of Hitler and threats to put political enemies in prison. Why? Because Trump’s followers hate the same people that he does.

Trump is continuing to brag about his plans to enact the largest deportation campaign in American history when he returns to power. To accomplish that goal, Trump will deploy hundreds of thousands of American troops in this country – in likely violation of federal law. Trump and his agents have already publicly detailed their plans to impose martial law and to use the American military to occupy Democratic-led cities and other “blue” parts of the country. Again, this is a direct page from the dictator’s playbook and how democracies die.

Trumpism is a generational challenge and force that is much larger than any one man or movement.

Contrary to what some in the news media have incorrectly suggested in their attempts to downplay and normalize Trump’s increasingly unrestrained evil, the ex-president was not using “dog whistles” or “flirting with” Hitlerism and Nazism. Trump is almost verbatim quoting Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and other Nazi language and ideology. Trump knows exactly what he is saying — and like other autocrats and dictators he means it.

The Biden administration (again) condemned Trump’s channeling of Hitler and the Nazis.

And in a comment that was largely overlooked by the news media and other observers, Trump’s fascist verbal fusillade last weekend also included this mention of the “great” Al Capone:

Did anybody ever hear of the great Alphonse Capone, Al Capone, great, great head of the mafia, right? Mean, Scarface. He had a scar that went from here to here, and he didn’t mind at all. But he was a rough guy….Now, I heard he was indicted once — a couple of people told me a few times more — but I was indicted four times….

If he had dinner with you and if he didn’t like the way you smiled at him at dinner, he would kill you. You’d be dead. By the time you walked out of the nice restaurant, you would be dead. He got indicted once. I got indicted four times.

Trump idolizes gangsters and criminals. Properly understood in that context, Trump is (again) making another threat of violence against his perceived enemies.

We need your help to stay independent

As part of a much larger failure to practice real pro-democracy journalism during these last seven years, the mainstream news media is now occasionally sounding the alarm about Dictator Trump and his fascist plans for the country. But these way-too-late alarm sounders have little credibility at this point. Why should the American people listen to anyone who has been so willfully blind to the obvious danger and instead chose to be quiet and in denial for reasons of careerism, fear, willful ignorance, lack of intellectual curiosity, or just gross naivete and adult immaturity?

In a recent conversation with me here at Salon, philosopher Jason Stanley was blunt in his assessment of such voices:

If you are just now realizing that Trump is a fascist, you're going to be looking for signs to assuage yourself that you are just being hysterical, because you spent so many years calling those of us who have been correctly describing reality, hysterical. The people who the media are turning to now as alarm sounders are not equipped to understand what is really happening. 

Fortunately, some public voices are speaking with clarity, force and consistency about the existential dangers posed by Trumpism and American neofascism and how such forces are continuing to gain momentum. In a video she shared Sunday, historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat said this about Trump’s Hitlerian "blood and soil" racial pollution threats:

The Nazis made the fear of ‘blood pollution’ of their master race and their civilization a foundation of their state. Italian fascists talked about the threat of nonwhite immigrants coming in to ruin white Christian civilization. Trump is referencing and prolonging and echoing fascist rhetoric. …Americans will see immigrants be rounded up and treated badly, with violence, so he’s trying to dehumanise this group now, over and over again, to get Americans used to the idea that they should be persecuted, so they won’t resist when the repression comes later.…We should think about not only the content of what he’s saying, but why he’s saying it…. Every time you hear it, think about its intended audience and its very chilling intended goal.

At the Atlantic, Tom Nichols has been “demystifying” the appeal of Trumpism and its toxic politics and cruelty. 

I understood people in 2016 who voted for Trump. I didn’t agree with them. But in 2016, there was the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton. I understood people who simply could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I understood people who felt they could take a chance with Trump and that all of the stuff they had seen was just an act. That once he got into office, he would govern like a normal president. I think that people who voted for Trump in 2020 and especially the people supporting him now with everything we know demonstrate a failure of character. I think that’s a moral flaw. That doesn’t mean they’re evil people. They may be nice to their kids and part of the Parent Teacher Association and good to their pets. But to support Donald Trump in 2024 with everything we know about him leads me to make a judgment about folks like that and their ability to apply moral reasoning to public life. I think it’s a character flaw. The most charitable thing I can say about people supporting Trump to this day is that they’re in denial. I can’t say they’re uninformed because there’s no way to live in this country and not know any of this stuff….

You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this: They’re every bit as American as any idealized vision of the place.

Political learning and socialization take place throughout one’s life. However, the values that we learn as children from our parents and other authority figures have a profound impact, both consciously and subconsciously, on our political values as adults. At the Bulwark, Jill Lawrence warns that “Trump presents a massive challenge today to parents across the ideological spectrum who believe in old-fashioned virtues like respect and civility. Other parents, those who admire Trump, are enthusiastically introducing their kids to the cruel and dangerous MAGA culture, and they appear blind to the harm Trump is doing—both to their families and to the nation.” At the Washington Post, Hannah Knowles offered these specific examples of the MAGA “family values” that were on display several weeks ago at a Trump rally in Fort Dodge, Iowa:

Children wandered around in shirts and hats with the letters “FJB,” an abbreviation for an obscene jab at President Biden that other merchandise spelled out: “F**k Biden.” . . .

One of Trump’s introductory speakers from the Iowa state legislature declared anyone who kneels for the national anthem is a “disrespectful little sh*t,” quickly drawing a roaring response. And outside the packed venue, vulgar slogans about Biden and Vice President Harris were splashed across T-shirts: “Biden Loves Minors.” “Joe and the Ho Gotta Go!” One referred to Biden and Harris performing sexual acts.

Some t-shirts for sale showed “images of Trump giving a middle finger.” One supporter Knowles quoted by name, Lori Carpenter, said Biden has to go “and the ho shouldn’t have been there in the first place.” The “ho” was Harris, Knowles said the woman clarified “before offering another nickname for Harris that was even more vulgar.”

Others made excuses for Trump. “He’s admitted that he’s no holy man. And neither is anybody else,” Matthew Stringer told Knowles. Marsha Crouthamel said Trump needed to “excite” people and she didn’t care because “his policies are strong.” Carpenter, who called Kamala Harris a “ho,” called herself a Christian who could “look past” Trump’s flaws….

Trumpism is a generational challenge and force that is much larger than any one man or movement. Healing, renewing, and then immunizing American democracy against such forces will be a decades-long social and political project.

In a speech in Iowa two weeks ago, Trump declared himself a type of Chosen One, a prophet-like figure, blessed by “Jesus Christ” and “god”. Outsiders may scoff and mock at such a belief, but Trump’s followers in the Christian Right do in fact view him in those terms.

At the Atlantic, Tim Alberta shared these personal insights (as excerpted from his new book “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism”) about how White Christian Evangelicals have aligned themselves with Trumpism and American neofascism:

I was raised in the evangelical tradition: the son of a white conservative Republican pastor in a white conservative Republican church in a white conservative Republican town. My faith in Jesus Christ has never faltered; I believe him to be the Messiah, the mediator between a perfect God and a broken humanity. And yet, as I grew older, my confidence in organized Christianity began to crumble. The disillusionment I felt was rooted in something deeper than sex scandals or political hypocrisies or everyday human failures. Perfection, after all, is not the Christian’s mandate. Sanctification, the process by which sinners become more and more like Christ, is what God demands of us. And what that process requires, most fundamentally, is the rejection of one’s worldly identity.

The crisis of American evangelicalism, I now realize, is an obsession with that worldly identity. Instead of fixing our eyes on the unseen — “since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal,” as Paul writes in Second Corinthians — we have become fixated on the here and now. Instead of seeing ourselves as exiles in a metaphorical Babylon, the way Peter describes the first-century Christians living in Rome, we have embraced our imperial citizenship. Instead of fleeing the temptation to rule all the world, like Jesus did, we have made deals with the devil.

In an interview with MSNBC last week, Alberta elaborated:

I would say one of the most surprising and discouraging things that I encountered time and again was when I would really press some of the high profile evangelical figures….

When you get these guys one on one Katy, and you really press them on specific things, specific beliefs, they’ll sort of back off a little bit, and they’ll even do a little bit of a wink and a nod and kind of signal to you that like, yeah, I get you, like, it’s been over the top. It’s overkill. This guy, you know, it’s not OK …. [for them] the ends of preserving Christian America justify the means of enlisting this uncouth, boorish, conspiracy-spouting individual who is issuing these casual calls to violence and saying and doing things every day that are not Christ-like….He fights for us; he’s our champion, and therefore, we can ignore the rest because the ends ultimately justify those means.

In a special edition of In These Times, historian Nancy MacLean locates these the Trumpian Christofascists in a much larger American (and global) antidemocracy coalition:

As dangerous as the Right was 10 years ago, it’s infinitely more dangerous now. They have captured one of the country’s two major parties and turned it against the factual universe and toward authoritarianism. One of the most troubling developments is the willingness of corporate donors — particularly in the fossil fuel sector — to rely on Christian nationalists to power their agenda. We’re seeing that all around the country, in really dangerous new ways — intimidation at community-level institutions from public health to election administration and schools — that are beyond anything we’ve seen since the attacks on the civil rights movement. It’s a really serious situation.

Trumpism and the larger neofascist movement constitute a national emergency. The growing and existential danger that such forces represent to American democracy and freedom should be the leading story across the news media. To that point, media critic Mark Jacob intervened in a recent essay:

It’s past time for major news organizations to take a bold stand against Trumpian fascism before their soft-pedaling of the threat puts the public in further danger and causes the news outlets themselves to keep losing credibility.

Here’s one clear way to take that stand: Major newspapers should run front-page editorials declaring clearly that a vote for Trump is a vote to end democracy….

When news outlets take a stand against Trump, they need to leave no doubt that they see it as a public service.

That’s why the New York Times, the Washington Post and other major papers should make Page 1 statements declaring that they support democracy and that Donald Trump does not.

Of course, such a pro-democracy campaign in the news industry should go beyond newspapers. In the past, when television personalities have engaged in audacious truth-telling, they’ve made a major impact on national events.

In 1954, CBS’ Edward R. Murrow confronted the fraud of McCarthyism. He didn’t “both sides” it. In 1968, CBS’ Walter Cronkite took a reporting trip to Vietnam and then told Americans they were failing to win the war there. Both reports are cited as turning points in public perceptions of major events in American history.

News networks must do more to warn their viewers about what’s at stake in the 2024 election. On MSNBC, anchors and guests regularly talk about the prospect of authoritarianism. But rival news shops are more cautious. It’s time for a news anchor to stop the scheduled programming, motion for the camera to approach for a close-up, and tell the audience directly that Trump wants to overthrow democracy and must be stopped.

Lester Holt, are you listening? Jake Tapper?

And New York Times and Washington Post, are you listening? Are you ready to devote a little space on your front page to help save the country?

The answer is likely “no." 

Unfortunately, Trumpism and American neofascism including Dictator Trump’s Hitlerian plans are too often presented as one story among many instead of the national emergency they in fact are. Trump and his agents are publicly threatening to end the First Amendment and to put their “enemies” in the news media on trial (and worse). Instead of responding with the self-interested urgency that such fascist–authoritarian threats demand, the mainstream news media is treating this mostly as just routine politics and another day at the office.

Attempts to ban an emerging drug threat are repeating the mistakes of the drug war, experts caution

Illicit fentanyl, the powerful opioid that is involved in more than 100,000 fatal drug overdoses every year, has completely shifted underground drug markets. In some places, it has completely replaced other opioids like heroin. The unpredictable nature of "dope" is part of what makes it so deadly.

But now a new drug is complicating the drug supply with even more grisly results. It's called xylazine, a commonly-used animal tranquilizer veterinarians routinely employ in their practice. For many years, in places like Puerto Rico and Philadelphia, xylazine has been mixed with heroin (and now, fentanyl) in what is known on the streets as "tranq dope." However, the drug mixture is increasingly spreading to new markets.

When injected, xylazine can cause devastating wounds, such as skin lesions that can become infected and in severe cases lead to amputation or even death. It also dangerously sedates people for up to eight hours, sometimes in vulnerable positions, while also complicating emergency responses in the case of an overdose.

Following the Biden Administration’s plan to address the growing prevalence of xylazine and the Drug Enforcement Agency’s warning against the drug issued in March, this month, Congress passed legislation restricting xylazine as a schedule III controlled substance, the same tier drugs like ketamine and buprenorphine (Suboxone) are placed in. It's a rank less regulated than marijuana and LSD, which are in schedule I. Fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine are in schedule II.

If the bill is passed by the Senate and signed by the president, those caught possessing, selling, manufacturing or transporting xylazine can face criminal penalties of up to 15 years in prison plus fines under the bill.

The legislation, officially named the Support for Patients and Communities Reauthorization (SUPPORT) Act of 2023, also increases access to opioid reversal medications like naloxone and medication-assisted treatment like buprenorphine or methadone for Medicaid beneficiaries, among other initiatives.

Those caught possessing, selling, manufacturing or transporting xylazine can face criminal penalties of up to 15 years in prison plus fines under the bill.

“Specifically, this bill increases treatment options for intensive inpatient care, allows law enforcement to crack down on illicit xylazine distribution [and] continues support for at-risk youth, among many other important provisions,” said Eastern Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who helped pass the legislation.

However, many oppose making xylazine a controlled substance because they say it could inadvertently make people turn to even more dangerous drugs instead. Various states have already restricted xylazine without any evidence that these measures reduce overdoses, said Dr. Ryan Marino, an emergency medicine physician at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

“It is unclear what these knee-jerk reactions are intending to accomplish besides imposing additional criminal charges on already vulnerable people who use drugs,” Marino told Salon in an email. “What we do know is that they will impede research on xylazine – like to find antidotes for humans and how to best treat wounds and withdrawal – and will create a significant burden on xylazine’s very important use in veterinary medicine.”


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


Xylazine first entered Puerto Rico's drug supply in the early 2000s. By 2015, it had made its way to the U.S., with one study of drug overdoses in 10 cities reporting xylazine was detected in 1% of deaths. That number jumped to 7% by 2020. At this point, xylazine has spread to nearly every corner of the country, with one study of a group of syringe exchange programs in Maryland detecting xylazine mixed in with 80% of opioid samples.

More than one million Americans have died in the opioid overdose crisis since 1999. Last year alone, 111,000 people died from a fatal overdose and Americans are now dying from overdoses at a higher rate than they are from diabetes.

“[Xylazine] is just like fentanyl. Nobody wanted fentanyl, but people started to use it because it was what was around and they needed it to satisfy withdrawal.”

In the first “wave” of the overdose crisis in which people were dying primarily from overdosing on prescription painkillers, the federal government restricted access to these medications, which failed to address the underlying issue of hundreds of thousands of Americans who had already become addicted to them. The restriction of the drug supply pushed users to instead use unregulated drugs like heroin, which led to the second “wave” of the overdose crisis. 

A similar pattern happened when the federal government criminalized heroin, which also disproportionately impacted Black and brown communities and caused mass incarcerations of people of color. This led to the third “wave” of the overdose crisis, which involved deaths primarily caused by fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 50 times stronger than heroin detected in 88% of overdose deaths in 2021. Today, some are defining the current fourth "wave" as concurrent use of fentanyl and other drugs like xylazine, cocaine or methamphetamine.

One 2018 report published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics compared the criminalization of drugs to alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, which caused consumers to drink spirits adulterated with toxins. 

“Production volumes of illicit drugs are so high, and drug trafficking is so profitable, that interdiction cannot raise prices enough to induce lower consumption,” according to the report. “Instead, supply-side suppression has encouraged traffickers to smuggle cheaper and more potent opioids.”

Louise Vincent, the executive director of the North Carolina Urban Survivors Union, said people are now becoming addicted to xylazine, which has its own withdrawal symptoms. The problem is, medications that are the golden standard for treating substance use disorders like buprenorphine do not work against xylazine.

“It's just like fentanyl,” Vincent told Salon in a phone interview in September. “Nobody wanted fentanyl, but people started to use it because it was what was around and they needed it to satisfy withdrawal.”

"Besides just not being helpful, these measures distract from other things that we could be doing to actually make a difference."

Marino said new substances are already turning up on the street and being used instead of xylazine, including benzodiazepines and synthetic opioids called nitazenes that can be even stronger than fentanyl.

“Instead of acknowledging that these policies are not working, and changing our approach to follow science and public health, we are still doubling down; in fact, the White House is even pushing for additional permanent scheduling for fentanyl right now,” Marino said. “Besides just not being helpful, these measures distract from other things that we could be doing to actually make a difference.”

While it’s unclear why xylazine is being mixed in the drug supply, some have also reported using xylazine to lengthen the euphoric effects of opioids. Although xylazine is not an opioid, it is still recommended to use opioid-reversal medications like Narcan or naloxone for a person who is suspected to have overdosed. One not yet peer reviewed study in mice did show promising signs that naloxone could reverse xylazine overdose, because although xylazine primarily acts on adrenergic receptors, there seems to be some activity at certain opioid receptors as well.

Some are urging the federal government to put the energy it would take to police xylazine into harm reduction efforts instead. For example, there are test strips available to ensure a drug supply has not been contaminated with xylazine, but in some states, xylazine test strips are still considered drug paraphernalia and are therefore illegal. Reversing legislation like this could improve access to a safe drug supply. Others have emphasized the importance of safe injection sites because of xylazine’s long sedation hours, which could make users vulnerable to assault or injury.

“In short, we need a lot of services that are not part of the criminal justice system, and we need to start funding public health approaches to this public health crisis,” Marino said.

The bedrock of life: What makes carbon so special and how it can inform our search for alien life

When scientists search for extraterrestrial life, they invariably focus on the sixth element on the periodic table: Carbon.

"I don't think even most humans have much self-awareness, let alone bacteria and yeast and so forth."

At first glance, such a choice seems random. What is it about this atom that contains six protons, six neutrons and six electrons that makes it of such interest to scientists seeking aliens? We hear that carbon is able to support life. In fact, every living thing in existence is carbon-based — at least that we know of. The entire discipline of organic chemistry by definition revolves around the study of carbon and its special properties.

But is this a hard and fast rule everywhere in the universe? Or could extraterrestrial life exist with chemistry based on any one of the other 118 elements on the periodic table?

Salon reached out to experts in astrophysics, synthetic biology and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) for insights into the enigmas surrounding carbon and life. Among them was Dr. Adam Burrows, a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, who explained that carbon has two important properties which make it able to support life: It is abundant in nature and polymerizes (can form very large molecules) easily with other abundant elements like hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. Burrows referred to them as CHON combinations for short, noting that they can be combined to "achieve a huge range of conformations and shapes."

"With additional elements (such as S [sulfur], P [phosphorus]), CHON combinations can make large complex molecules with a huge number of structures," Burrows told Salon by email. "We know of millions."

These include long stable chains like those in deoxyribonucleic acid, better known as DNA, sometimes called the building blocks of life. They are capable of storing information that allow organisms to develop, replicate and evolve.

"Hence, carbon (in concert with other abundant elements) is central to the establishment of the potential for all we know on Earth is necessary for life to arise, evolve and complexify," Burrows said. He added that there are other atoms/elements on the periodic table that are chemically related to carbon, such as silicon, which "can't and don't do this." Why is that so?


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


"Silicon can also do many of the things that carbon can do, but I think carbon wins out on the basis of merit."

"Silicon can also do many of the things that carbon can do, but I think carbon wins out on the basis of merit. It's better at forming very complex molecules," said Dr. Seth Shostak, the senior astronomer of the SETI Institute. The non-profit is one of the world's premiere institutes for the study of extraterrestrial life, from its Carl Sagan Center that focuses on life in the universe and its Center for Education which studies astrobiology, astronomy and space science to its Center for Public Outreach.

Much of carbon's appeal comes down to its four covalent bonds, which can be somewhat promiscuous. "In other words, it likes to hook up with other atoms," Shostak said. Although silicon can also be used to form complex compounds, "they're not as useful for biology. A trivial example might be CO2, [or] carbon dioxide. It has carbon, and it has a couple of oxygen atoms too. But carbon dioxide is pretty useful for biology."

Yet the silicon-based equivalent is silicon dioxide, which is basically little more than sand, Shostak explained, listing quartz as an example. "Sand isn't very useful biologically. You don't see a lot of animals that intake sand and expel something else, just because of its properties."

All of this explains why, when Shostak does his part to search for extraterrestrial life, "I assume that the aliens will be carbon-based too, if they're alive."

Yet what does it even mean to be "alive?" The very concept of what defines "life" is hotly contested among scientists, with experts disagreeing about even whether things like viruses should be considered "alive." In the case of viruses, they are biological entities with a DNA or RNA core surrounded by a protein coat. In order to function and reproduce, viruses infect living cells and co-opt their genetic material. Although viruses meet certain criteria for being considered "alive" — namely, that they grow and respond to external stimuli — they are not able to replicate on their own, but instead rely on their host cells.

If scientists cannot even figure out whether a genetic being that exists in the trillions on Earth is alive, how can they come up with a workable definition for anything humans discover off of our planet? Perhaps consciousness might be a key factor in determining whether something is alive.

"I don't think even most humans have much self-awareness, let alone bacteria and yeast and so forth," Princeton University synthetic biologist Dr. Michael Hecht said jokingly. "I think self-awareness is a much more profound thing. That's a whole long conversation. I think of bacteria. I don't think bacteria have self-awareness."

We need your help to stay independent

For a good working definition of life, Hecht cited the definition officially used by NASA, which holds that "life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution."

Simply put, carbon is the only element that has ever demonstrated a capacity to serve as the basis for those complex chemical systems. While astrobiologists acknowledge the theoretical possibility that another element could serve as the basis of life forms if it too supported a chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, no element has shown that it can do so — and there are only 118 elements on the periodic table.

This is why, despite the seeming randomness of it all, the search for extraterrestrial life must remain predominantly carbon-bound.

Kelly Osbourne said she wants plastic surgery for Christmas: “I just think it’s my time!”

Kelly Osbourne wants a rather personal gift this holiday season — plastic surgery.

The 39-year-old TV personality and daughter of musician Ozzy Osbourne and former "The Talk" host Sharon Osbourne said in a new episode of their family venture, "The Osbournes Podcast," what gift she longed for this Christmas.

“I think I’ve decided what I want for Christmas,” she said. “Plastic surgery,” Kelly said while holding her hand up to her neck and face.

“Oh f**k. Kelly, don’t. Stop.” Ozzy said in response to his daughter.

But Kelly did not let her parents' objections sway her: “Well, I just think it’s my time!”

However, Sharon said it was "too early" for Kelly to begin plastic surgery but her son Jack pointed out their mom began her plastic surgery journey when she was around the same age.

In September, the family discussed Sharon's personal experience with plastic surgery, saying she “cursed off cosmetic surgery forever.” The family argued about what their preferences on surgery were while Kelly said that she didn't "want one of those necks in which you can flick."

But recently, Kelly has shut down speculation that has questioned whether she has had plastic surgery or not. 

"I've done Botox, that's it," she said to the Daily Mail. "It's weird because now that I've lost weight, everybody is criticizing and trying to figure out what it is that I've done, and I really just lost weight. It's just the shape of my face."

 

 

 

Wild “super pigs” from Canada could become a new front in the war on feral hogs

They go by many names – pigs, hogs, swine, razorbacks – but whatever you call them, wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are one of the most damaging invasive species in North America. They cause millions of dollars in crop damage yearly and harbor dozens of pathogens that threaten humans and pets, as well as meat production systems.

Although wild pigs have been present in North America for centuries, their populations have rapidly expanded over the past several decades. Recent studies estimate that since the 1980s the wild pig population in the United States has nearly tripled and expanded from 18 to 35 states. More recently, they have spread rapidly across Canada, and these populations are threatening to invade the U.S. from the north.

The wild pigs in Canada are unique because they were originally crossbred by humans to be larger and more cold-hardy than their feral cousins to the south. This suite of traits has earned them the name “super pigs” for good reason. Adults can reach weights exceeding 500 pounds, which is twice the size of the largest wild pigs sampled across many U.S. sites in a 2022 study.

As a wildlife ecologist, I study how wild pigs alter their surroundings and affect other wildlife species. Early detection and rapid response is of utmost importance in eradicating an invasive species, because invasions are more manageable when populations are small and geographically restricted. This is especially true for species like wild pigs that have a high reproductive rate, can readily move into new areas and can change their behavior to avoid being captured or killed.

Minnesota wildlife experts are keeping a wary eye on their northern border for signs of wild ‘super pigs’ moving down from Canada.

Omnivores on the hoof

Much concern over the spread of wild pigs has focused on economic damage, which was recently estimated at about US$2.5 billion annually in the United States.

Wild pigs have a unique collection of traits that make them problematic to humans. When we told one private landowner about the results from our studies, he responded: “That makes sense. Pigs eat all the stuff the other wildlife do – they just eat it first, and then they go ahead and eat the wildlife, too. They pretty much eat anything with a calorie in it.”

More scientifically, wild pigs are called extreme generalist foragers, which means they can survive on many different foods. A global review of their dietary habits found that plants represent 90% of their diet – primarily agricultural crops, plus the fruits, seeds, leaves, stems and roots of wild plants.

A male lesser prairie-chicken inflates his orange throat sacs to call potential mates.

Lesser prairie chickens are a ground-nesting species – found in parts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas – that is listed under the Endangered Species Act. Feral hogs prey on the birds and their eggs and damage the birds’ habitat by rooting up and consuming native plants and spreading invasive plant seeds. Greg Kramos/USFWS

Wild pigs also eat most small animals, along with fungi and invertebrates such as insect larvae, clams and mussels, particularly in places where pigs are not native. For example, a 2019 study reported that wild pigs were digging up eggs laid by endangered loggerhead sea turtles on an island off the coast of South Carolina, reducing the turtles’ nesting success to zero in some years.

And these pigs do “just eat it first.” They compete for resources that other wildlife need, which can have negative effects on other species.

However, they likely do their most severe damage through predation. Wild pigs kill and eat rodents, deer, birds, snakes, frogs, lizards and salamanders. This probably best explains why colleagues and I found in one study that forest patches with wild pigs had 26% fewer mammal and bird species than similar forest patches without pigs.

This decrease in diversity was similar to that found with other invasive predators. And our findings are consistent with a global analysis showing that invasive mammalian predators that have no natural predators themselves – especially generalist foragers like wild pigs – cause by far the most extinctions.

Altering ecosystems

Many questions about wild pigs’ ecological impacts have yet to be answered. For example, they may harm other wild species indirectly, rather than eating them or depleting their food supply.

Our work shows that wild pigs can alter the behavior of common native wildlife species, such as raccoons, squirrels and deer. Using trail cameras, we found that when wild pigs were present, other animals altered their activity patterns in various ways to avoid them. Such shifts may have additional cascading effects on ecosystems, because they change how and when species interact in the food web.

Another major concern is wild pigs’ potential to spread disease. They carry numerous pathogens, including brucellosis and tuberculosis. However, little ecological research has been done on this issue, and scientists have not yet demonstrated that an increasing abundance of wild pigs reduces the abundance of native wildlife via disease transmission.

Feral hogs can be seen rooting up the soil in this trail camera footage from Alabama.

Interestingly, in their native range in Europe and Asia, pigs do not cause as much ecological damage. In fact, some studies indicate that they may modify habitat in important ways for species that have evolved with them, such as frogs and salamanders.

So far, however, there is virtually no scientific evidence that feral pigs provide any benefits in North America. One review of wild pig impacts discussed the potential for private landowners plagued with pigs to generate revenue from selling pig meat or opportunities to hunt them. And it’s possible that wild pigs could serve as an alternative food source for imperiled large predators, or that their wallowing and foraging behavior in some cases could mimic that of locally eradicated or extinct species.

But the scientific consensus today is that in North America, wild pigs are a growing threat to both ecosystems and the economy. It is unclear how invading super pigs would contribute to the overall threat, but bigger pigs likely cause more damage and are generally better predators and competitors.

While efforts to control wild pigs are well underway in the U.S., incursions by Canadian super pigs may complicate the job. Invasive super pigs make for catchy headlines, but their potential effects are no joke.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Aug. 26, 2019.

Marcus Lashley, Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology, University of Florida

Legal scholar: Clarence Thomas “corruption” almost “certainly unlawful and ethically reprehensible”

A deep dive into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' finances revealed a secret complaint, or a subtle request, he made to a Republican Congressman about a pay raise, threatening that if lawmakers didn’t act, “one or more justices will leave soon,” according to a ProPublica investigation

This marks the most recent revelation in a series of ProPublica reports this year, delving into Thomas' contentious financial history – one with several instances of the Supreme Court justice accepting undisclosed gifts and money from wealthy friends who got a like-minded jurist on the nation’s highest court.

Legal experts warn that Thomas’ actions raise “significant concerns” regarding the reality or appearance of conflicts of interest and abuse of his official position. Were he any other government official, or a member of most professions, his behavior would merit severe sanctions if not removal.

Thomas' willingness to receive such benefits, including trips and vacations which total in the millions of dollars, is almost “certainly unlawful and ethically reprehensible,”  Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon.

“We have never seen a situation like this before,” Gershman said. “Thomas could be removed from the Supreme Court for his misconduct but won’t be. He won’t leave voluntarily even if he doesn’t like the pay. He has lifetime tenure. His position appears to be to stonewall his detractors and continue to serve on the Court, serving without much distinction, but with considerable power.”

The documents and interviews in the ProPublica investigation provide a glimpse into how Thomas discussed his financial matters during a pivotal phase in his tenure when he started to cultivate strong relationships with wealthy benefactors. 

Nearly ten years into his tenure on the court, Thomas “had grown frustrated with his financial situation,” according to his friends, per ProPublica. He had taken on the responsibility of raising his young grandnephew, and his wife sought guidance on managing the new expenses. 

During this period, the Supreme Court justice, who was earning a salary of $173,600, which is equivalent to over $300,000 today, found himself in significant debt amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the outlet reported. He was one of the “least wealthy members of the court” and actively explored avenues to make more money. In private discussions, Thomas consistently advocated for lifting the ban on justices giving paid speeches.

On one occasion, Thomas addressed his concerns about his salary with a Republican member of Congress on a flight home from a five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia, where he gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference.

“I intend to look into a bill to raise the salaries of members of The Supreme Court,” a January 2000 letter from former U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., to Thomas reads. “As we agreed, it is worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted. We must have the proper incentives here, too.”

Despite Congress never lifting the ban on speaking fees or providing a significant pay increase to the justices, Thomas benefited in other ways, receiving gifts from friends and acquaintances, covering living expenses from private school tuition to vehicle batteries and tires. A group of exceptionally wealthy individuals further enriched his lifestyle offering free international vacations on the private jet and superyacht of Dallas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow.

The problem with Clarence Thomas’ “pattern of loans and gifts” is that it raises at least the appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety if not real conflicts or impropriety, David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, told Salon.

If he has accepted favors from individuals who have presented arguments before the Court, it unquestionably raises concerns about impartiality, Schultz explained. However, even if the favors are not from those involved in cases before the Court, there is a lingering question about undisclosed contributions. Is there now an “implied sense” that some might feel compelled to offer something to a Justice for “fair treatment” or consideration of a case?

“What all this raises is a concern of perhaps quid pro quo bribery or solicitation of a bribe,” Schultz said. “In the area of campaign finance reform and limits on political contributions, the Court has ruled that fear of corruption or the appearance of corruption is enough to justify limits on contributions and their disclosure. The Court has held here that there is a compelling governmental interest in assuring the public that elected officials are acting ethically.”

We need your help to stay independent

Accepting these gifts and favors and not disclosing them, even from non-parties, raises doubts in the public's perception about “the real impartiality and basis” upon which Thomas and the entire Court deliver their opinions, Schultz continued. Are decisions rooted in “facts and law,” or are they influenced by favoritism? 

“Once you have to ask that question one has an appearance of impropriety question that would force any federal judge except for the Supreme Court from hearing a case,” he added. “It might also lead to concerns of bribery or extortion.”

Thomas has also consistently voted against political contribution limits and disclosure laws for contributions, Schultz pointed out. This raises the question of Thomas doing so based on principle or because he has accepted gifts and favors and does not want laws that force such disclosure. Once you raise this question it produces the problem of questioning the basis of many of Thomas’ decisions, regardless of whether an interested party is before the Court.

There is an “overriding legal and ethical requirement” that judges behave impartially, Gershman said. This requirement is “critical to the integrity” of our justice system and provides the public confidence that judges behave “fairly” and remain uninfluenced by special favors from litigants that may skew a judge’s decision-making.

The federal statute 28 U.S.C. section 455, which applies to all judges including Supreme Court justices, requires that judges must disqualify themselves from proceedings “when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” Gershman said. 

It is obvious that Justice Thomas engaged for many years in what appears to “be a corruption of his judicial office” by secretly receiving huge financial favors and other benefits from a conservative billionaire donor, which he never reported on his financial disclosure forms, as required by law, Gershman continued. 


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


“The donor either had cases pending before the Court or had a strong interest in how Thomas should decide certain cases,” Gershman said. “Regardless of whether Thomas was actually biased in this person’s favor (which is very difficult to prove), there is absolutely no question that the public would reasonably believe that Thomas’ impartiality would reasonably and strongly be questioned by that relationship. Given these circumstances, Thomas had to be either clueless, indifferent to his ethical responsibility, or dishonest.”

Realistically, in today’s political climate, there are “very few effective mechanisms” available to hold a Supreme Court justice like Thomas “legally or ethically accountable,” he added. While the Senate has the power to conduct hearings and summon the justice, Chief Justice Roberts recently rejected such efforts, refusing to appear before the Senate for questioning about Supreme Court ethics. Justice Samuel Alito even contends that he doesn't believe the Senate has the authority to question the justices.

In contrast, federal judges can be impeached and convicted, as some have in the past. The administrative agency overseeing federal courts can also investigate judges for alleged misconduct while the Justice Department has the authority to investigate a judge for violations of the law, such as taking bribes, making false statements or violating financial disclosure requirements.

If Thomas indeed believes his salary is too low, he can resign, Gershman said. But Thomas wants to have his “powerful perch” on the court and also “feather his nest by living a lavish lifestyle from lucrative gifts from rich people.”

“Thomas is clearly guilty of judicial misconduct based on his longstanding and secret relationships with these wealthy benefactors who have bestowed lavish benefits on him clearly to influence his judicial work and in turn receive special judicial favors from him,” Gershman said. 

“Stop inviting me to your gigs”: 16 wildest moments from Ziwe’s George Santos interview

Ziwe’s highly anticipated interview with ex-New York Congressman George Santos has finally aired and as expected, it’s nearly 18 minutes of pure, unabashed chaos.

Earlier this month, Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives after more than 300 of his peers (including 105 Republicans) voted him off in the wake of several misdeeds brought against him. Santos pleaded not guilty to 23 federal charges — including for wire fraud, identity theft, lying to federal election officials, money laundering and stealing thousands of dollars from his campaign donors — in October, when early efforts to expel him were unsuccessful. 

A report from the House Ethics Committee found that there was “substantial evidence” that Santos “knowingly” violated federal laws. Specific allegations included that Santos spent campaign cash on vacations, Botox, a subscription to OnlyFans and plenty more. Following his ouster, some of his fellow Republicans branded Santos a “liar” and a “fraud,” a “sick puppy” and a man with no shame.

Santos’ downfall has inadvertently turned him into a sort-of celebrity on the internet, which is where he spends most of his time these days. Santos has garnered fame on Cameo, the personalized video-sharing service on which he claims to be making over $80,000 a day. He also recently announced an X subscription where he promises to “spill tea” on Congress for just $7 a month. And although he's not involved there will be an HBO biopic made, which will follow the “Gatsby-esque journey” of a man who “waged war on truth.”

In his sit-down interview with Ziwe, the disgraced lawmaker faced several hard-hitting questions regarding his time in Congress, crimes, supposed knowledge of Gen Z and future endeavors. In true Ziwe fashion, the comedian managed to repeatedly outsmart Santos, who now describes himself as a "former congressional ‘icon.’”

Icon? More like, “I-con.”

Here are the 16 wildest moments from the interview:

01
Santos allegedly asked to be paid for the interview three times

Before the actual interview began, an on-screen message (appearing in all-caps) reads, “No congressmen were paid in the making of this interview . . . even though George Santos asked . . . three times.”

 

Behind the scenes footage also reveal that Santos asked Ziwe to be “mindful with the DOJ stuff,” referring to the Department of Justice’s scathing reports into his many misdeeds.

02
Santos doesn’t know who Marsha P. Johnson, James Baldwin and Harvey Milk are

Santos made headlines back in July when he compared himself to one of the esteemed civil rights activist: “Rosa Parks didn’t sit in the back, and neither am I gonna sit in the back,” Santos told "Mike Crispi Unafraid," a right-wing podcast.

 

In his interview with Ziwe, Santos reiterated his adoration for Rosa Parks, saying he even had a portrait of Parks in his office. Ziwe then tested Santos’ knowledge of various civil rights icons and asked what they meant to him. Turns out Santos, who became the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican elected to Congress, knows little or nothing about queer history.

 

When asked to share his thoughts on Marsha P. Johnson, a befuddled Santos told Ziwe, “very respectful, honorable person.” When asked to elaborate on his choice adjectives, Santos simply said, “on all stances and all the work.”

 

Next on the list was James Baldwin, a name Santos has never heard before: “Who the hell is James Baldwin? Who’s James Baldwin?”

 

Santos was also unfamiliar with Harvey Milk: “I have no clue who that is.”

03
However, he is familiar with one major gay icon . . .

Although Santos has never formally declared himself a Barb (an ardent fan of Nicki Minaj), it’s clear that he’s a big one. Santos once named his anti-vaccine bill after the "Starships" rapper. Called the MINAJ Act, the so-called medical freedom bill was given that name to “bring more engagement into public policy,” Santos told CBS2 political reporter Marcia Kramer.

 

Santos called Minaj a “queen” when Ziwe brought up her name. He even rapped a few bars from Minaj’s 2010 hit song “Monster.”

 

“Pull up in the monster, automobile gangsta,” Ziwe started before Santos finished the verse, “With a bad b***h that came from Sri Lanka.”

04
Santos didn’t come to the capital to make friends, but be messy

Instead, he was there to “expose the rot and corruption” in the nation’s capital, which he said he succeeded in doing.

 

“Republicans and Democrats alike, swampy and slimy people selling this country down a river,” Santos said.

 

He also owned up to the label “messy b***h,” which Ziwe used to describe both his personality and affinity for drama.

 

“You can call me a messy b***h. I’ll take it. I’ve been called worse. I’ll take it,” Santos quipped. “Can you make a pin and mail it to me? I’ll wear it. I’ll wear your ‘messy b***h’ pin any day.”

05
Santos likes paying taxes
He simply said, “I like paying taxes,” and displayed a toothy smile.
06
Santos called his former colleagues “frauds” and “liars”

According to Santos, he’s not the only one who dabbled in fraudulent behavior and illicit activities. His former colleagues have all committed fraud. Many of them are still committing fraud to this day.

 

“If you were to put them all under the same scrutiny that I was put under, you’d f**king vacate the whole goddamn building,” he said rather confidently.

 

Santos refrained from naming names, but he did agree to reveal who are (and aren’t) fraudsters on Ziwe’s list of contentious political figures. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are in the clear. But Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, Bob Menendez (who Santos nicknamed “Goldbar Menendez”) and Dan S. Goldman (who Santos said owes “$180,000 worth of rent right now”) are all frauds in Santos’ book.

07
Santos said he “can probably make a Black baby on my own”

The topic of babies was brought up when Ziwe confronted Santos about the time he was caught on camera carrying a baby through the halls of Congress. The baby, Santos revealed, belonged to a fellow staffer. Santos said he “was taking the baby to introduce him to another member of Congress.”

 

“Do you plan to adopt Black?” Ziwe later asked.

 

“I wouldn't be opposed to it,” Santos replied. “Especially because I can probably make a Black baby on my own. Granted my dad and my entire dad's family because I'm biracial.” 

 

For the record, Santos has claimed to be Ukrainian, Jewish and Black. In a July 2020 tweet, he revealed that he was biracial while complaining about the Black National Anthem, “Lift Every Voice and Sing”:

 

“#MLK did not die for us to go back to segregation. As a biracial person I stand tall against segregation of any kind,” Santos wrote. “This so-called ‘Black anthem’ is the most divisive thing I’ve ever seen. We are all #Americans under one flag and our anthem is the #StarSpangledBanner!”

08
Santos said he doesn’t see color
When asked how many Black friends he has, Santos said, “I have plenty [of Black friends]. I have too many to count. Seriously . . . I don’t see color. I grew up in Queens.”
09
Santos maintained that he isn’t a politician

“I’m not a politician, never was, never will be,” he said, adding that he defines himself as “an elected public servant for 11 months.”

 

Santos also “hate[s] politicking” and thinks the country needs more independent thinkers, but not like Jill Stein:  

 

“[Jill Stein] is a Russian asset, according to Hillary Clinton, and I believe Hillary on that one. [I’m an asset] of no one.”

10
Santos doesn’t support a cease-fire, but he does love peace

“I hate war. Peace is the way to go,” Santos said while discussing whether or not he supports a call for an end to the violence in Gaza.

 

That being said, Santos made it clear that he doesn’t support a cease-fire: 

 

“We don’t negotiate with terrorists. War against terror should never be undermined . . . period. Hamas is a terrorist organization.”

 

As for how he would bring peace to the Middle East, Santos said his solution is “very simple.”

 

“Eradicating terror cells, like Hamas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda . . . I mean there’s so many to name  . . . the point is that if we go after all the terrorist organizations and cells, we will bring peace to the Middle East and the world . . . It’s a good cause.”

11
Santos bashed his upcoming HBO biopic, saying it’s “not ever gonna happen”

The biopic in question is HBO Films’ adaptation of “The Fabulist: The Lying, Hustling, Grifting, Stealing, and Very American Legend of George Santos,” a book by writer and reporter Mark Chiusano. The film is described as a “story of a seemingly minor local race that wound up a battle for the soul of Long Island, and unexpectedly carved the path for the world’s most famous (and now disgraced) congressman.”

 

HBO is set on going through with the project, even though Santos isn’t too thrilled about it.

 

“That movie’s not ever gonna happen,” he said bluntly. “The book has no perspective of me or anybody close to me. It’s a f**king fiction.”

12
Santos was left speechless when Ziwe made jabs at his alleged use of donors' credit cards

Santos has a keen eye for fashion. His outfit for the interview consisted of Ferragamo shoes, an Hermès bracelet and a suit, which Santos revealed is from a Black-owned company available at Macy’s.

 

“How many stolen credit cards did you use to pay for this look?” Ziwe asked, clearly throwing shade at Santos’ alleged charges of stealing donor IDs and making unauthorized charges to their credit cards.

 

All Santos had to offer in response was a blank stare.

13
Santos doesn’t do petty crimes

Santos pretty much told on himself when he said he wouldn’t steal from Sephora or Ulta because he doesn’t commit “petty crimes.”

 

Ziwe then promptly clarified that Santos only engages in “white-collar" crimes. Cue another blank stare from Santos.

14
Santos can’t define empathy because he doesn’t understand it

“You know what’s great about that? Empathy, to me, is probably . . . I don’t understand it because people accuse me of having no empathy,” he said. “Maybe I can’t define empathy.”

 

Santos, however, believes he does have empathy: “I couldn’t define it. But I believe I’m empathetic to causes, to people, to situations.”

15
Somehow, Santos managed to clap back at Ziwe toward the end of the interview

The viral moment occurred when Ziwe asked Santos if he was like Tinkerbell: “If we stopped clapping, would you disappear?”

 

Santos simply said “no” before Ziwe posed another scathing question: “What could we do to get you to go away?” He clapped back immediately, saying the only thing people can do is to “stop inviting me to your gigs.”

 

For now, that means “Dancing with the Stars” for Santos and no “RuPaul's Drag Race,” although Santos said he would love to “read a b***h” if he got an invite from the latter.

 

Regardless, the lesson here is to stop inviting and featuring Santos. Of course, that’s easier said than done because Santos knows that a controversial figure like him is guaranteed to make headlines: “But you can’t, cuz people want the content.”

16
Nothing can stop Santos because he’ll be running for office again

Santos may have been expelled from Congress, but he’s not letting that stop him from making a comeback . . .

 

“I’ll be back,” Santos said. “I’m 35, they’re [his peers] are all in their 50s. I’ll outlive them, each and [every] one of them.”

Watch the full interview below, via YouTube:

 

New love, a dinner invitation and the fish salad that brought my family back together on Christmas

The first December that Michelle and I were going out, her mom invited my family over for a traditional Italian feast for Christmas Eve dinner. I was apprehensive at first. Though I’d been bringing Michelle around my family for months, her encounters with my parents were always isolated. Individually, they adored her, but not each other.

“I don’t think they’ll come.”

“Why not?” Susan begged. “’Tis the season. They’ll have to speak to each other sometime.”

Dad hadn’t spent Christmas with us in years. Although he isn’t Christian, in the early years he’d always partake in the festivities, for the sake of his wife and kids. He enjoyed the conviviality, however foreign it was to him. But as the wedge between my parents expanded, he stopped participating. During Christmas mornings, he’d either go to a friend’s house while we unwrapped presents or sit upstairs in his office (also his bedroom by that point), where Ravi and I would visit him to swap gifts. Though the strain in my parents’ marriage really weighed on me, I’d gotten used to sweeping my feelings under the rug. I could talk endlessly to Michelle about aspects of my life, but some conversations were too painful.

Still, Susan continued her endearing argument until I eventually caved and extended her invitation. 

And so, both Mom and Dad, along with Nani and Ravi, showed up at Michelle’s home on December 24th. To my great surprise. I guess each of them made the trek to show their goodwill; maybe they did it for the free meal…or maybe they did it for me. Whatever their reason, I was grateful to have them all sitting around the same table again. My parents barely said a word to each other, but at least they were cordial in public.

Michelle, a marvel in the kitchen, made a gustatory heirloom she’d learned from her grandparents that featured on their table each year: Insalata di Mare (seafood salad consisting of fresh octopus, shrimp, scallops and calamari marinated in citrus juices), while Jim spun homemade pizzas (a self- taught skill he’d become legendary for within our clan). My grandma was impressed with the spread, which included her contribution of lasagna—a dish that usually took her an entire day to assemble and bake.

To my astonishment, however, the Tawneys kept coming back each year and were soon spending other occasions with Michelle’s family, too: New Year’s Eve, Easter, Thanksgiving, Mother’s Day, Fourth of July. We’d also celebrate Diwali, India’s festival of lights, out of respect for Dad, featuring some curries Michelle taught herself to cook (with a little guidance from Mom). 

We need your help to stay independent

Sometimes, we would invite Michelle and her parents over to our house, too. Eventually, every significant holiday was spent at one of our homes, over a table full of home cooking featuring dishes spanning all of our ethnic backgrounds. I’d look down at the display and see generations

of meals before me, forging a great unification among our two units. Over time, Mom and Dad even became friendlier with each other as a result of their being forced to sit together. After nearly a decade of zero communication, I was dumbfounded to witness them actually share a laugh or two, even reminisce about early days back in Queens. If only for the sake of their son’s happiness, they tried to show a semblance of peace.

Five years after our first date, on the night before Christmas, I proposed marriage to Michelle — something neither of us had ever wanted; over time, however, our feelings had changed. Members of both sides were once again in Jim and Susan’s living room that evening, including Dad, exchanging presents, when Michelle opened a cardboard packaging box. She reached inside and pulled out a small sack of store- bought long grain rice. Our mothers thought I was surprising her with a vacation to China or India or somewhere where rice was a key ingredient. While she was inspecting my gift, I got down on one knee and held out a ring. Completely stunned, Michelle placed the box over her head and stood there like a buffoon.

“Will you marry me?”

“Uh, okay,” she responded bashfully. We all laughed at her embarrassment. She never did say “Yes” outright — typical.

We celebrated that evening, as one big family.

If only my nani had lived to see it.

Michelle’s Insalata di Mare

Directions

  1. Make sure you have raw shrimp, scallops, calamari, mussels, and one whole octopus (you can buy a frozen octopus from a fish market if you’re squeamish).

  2.  Dice a bunch of carrots, few stalks of celery, 1 large bulb of fennel (make sure to use the entire piece), 1to 2 medium red bell peppers and 1 large red onion

  3.  Dice a generous amount of parsley, a little bit of fresh oregano and a little bit of fresh basil

  4.  Finely chop a few cloves of garlic.

  5.  Throw everything into a large glass bowl. Squeeze about six fresh lemons into the mixture. Pour in a generous amount of fine, dry sherry. Give yourself a sip, too.

  6.  Add a cup of extra virgin olive oil.

  7. Add a pinch of kosher and freshly ground pepper salt to taste.

  8. Add 2 to 4 bay leaves. Add a little bit of Old Bay Seasoning. (Don’t add too much. Same goes for the sherry.)

  9. Put the bowl aside.

  10. To poach the seafood, you’ll need a large saucepan fitted with a colander insert. Place the saucepan on the stove and fill it halfway with water. Combine chopped chunks of some celery, carrots, a small onion, a bay leaf, some lemon juice, and a pinch of kosher salt and drop it into the water.

  11. Heat the pan and bring everything to a boil.

  12. Clean your calamari and slice it into rings, add it to the colander, and place it in the boiling water. This should take about 2 minutes. Do not overcook.

  13. Immediately pull out the colander and dump the calamari into a bowl of ice.

  14. Place scallops in the colander and repeat the process. This should take about 3 to 4 minutes until the scallops are opaque.

  15. Peel the shrimp, place them in the colander, and repeat the process. This should take only a few minutes.

  16. Add mussels to the colander and repeat the process. This should take a few minutes, until the shells open.

  17.  Clean your octopus, tenderize it, cure it with kosher salt, and chop it into chunks, then add it to the colander and repeat the process. This will take much longer, around 40 minutes. After all of the seafood is cold, remove everything from the ice and transfer it to the glass bowl.

  18. Mix everything up, then chill it in the refrigerator for at least 6 hours, but preferably overnight.

  19.  Taste it before you chill it. You might need more lemon juice, sherry, or olive oil.

  20. Scoop into small individual bowls and serve to each guest.


     

If you enjoyed this essay and recipe, consider ordering and reading the rest of Raj Tawney's  "Colorful Palate: A Flavorful Journey through a Mixed American Experience." 

 

“Basically she lied to all of us”: IG report says Jan. 6 organizers misled officials to get permit

Organizers of the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 Capitol attack actively hid information from the National Park Service that would have influenced the security plans for the event, a new report from the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Interior Department revealed. The 45-page report comes nearly three years after the riot and focuses on the "Save America" rally preparations undertaken by the National Park Service and U.S. Park Police, ABC News reports

The report found that organizers from Women for America First failed to supply information about former President Donald Trump's likely attendance at the rally and hid information about the plans to march to the Capitol after the event, despite a clear request for that information from the National Park Service. While event planners repeatedly affirmed there were no plans to march, evidence reviewed by the OIG found that the organization expected Trump to call for one. "We asked [the WFAF representative] repeatedly if she was going to do a march … So, um, basically she lied to all of us," the permit specialist told investigators, per the report, after being shown text messages from a WFAF representative stating plans for a march.

The report also concluded that the National Park Service lacked evidence of the event posing potential danger to deny permits to the event planners. Intelligence reports in the lead-up to the rally provided contradictory information about the chance of violence at the Capitol. "Groups with diametrically opposed beliefs and ideologies will both be present, and if these groups are allowed to come into close contact with each other, violence is almost certain," warned a late December intelligence report from the Park Police. A Jan. 5 communication between Capitol Police and Park Police, however, found the chance of a threat "highly improbable" and "remote."

Celine Dion has stiff-person syndrome and “has no control of her muscles”

After Celine Dion canceled all her tour dates earlier this year because of a diagnosis of a rare neurological disease, Dion's family shared that the singer "has no control of her muscles."

Diagnosed with Moersch-Woltman syndrome more commonly known as stiff-person syndrome in May this year, the 55-year-old singer stepped away from her performance career. Her sister Claudette Dion said that the disorder has affected Dion's ability to walk and sing, and now she has no control of her muscles.

"There are some who have lost hope because that it is a disease that is not known," Claudette, said to the French publication 7 Jours.

Claudette said the family's dream is for Dion to return to the stage but with the unpredictability of the disease that may prove to be a challenge. "Vocal cords are muscles, but so is the heart. That's what gets to me. Because it's one in a million case, scientists don't have that much research on the topic, because it didn't affect that many people," she said.

In 2021, Dion postponed her Las Vegas residency because of what she said was “severe and persistent” muscle spasms and said she was "heartbroken by this."

Dion is a title holder for one of the most successful concert residencies of all time, two of her residencies have grossed $681 million over a 16-year stint, playing more than 1000 shows.

 

Trump rages on Truth Social after judge “mocked and excoriated” his expert witness in brutal ruling

Donald Trump fired off on social media Monday, berating the judge overseeing — and deciding the final payout of — the former president's civil fraud case, for questioning the credibility of one of Trump's witnesses. In a series of posts to Truth Social, Trump took aim at New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, dubbing him a "completely biased Democrat judge," and decried Engoron's rulings against Trump's supposed disclaimer clause, cited appraisals of his properties and criticism of his expert witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov.

"Judge Engoron challenges the highly respected Expert Witness for receiving fees, which is standard and accepted practice for Expert Witnesses," Trump wrote the second post. "The ignorant Judge did not even try to listen to the Expert Witness. This is a great insult to a man of impeccable character and qualifications. The Judge ignores the Law!" Bartov was paid nearly $877,500 for testifying on Trump's behalf during trial. "This was news that Judge Engoron was not happy with, our highly respected Expert Witness was mocked and excoriated by Engoron for telling the Truth, the Courthouse was in disbelief," Trump added in the third post.

Trump also vehemently defended the financial statements he submitted and his property valuations, asserted there was no victim in the case and claimed he was held in high regard by the banks he was found to have defrauded, which he said deemed him qualified for the loans he sought but noted in the post he did not need. On Monday, in a scathing ruling against Trump's latest request for a directed verdict, Engoron wrote that Bartov "lost all credibility" as a witness by claiming Trump’s financial statements were completely accurate despite Engoron's September judgment finding otherwise. "Bartov is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say,"  Engoron wrote.

“He was so unloved”: Jason Isaacs on the man behind Cary Grant, a beloved persona created to protect

Throughout Jason Isaacs' extensive career, the British actor has inhabited morally gray but iconic characters like the cunning death eater Lucius Malfoy in the book to film adaption of the "Harry Potter" series, the pirate Captain Hook in "Peter Pan" and even Captain Gabriel Lorca in "Star Trek: Discovery." This time, he has chosen to portray one of the most famous men in Hollywood — actually the real, struggling man behind the dazzling persona Cary Grant in the Britbox show "Archie."

The show is a multi-generational tale of the troubled actor known as Cary Grant to the world but originally named Archibald "Archie" Leach. "Archie" grants us a peek into the humble and abusive origins of Grant. It illustrates who Grant really was — or what parts of his identity he was trying to mask as he stuffed Archie so far down into himself so he could play Grant.

During our "Salon Talks" interview, Isaacs told me that Grant gamed the Hollywood system to get ahead. "Apart from the fact that he had the tools he really was incredibly charming and funny. He learnt to make people like him," he said. "He learnt to make anybody like him. He was different in every situation. Anywhere he went, he could be exactly what you needed him to be."

You can watch my full interview with Isaacs here, or read the transcript of our conversation below.

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

“Archie” is about the tumultuous life of Cary Grant, but it's not really about Cary Grant, it's about Archibald.

Yeah, it's not about Cary Grant at all. In fact, if it was a series about Cary Grant, I wouldn't have taken the job because you'd have to be a moron to try and step into his shoes. He was the most beloved, fancied person in the world, and the most famous person in the world for about 30 years.

But in real life, he was the complete polar opposite. Of all the debonair, sophisticated man-about-town he was onscreen, he was really badly damaged and badly scarred from his childhood. Those wounds never healed, and he was really troubled. He made his way through many relationships and marriages, and that's why it's worth telling the story I think, in today's world, even for people like you who weren't born — neither was I really — when Cary Grant was famous, because, I don't know if you're watching this on your phone, your iPad, but how many people come through our devices whose lives look perfect to us. It's a reminder that they really never are, and the more famous they get, the more likely it is that they're f**ked up. 

Can you tell me what those stark differences between Archie and this character that he's playing in Cary Grant? 

"If it was a series about Cary Grant, I wouldn't have taken the job because you'd have to be a moron to try and step into his shoes."

Literally the opposite. All the adjectives that will ever apply to Cary Grant are the opposite. In many ways, I think his screen persona that he worked on over decades that he curated so perfectly was a device. It was like an avatar. It was there to protect him. He thought, "If I can become that person" – and he did manage to fake being that person and be that person sometimes quite a lot – "if I can become that person, the world wouldn't reject me." Because he was so unloved. I don't know how deeply you want to go into his childhood, but he was completely abandoned and abused and must have felt unloved.

His father left him, he was a violent alcoholic. His mother was taken away and then died. So he felt like he just wasn't worth anything. But this thing he created on screen, not only could he make people love him in the flesh, he was very sexual, he learned to use sex as a tool, but he ended up making the whole world love him. Which I guess he would've thought, not consciously, but playing pop psychologist, he would've thought would fill the hole inside of him, make him feel like maybe he was lovable. But of course, it did the opposite, that's what fame does to people.

What do you think made Cary Grant that guy, that most famous man in Hollywood?

First of all, the need. I mean, there's plenty of people with a need. But I think he was beautiful for a start, which is incredibly irritating. I spent a lot of time talking to Dyan Cannon, who's featured in the show. That particular marriage that produced a child is the one that we concentrate on. And she would say to me lots of really useful things about how damaged he was and how controlling he was, how angry he was and how much it hurt him to be so hurtful.

But then she would, every now and again, drop in things, which were a nightmare for an actor, like, "You have to understand, honey, Cary would walk into a room and everybody just their jaws fell up and he was so beautiful and sexy." And I'd go, "Dyan, that's really not helping me. Let's get back to the psychological stuff." 

Apart from the fact that he had the tools he really was incredibly charming and funny. He learnt to make people like him. He learnt to make anybody like him. He was different in every situation. Anywhere he went, he could be exactly what you needed him to be. He carried a lot of shame for that later in his life for some of the things he had to do early on to get where he wanted to be.

In his most famous roles, what role do you think Archie played a role in performing?

None.

None?

You'll never see the real man in the screen. What happened was he started off, he was a kid, and so abandoned, neglected, it happens to a lot of us, he found the theater. He found a place where it felt warm, it felt like a family. It felt like somewhere you could belong. It was the First World War, and so we joined this acrobatic troupe, which would normally have been adults, but the guy had kids instead. His dad didn't care, and so he signed up and he traveled round with them, expelled from school, and they went to America and he stayed, because he had nothing to go back to England for. He was desperate, he was hungry. I mean, literally physically starving a lot of the time, and he learned to be a carnival barker, a stilt walker. He sold ties on the street. Did a lot of things, some of which he carried a lot of shame for later in his life. He was for hire by people that needed entertainment. I won't to go further into it, but which ladies would hire him and who knows who else. 

Then he became a vaudeville act. He did knock down comedy and acrobatics. He did musicals, although he couldn't sing. He was so gorgeous, people put on the musicals and he kept on being hired even when the musicals closed because he was just so handsome. He couldn't really do the musical stuff, but he continued to do comedy. When he first got into Hollywood, he did a screen test, he got rejected for being rubbish. But then he went back a couple of years later. When he got into Hollywood, he did breakneck comedy sketch stuff. 

One of the films in his early days, it was a very different actor that I love so much, is called “His Girl Friday,” and it's this really end of pier knockabout comedy where they deliver the lines at five times the pace. It's like the medical disclaimers at the end of a hemorrhoid cream commercial, just it's so fast. His double takes and triple takes and his pratfalls are so fabulous. 

"He was a man of tremendous extremes. Today, I think you'd label him with acronyms, OCD and ADHD and a million other things."

But what was interesting, you asked me when Archie appeared, did you ever see Archie on screen? Much later, he's been the biggest star in Hollywood for a long time. He's had a number of marriages, lots of relationships. Alfred Hitchcock got to know him socially and Alfred Hitchcock knew the real man and knew that he was nothing like the suave ladies' man that he was on the screen or the clown. He cast him in some very dark roles, some very dark and manipulative roles, and really gave him a second career. That's when it was a boost, he was almost giving up. He made a lot of money and he didn't quite know what to do next, and Alfred Hitchcock rebooted his career as a much more complicated actor and continued to cast him in dark parts. 

There's a film called “Notorious” where he persuades someone that he is falling in love with, who's the daughter of a Nazi collaborator, to go and sell herself, to hook up with someone he suspects of being a Nazi sympathizer. She marries him, she sleeps with him, because she's doing the job she's forced into doing, and then he judges her and treats her harshly for it, and it's brutal. I think Hitchcock knew who the real complicated Cary Grant was, and he learned to use that image on screen.

That version of him, he is funny, he is charismatic, he's obsessed with women. How is it playing that man when he's at maybe the peak of his success?

Well, I'm not playing him. You're talking about the character on screen that you know.

Yes, the character Cary Grant. 

I did a ton of work because I was scared, frankly. I read all the biographies. I read everything that exists, and I read Jennifer Grant's book, his daughter, although she saw this loving dad, which is not that useful. But I read Dyan Cannon's book, which chronicles really beautifully and painfully what it was like being in love with the world's most desired icon when they shut the front door and he turned into a nightmare, turned into the opposite. This manipulative, controlling, angry, heartbroken man who, for instance, took acid hundreds of times with a therapist to try and rid himself of his nightmares. That's who I played, I played the guy when he gets off the set and shuts the door. There's little bits of him being charming, when he was wooing her he was charming and we do a couple of bits of the films and he can be funny, but really it's about the anger and the pain and the stuff that he has subdues all the time that I get to play.

There’s a physicality to that. You're wearing a lot of tan from what I see in the show and the prosthetics. Can you speak to that as well?

He was a man of tremendous extremes. Today, I think you'd label him with acronyms, OCD and ADHD and a million other things. He drank till his liver almost exploded, a lot of things. But he was extreme in so many areas, and one of them was tanning. Someone had told him early on that he needed to be brown.

He's so orange.

Well, yeah, he was orange, but he walked around with one of those silver reflectors all the time, right until he was old. He was dark brown, he was mahogany, and the directors of photography had tremendous trouble lighting him. They would always try and over light him and shade other people. He was in a film called “Gunga Din,” which is about wars in India and the Indian actors were lighter than him. It was troubling. But that's just an indication of how extreme it was. 

Anyway, what did we do? I was never going to look like Cary Grant. I was never going to be as Dyan Cannon said, the sexiest man in any room I walk into, that's just not possible. But he famously had a big cleft chin. We indicated that because I don't have one. He had big brown eyes, beautiful big brown cowy eyes. So some poor lady's job was just to put contact lenses in the morning and take them out at night and put up with me whining about it. Then he had different hair at different stages. He got a bit thicker when he gave up acting, so we had some prosthetics to make me a bit heavier. But the thing that really does it I think, in many ways is that he was the best dressed man in the world for 30 years, designers worshiped him. It was the other thing, Dyan Cannon would say to me, "He had a body, honey. Oh my God. You put clothes on him, it was like Naomi Campbell, I'm telling you." And I go, "Again, Dyan, let's get back to something useful."

I had the greatest tailors in the world make all my suits. They had nothing left in the costume budget at all, they had to scavenge around thrift bins, so I've got six or seven, I didn't keep, I didn't get, they went back into the stock. But I had the greatest tailors in the world make all these suits. You just walk differently. And then there was video of him walking differently at different stages. So I walk differently when I'm 80 from when I was 50 and so on. The hardest thing was the voice.

I was going to ask you about that. He has this mid-Atlantic voice. He's British-American. You're British, you've played Americans. What's that experience like?

I play Americans all the time, but that's an American voice. I can do accents, but that was an accent. He had a very unique sounding voice, really peculiar. When I did eventually take the job because I didn't want to take the job at first, I resisted them, because I thought it was a poisoned chalice. But then once I read the scripts, I couldn't stop myself. 

"I was never going to be as Dyan Cannon said, the sexiest man in any room I walk into, that's just not possible."

The thing that loomed all the time was wondering about the voice because everybody asked me, everyone went, "Can you do the voice yet?" And I went, "No, I can't." I didn't do the voice for anyone, for the director or anyone up until the first time the cameras rolled because I couldn't find reference anywhere. There's only the films, but I knew he didn't talk like that. That's what Jennifer said to me, her dad was much more English in real life. He was always correcting her, making her do English pronunciations.

I just couldn't find [anything]. He didn't do any talk shows. He didn't do any radio interviews. He didn't do anything anyway. Of course, I realized why, because he didn't want the public to see who he was. He never wanted to give away what his real nervous energy was. He was riddled with anxiety and stuff. So I was despairing a lot. Then I found something, I read this interview, it looked like a transcript. I saw the byline, the guy wasn't a journalist, I couldn't find him anywhere. 

Anyway, I tracked him down on social media and I sent him direct messages and eventually he got back to me, and it turns out he'd done an interview in the last year of Cary Grant's life when he was just a student. He wrote to him saying, "Can you answer some questions?" And he got a message back going, "Call and we'll have a chat." He went down to the university radio department and he phoned the number thinking, "I don't understand what's happening here." Cary Grant got on the phone. He couldn't believe it. He was 22. He started asking him questions, and they stayed on the phone for an hour. He was at the university radio department. 

The first thing Cary Grant says is, "You're not recording this, are you?" And he goes, "Well, I was thinking . . ." And he goes, "Don't. I don't want you to record it." And he goes, "Yeah, well, sure." He signaled to his friend, so they did the interview and at the end of the interview, his friend went, "I mean, I did record it obviously."

I tracked him down and he got very shirty with me, very like, "Who are you? Why are you asking? How did you find me?" I said, "I just want to hear that tape. I want to hear him talking normally, not how he talks in the movies." He said, "I've never played it to anyone. It's not right. I promised him I wouldn't." I went, "I'm playing it with the blessing of his wife and his daughter and I just want to hear what he talks like." So he sent me a private link. The voice I do in the show is as close as I can get it to that voice.

You play these morally gray characters, these dark characters. Your character in “Harry Potter,” “The Patriot,” and now in “Archie”? Do you like playing that moral gray area?

I just like playing human beings. I like playing three-dimensional human beings. You're a writer, so it's all about the writing. You can't play three dimensions if there's only two on the page, you just can't do it, but when there's three on the page, and you can do that in long-form TV like “Archie,” then you get to see a rounded human being. 

If you're lucky, you start people discussing things at home. You want to engage them and entertain them, but if you're lucky enough to be able to put full human beings on the screen, they're complicated and they also contradict themselves and there's stuff to discuss afterwards. "Why would he do that?” “She should have done this, but then he wouldn't have said that." 

We all get that in our own lives. We're all different. If we follow any person around all day, we're different people in different situations and on different days we behave differently. You don't get to do that in a movie often. You've got one journey and there's normally only one character that can have a full emotional journey, but in TV you can do more. 

This is as much a story of Dyan Cannon, and how this young woman was wooed by this much older man, till eventually she fell for him, and then realized she'd got in so deep. The whole world worshiped him and who was she going to tell that he was behaving like this? So I'm just drawn to good writing, because good writing makes me look better as an actor.

Absolutely. That trauma and that difficulty of Archie's backstory, how does it inform your performance?

I don't know how much you are thinking now about growing up as a kid. You're probably not thinking much about it, but it's informed everything about who you are now, even though you're sitting here asking the questions. You just do all the work, I try to imagine . . . It's a funny old job, acting, because it's all about imagination. People who don't do it think it's about learning lines, but you have to try and program in as much as possible this background where he's rejected and abandoned and beaten and abused in many ways and desperate for approval and get all the facts in and then forget about them. Because I'm here having a conversation with you, I'm not thinking about what happened this morning. I'm just thinking about this engagement. But you hope that that work has somehow bubbled into your foundations and plays through. Most of it, I won't take the credit, is Jeff Pope, the writer. He's done all that work elsewhere in a lonely room, and it's in the dynamic that he's written.

He's angry a lot and then he's angry at himself often a lot for having been angry, and he's controlling things, so the actions that he takes, I think those are the manifestation of these childhood scars. I'm not a psychiatrist, but my understanding is he wanted to control anyone he was with and everything around him as much as possible, because his early life had been such chaos, such damage there, and such terror and fear of, "Where's the next meal coming from? And what are these people going to do to me?" If he could just make everything how he wanted it, then maybe chaos wouldn't come in through the door. So you play that. A lot of the time, people who are angry are scared, a lot of people who are controlling are frightened of being of control and you play the opposites.

Speaking of these damaged characters, for all the Potterheads out there, what would you say if HBO Max gave you the call and was like, "Hey, we want you on the new “Harry Potter” series?"

Well, they wouldn't because they're rebooting. They wouldn't phone Daniel and ask him to play an eleven-year-old either.

But hypothetically?

I'm too old to play that part.

Really? Would you think so?

Yeah, course I am.

Even though the fans love you and you feel like there's a connection to that character?

Also, there was a magical thing that happened. None of us were doing a job, everyone was a fan. While we were making it the books were coming out and the world was abuzz with it. The world is still abuzz with the books. We all knew and felt that something special was happening on the set and they're going to have their own experience of it. 

"Jo's very unusual and adamant stand on it coming from her point of view—I'm a straight white man of 60, and I don't think it's my place to opine on those things."

For me, being Lucius is completely tied up with being Tom [Felton]'s dad and our relationship and Helen, brilliant Helen McCrory who played Narcissa. It also, it's so different now because Lucius is a complicated character because the purity of race, that Nazi eugenics that he was spouting, the whole things about Muggles and wizards is what you heard Trump say. You don't need to look very far to find characters that are as monstrous and as convinced that the world was better when people like them ruled the world. Today will be a very different story. It has different resonance because there are those right-wing demagogues in power around the world. Thank God, not at the moment in America. But so it needs new energy. I gave the best to Lucius Malfoy I could give at that time.

Talking about the “Harry Potter” creator, JK Rowling, you have said in the past that you two have differing opinions about things and that you would want to have a conversation about it with her. Have you had that conversation? What would you like to share about that, if you can?

Well, this is a discussion about trans issues and trans rights. Jo's very unusual and adamant stand on it coming from her point of view — I'm a straight white man of 60, and I don't think it's my place to opine on those things. I've said some things online and supported various people, but I don't ever want to get into a public argument with Jo. She has things she believes fervently in and she's explained herself, and it's not a discussion that I should be part of, I think. I worked for her charity Lumos before these issues came to the forefront, and I'd seen her put enormous amounts of money and energy into making children all over the world's lives better. For that part of her that I saw then, I had tremendous admiration. Her views on women's issues and trans issues are hers, and they're not for me to discuss in public.

What do you say to the fans who have complicated feelings about the films now?

I don't tell other people what their feelings should be about anything. I do know this only, that it's a complex issue and a really sensitive issue. A lot of people get very upset or angry and feel very scared about it. Those things need to be discussed and the place not to discuss them is on this or in social media because views only get more polarized and there's no compassion there. Those aren't the places for these discussions.

Altogether, what would you say of your “Harry Potter” experience and to the people who still love these films and books?

Oh, those stories have nothing to do with any of the individuals concerned. You can love those books and stories. I'm so privileged. I get to travel the world and meet “Harry Potter” fans who come up who approach me and get to tell me how those stories saved them times when they felt excluded, when they felt alone, they felt bullied, when they felt there wasn't a place from the world. Those stories and those characters gave them a safe berth, made them feel like there would be a place and there's a community for them, and that's such a powerful thing. It's divorced from whoever wrote it, whoever directed it, whoever was in it. Those stories exist in the world and they do such good, and I'm just lucky to be associated with them.

CNN host shuts down flailing Republican’s wild spin of Trump’s xenophobic rant about immigrants

CNN's Abby Phillip was aghast at Rep. Nicole Malliotaki's, R-N.Y., explanation of Donald Trump's recent assertion that foreign immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" at a recent campaign even in New Hampshire in which he also invoked Russian President Vladimir Putin. "You know, when they let, I think the real number is like 15, 16 million people into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to do," the former president said. "They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned … mental institutions and prisons all over the world. Not just in South America. Not just in the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into our country. From Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They’re pouring into our country. Nobody’s even looking at them. They just come in. The crime is going to be tremendous."

"Well, I don’t think that’s what he was saying,” Malliotakis said to Phillip. “When he said they are poisoning, I think he was talking with the Democratic policies. I think he was talking about open border policy.” Phillip then countered, "Congresswoman, you’re saying that’s what you think he’s saying but he was pretty clear. He was saying that the immigrants who are coming in, he says they’re poisoning the blood of the nation. He was talking about people, not policy.” Malliotakis argued that Trump can't be anti-immigrant, as "some people are trying to make" him seem, because he has both married and employed them in the past. 

Giuliani doubles down on attacks against defamed election workers — now they’re suing him again

The two Georgia election workers who just won a $148 million defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani want the Donald Trump lawyer's election lie peddling to stop, and they're taking action.

Just three days after a Washington, D.C. jury delivered a massive verdict in their favor over Giuliani's false claims that they committed election fraud in 2020, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss filed a new lawsuit against the former New York City mayor on Monday, seeking to prohibit him from repeating the election allegations — as he did multiple times during and after last week's trial.

According to Politico, the new suit requests a court injunction that would block Giuliani from continuing to peddle his false election claims about the mother-daughter duo. Though the complaint doesn't explicitly pursue any monetary damages, paperwork filed with the case says it is seeking more than $75,000.

Freeman and Moss immediately asked for the case to be assigned to U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who presided over last week's trial and earlier this year ruled Giuliani liable in the defamation case after finding that he willfully defied attempts by the plaintiffs and the court to corral evidence related to their claims.

Despite the pressures imposed by the new suit, Giuliani returned to pushing his false fraud claims hours after the complaint dropped. 

When Newsmax host Rob Schmitt questioned Giuliani about the second lawsuit and the injunction it seeks on Monday night, the lawyer said it "sounds kind of un-American."

“That’s prior restraint," Giuliani continued. "Are they actually going to put a gag on me when I walk around? I mean, this bears no relationship to my learning in law school about the First Amendment, the right of free speech.”

He went on to bemoan not being allowed to defend himself during last week's trial before Schmitt asked if he still believed the allegations he leveled toward the women. 

“Yeah. Well of course they’ll sue me again for it when I say that. But yeah, I do,” Giuliani replied, echoing his insistence from last week when he said outside the courthouse that "everything I said about them is true" and added, "Of course I don't regret it. … I told the truth. They were engaged in changing votes."

“But they want me to lie. They basically—they are suing me in order to lie to them. I’m sorry. I can’t do it,” Giuliani told Schmitt with a chuckle.

“If I showed you the evidence right now—and I think you’ve played it on your air—people would see that what I said was absolutely true and there’s support for it.”

In December 2020, Giuliani alleged that during ballot counting, Freeman and Moss added fake votes by “quite obviously, surreptitiously, passing around USB ports as if they’re vials of heroin or cocaine.” But the women both testified that Freeman was giving her daughter a ginger mint. 

After the end of the interview, Schmitt encouraged viewers to donate to Giuliani.

“If you’d like to help Mayor Giuliani fight what is an utterly ridiculous verdict, and specifically the damages—$148 million—donate to the Giuliani Legal Defense Fund,” he said, as a phone number and website address showed on screen. “President Trump has endorsed this fund, urges you to support it. We’d like you to donate.”

Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade called the new lawsuit "really clever."

"They've already got $148 million as a judgment, so they're not looking for more money," McQuade explained on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Tuesday. "What they really want is for Rudy to shut the hell up."

We need your help to stay independent

If the court-ordered injunction to stop Giuliani from further spreading the false claims is granted, McQuade elaborated, it allows the parties to seek a contempt order if he continues to peddle the allegations. If held in contempt of court, the judge could then jail him until he complies for up to 18 months, she added. 

"That may be what they're seeking here, is the ability to hold that over his head, and maybe that'll provide some disincentive to finally cause him to stop spreading these lies," McQuade concluded.

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner noted that Giuliani's continued attacks on the women following despite his court loss further puts him at risk of violating the terms of his pretrial release in Fulton County, Ga., where he's charged with 13 counts in a criminal racketeering case.

"Here's the part where we're talking about the intersection," Kirschner told MSNBC. "You know, he is on release in the Georgia case. I have his release conditions right here, and Joy, number five is that the defendant, Giuliani, 'shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him to be a co-defendant or witness in the case, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.'

"What is he doing? After that jury award in D.C., he's intimidating and endangering the lives of the witnesses in the Georgia case, Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman," Kirschner continued. "They will almost certainly testify in Georgia."


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


The former federal prosecutor also noted that Giuliani's transgressions weren't minor, pointing to another defendant in the case — Harrison Floyd — who returned to court to answer to an allegation that he intimidated witnesses, and narrowly dodged pretrial detention because of the discretion of presiding Judge Scott McAfee.

"How about Rudy?" Kirschner added. "It feels like Rudy should now be up because it sure looks like he's violating the conditions of his release in the Georgia case by continuing to intimidate, lie about, defame, and endanger Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman."

Freeman and Moss on Monday also urged Howell to hasten efforts to enforce the $148 million judgment, pointing to reports of Giuliani's soaring debts, which they say could prompt him to find ways to dodge payments, Politico reported. 

“Given that Defendant Giuliani has already refused for months to pay the fees awarded in this Court’s prior sanctions orders, there is especially good reason to believe that Defendant Giuliani intends to evade payment of the judgment by any means he can devise,” argued Michael Gottlieb, a lawyer for Freeman and Moss.

In August Howell ruled that Giuliani was liable for defaming the women, a conclusion she founded in part on his refusal to maintain and turn over key evidence in the case. In that decision, Howell also noted that Giuliani had concealed efforts to determine his net worth and assets that she had sought information on in previous court orders.

Now, the plaintiffs argue they need to jump on those assets before Giuliani has the opportunity to rid himself of them.

“There is a substantial risk that Defendant Giuliani will find a way to dissipate those assets before Plaintiffs are able to recover,” Gottlieb wrote, adding, “Giuliani is widely reported to have other, significant debts threatening his personal solvency.”

An eight-member jury awarded the women $148 million on Friday in a unanimous verdict that included $75 million in "punitive" damages meant to prevent future efforts to disparage election workers involved in counting votes in future elections. 

Even if Howell rules in favor of the election workers' on the pending matter and Giuliani is unsuccessful in his promised appeal, due to the former mayor's current financial state, it's unlikely Freeman and Moss will receive any amount close to the full award, the outlet notes. 

“Very bad signal for Trump”: Experts say ruling against Mark Meadows may doom Trump’s defense

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a bid by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his Georgia election case to federal court, upholding a September ruling that determined Meadows' reported actions in the racketeering case were not connected to his official government duties. 

In August, an Atlanta grand jury indicted Meadows, former president Donald Trump, and 17 other co-conspirators on felony racketeering charges over Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. Following the indictment, Meadows implored a federal court to intervene after Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis refused his request to delay arrest. The former top Trump aid and his lawyers have argued that Meadows is "differently situated" from the other alleged co-conspirators because of his status as a former federal official, purporting that the charges brought against him in the indictment are related to his time in a federal role, making him "immune" from local prosecution. "Absent this Court's intervention, Mr. Meadows will be denied the protection from arrest that federal law affords former federal officials," Meadows' lawyers wrote to U.S. District Court Judge Steven Jones at the time.

A three-judge appellate court panel — composed of Chief Judge William Pryor and Judges Robin Rosenbaum and Nancy Abudu — seemed doubtful of Meadows's claims while listening to oral arguments on Friday, as noted by the Washington Post. The court ultimately ruled that the federal removal statute Meadows sought "does not apply to former federal officers, and even if it did, the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows's official duties.”

“Even if Meadows were ‘an officer,’ his participation in an alleged conspiracy to overturn a presidential election was not related to his official duties,” Pryor wrote in the nearly 50-page opinion.

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal noted that Pryor is a notorious right-wing judge.

"It was, to put it mildly, a total body slam," Kaytal told MSNBC. "As you see this opinion was written by Chief Judge Pryor, who is not just someone some people call conservative, he's a legendary conservative jurist, extremely conservative. And, he had none of it with respect to Meadows' arguments. Basically to summarize what this long opinion says … look, if you are the White House chief of staff, launching a coup is not in your job description. That's the opinion, plain and simple."

Katyal said Meadows can try to appeal to the Supreme Court but "I don't think there's any chance that this case is going to be something that the Supreme Court is going to grant and rule for Mark Meadows. This is going nowhere fast."

In September, Meadows took a gamble by appearing on the witness stand. Willis subsequently seemed to imply that he may have committed perjury by doing so, with his testimony sharply undercutting his efforts to see his case moved to federal court. 

"And after insisting that he did not play 'any role' in the coordination of slates of 'fake electors' throughout several states, the defendant was forced to acknowledge under cross-examination that he had in fact given direction to a campaign official in this regard," Willis wrote in a brief after Meadows's testimony. "The Court has ample basis not to credit some or all of the defendant's testimony," a footnote in the filing argued.

Meadows is one of five defendants in Willis' indictment who have tried to move their case out of Georgia. The Washington Post reported that the others — Jeffrey Clark, Cathy Latham, David Shafer, and Shawn Still — have pending appeals requests before the 11th Circuit, following the rejection of their removal requests from the lower courts.

Following Monday's opinion, some legal experts claimed that Meadows's rejection offers a grim prediction for Trump's own immunity claims, which he has touted repeatedly in several of his legal cases.

We need your help to stay independent

"Although Meadows loss in the 11th circuit is on removal grounds, the analysis bears strong resemblance to the analysis for immunity, both concerning whether the alleged conduct was part of his official duties as [chief of staff]. And that casts a shadow on his and Trump's immunity claims," tweeted former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman.

"There's a greater significance to 11th Circuit decision rejecting Meadows' bid to get GA trial into federal court," former special counsel for the Department of Defense and NYU law professor Ryan Goodman wrote on X/Twitter. "Courts are inhospitable to Trump's claims of immunity/supremacy clause defense. Chief Judge pens the opinion: the alleged conduct was not a presidential function."


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


Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agreed that the ruling bodes poorly for the former president. 

"This opinion is meticulous, it’s airtight. This judge, Judge Pryor and the others on the panel, they go through and systematically address and dissect Mark Meadows’ arguments. And you could almost just global search and replace Meadows for Trump here," Honig said on CNN, according to Mediate.

"If Mark Meadows was outside his job of Chief of Staff, it almost follows that Donald Trump would have been outside his job as president and what they were doing," he added. "So it wouldn’t at all surprise me if what Judge Pryor and his colleagues were doing here was sort of saying Supreme Court, here’s a way you can follow us and get to the same conclusion. I think it’s a very bad signal for Trump."

“He’s laughing at them”: Trump turns the joke on MAGA with tacky new scam

Donald Trump is not one thing, he is many things. For his followers, Trump is a symbol more than he is a man. This is a defining feature of fascism and other types of fake populist and authoritarian movements organized around a “strong man” leader and charismatic personality. In his role as a type of symbol and empty signifier upon which many different types of meanings can be assigned, Trump is an aspiring dictator modeled on some bastardized combination of Hitler and Putin and other criminal dictators. Trump is also a master propagandist, a white supremacist, cruel and violent, a nativist and bigot, a misogynist who has been credibly accused of rape and sexual assault by dozens of women, and an obvious criminal and felon who faces hundreds of years in prison and is, apparently, profoundly mentally unwell.

In addition to the above, Trump is now claiming that he is some type of Chosen One favored by God and Jesus to be the next president of the United States. Public opinion polls and other research and evidence (including direct statements) show that believers in White Christianity do see in Trump a type of messianic or prophetic figure who is a tool to do “the work of god” (turning America into a Christofascist Theocracy and 21st-century apartheid state).  

The ex-president has now taken on an additional identity.

Trump is selling a new version of his digital trading cards (“The MugShot Edition”) that include pieces of the suit he wore when he was arrested at the Fulton County Jail in Georgia for crimes related to his alleged attempt to interfere with and nullify the 2020 Election results as part of the larger Jan. 6 coup plot. A piece of Trump’s suit will cost the buyer approximately $4,700.

Quite predictably, the mainstream news media and many other centrist and liberal observers will, for the most part, quickly dismiss or mock Trump’s “MugShot Edition” digital trading cards as more evidence that the MAGA people are “rubes." These detractors, even after seven years of experience, still refuse to understand Trump’s fascist appeal, if not genius control, over his followers – and the agency and power of choice that Trump’s many millions of MAGA followers possess.

Trump’s complex simplicity confounds the American mainstream news media and political class with their obsessive (and now obsolescent) commitment to “traditional candidates” and “normal politics” where the issues and reasonable, informed voters who want compromise and consensus are imagined as deciding the outcome of elections. To the degree that was ever true in American politics, it is certainly much less true in the Trumpocene and this time of national emergency and ascendant neofascism.

Ultimately, Trump’s so-called memorabilia, and what it symbolizes and channels, is so much more dangerous and important than what self-comforting acts of liberal schadenfreude and smug superiority suggest. Trump is tied with or leading President Biden in the early 2024 election polls.

In an attempt to make better sense of Trump’s new digital trading cards and how they fit into the larger MAGA neofascist propaganda machine and cult of personality, I asked a range of experts for their insights and observations:

Dr. Justin Frank is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and the author of "Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President."

Though long-suspected, Donald Trump is now officially showing full-blown signs of someone with delusions of grandeur. Enter his newest incarnation, the divine Saint Donald of Queens.

"The profane delusion at the center of Trump’s personal narrative is that he is a savior. He’s not. He just plays one on TV."

Inspired and spurred heavenward by the unwavering devotion of his followers and partners in delusion, Trump is quickly moving through his blasphemous journey toward canonization. It’s really not too much of a stretch to imagine Trump declaring himself a living saint, living his best-monetized life on his bespoke martyrdom path. Though still alive, Trump not only invites us to venerate his relics – broadly defined as anything that has been in contact with a saint. And he has taken the novel step of selling tiny swatches of his “mugshot suit” to his faithful.

We are all watching Trump and his followers slowly but steadily sink into his fantasy world. Trump is comfortable taking his delusions of grandeur to this new level – something I’d only ever seen before in a psychiatric hospital. He exemplifies what neurologist and psychoanalyst Ernest Jones called the “God complex,” the unwavering belief in one’s own divinity. The profane delusion at the center of Trump’s personal narrative is that he is a savior. He’s not. He just plays one on TV.

Cheri Jacobus is a former media spokesperson at the Republican National Committee and founder and president of the political consulting and PR firm Capitol Strategies PR.

The utter crass ridiculousness of indicted criminal Donald Trump selling off dirty swatches of the suit he wore for his arrest and mug shot is the point.

The faux billionaire bilking his MAGA cult members out of their rent money to pay his bills is in line with Trump's lifelong habit of blatant cons and scams for which he routinely pays little, if any, price. There are many, many ways in which Trump can artfully scam these idiots out of their cash. So why go for the most disgusting, embarrassing, bottom-of-the-barrel tactic he and his band of low life "advisors" could devise? 

We need your help to stay independent

Trump is not doing this to make any sort of point with his supporters. In fact, scamming them in a manner that is the polar opposite of "artfully" is the goal. While partially for sport, it is also strategic. He's laughing at them, while showing the rest of us just how strong the vise-like grip is that he has on his base. He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters — remember? He is thumbing his nose at justice, democracy and the rule of law.  He knows all he needs is just one MAGA juror secretly and lovingly fondling the piece of Trump's mug shot suit in his or her pocket and he's back in power — just as Vladimir Putin planned.

And make no mistake about it, Putin now has the GOP House and speaker he wants and needs to clear the way to take Ukraine. Matt Gaetz played his part to get rid of McCarthy, whom Putin does not trust since the former speaker can't shake that audio recording from 2016 where he is heard saying he thinks Putin pays Trump. It's all falling into place for Trump and Putin.

Marcel Danesi is Professor Emeritus of linguistic anthropology and semiotics at the University of Toronto. His new book is "Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective."

Trump’s sale of trading cards was a completely predictable event, given that he is a wily self-promoting marketer. He understands the value of trading cards in American traditions, which bear sentimental and nostalgic value, and thus fit in with his overall MAGA ploy. The tactic, moreover, is to allow his followers to literally carry the image of their leader with them everywhere. By putting his mug shot on the cards, Trump knows that he is imprinting into them the symbolism of defiance, conveyed by his angry insolent face, which he knows will further incite his followers, who will see him as a rebellious leader, a prisoner of the deep state, who is in exile waiting to be voted back into power.

"Trump knows that he is imprinting into them the symbolism of defiance, conveyed by his angry insolent face, which he knows will further incite his followers."

The cards are just another example of the master showmanship in Trump. His performances at rallies are truly those of a circus showman. Trump actually compared himself to P.T. Barnum, during an appearance in January of 2016 on "Meet the Press." The interviewer, Chuck Todd, asked Trump to choose, from among the pejorative names he was being called at the time, the one he would consider to actually be a compliment. He answered, “P. T. Barnum,” adding “We need P.T. Barnum, a little bit, because we have to build up the image of our country.” It should come as little surprise that Barnum also put out cards to promote himself and his circus. So, while we may condemn his tactics as ridiculous, Trump, like Barnum, knows that they are psychologically effective. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it in 1860: “Men had rather be deceived than not; witness the secure road to riches of Barnum and the quacks.”

David L. Altheide is the Regents' Professor Emeritus on the faculty of Justice and Social Inquiry in the School of Social Transformation at Arizona State University and author of the new book "Gonzo Governance: The Media Logic of Donald Trump."

Donald Trump enters the Fascist Hall of Fame (see Hitler, Mussolini) with digital trading cards that reveal a lot about his brand, persona, view of democracy and major social institutions.

The brand and persona are related and could be called “whatever” because he has no real persona, a head attached to anything, anybody, everything, and therefore, nothing really. It is political pornography. He is a floating meme that can be personalized for any follower’s identity or fantasy. This is consistent with his narrative to paying supporters targeted for symbolic affirmation: There are cards with his mugshot and “never surrender” epithet—even though he has already surrendered. The subtext is indictments are fakes, and the law is a fraud. Even the cards are fantasy. One card pretends to include a piece of his suit worn for the surrendered image that can be touched, like an infant’s “Pat the Bunny” book. So cute!

Collectively, the brand affirms white dominance, and rebukes authority and major social institutions, implying strong dictatorial Gonzo Governance. There’s one card as a sheriff with a white hat. Another image floats over the Constitution, and in one he sits on the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall, symbolically debasing President Lincoln and his legacy about freeing slaves and uniting the country. The collection is a vanilla rendering of the Village People’s YMCA sans diversity.

Steven Hassan is one of the world's leading experts on cults and other dangerous organizations, as well as how to deprogram people who have succumbed to "mind control." Hassan was once a senior member of the Unification Church, better known as the "Moonies." He is now the founder and director of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center.

When I saw the trading cards the first thought I had was how happy Putin must be that Trump is ridiculing the presidency and the authority of the United States.

I also thought of Mark Burnett, who was in charge of the media and ran "The Apprentice" for 10 years to bolster Trump's identity as a great businessman. Of course, there are elements of professional wrestling here as well where everyone knows it's fake but the audience still acts like it is real. In all, Trump's trading cards and those images of him are part of a larger attack on rationality, normalcy and critical thinking.


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


Regarding selling pieces of Trump’s suit, all I can say is, “I can give you a very good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.” There are so many True Believers who are operating under the principle that it's too big a lie so it must be true. It's so sad to know that people will actually believe that Trump is a great leader or part of a good history.

In the end, I think somebody approached Trump and said, Hey I got an idea to make some money and it'll help keep you in people's minds. We will give you 50% or whatever cut of whatever gets sold. Trump just loves to have his name and his face everywhere and to have people value it so it feeds his enormous malignant narcissistic ego.

Michael D'Antonio is the author of the biography, "Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success."

I imagine that in offering bits of his clothing Trump wasn’t immediately tuned in to the idea that he was marketing a relic in the vein of those seen on display in Catholic Churches across Europe. My guess is that he thought about baseball teams that sell seats that are being replaced or football players who sell game-worn shirts.

"The collection is a vanilla rendering of the Village People’s YMCA sans diversity."

Days later Trump has surely been informed of the religious connotations and since the bits and pieces are still on offer, he must like the comparison to the bones or hair of saints. Certainly, Trump would appreciate anything that elevates him in status in any way.

One odd thing about this is his evangelical supporters reject the veneration of relics. They consider Catholic reverence for these objects a kind of idolatry and certainly unbiblical. However, I doubt that evangelicals who support Trump would recognize the similarities or, if they do, care much. Instead, they might have a quasi-nearer-my-Trump-to-thee feeling as they plunk down their cash.

Rich Logis is a former right-wing pundit and high-ranking Trump supporter. Logis is the founder of Perfect Our Union, an organization that is dedicated to healing political traumatization; building diverse, pro-democracy alliances; and perfecting our Union.

His manufactured, carefully cultivated mythology is all Trump has left. In ways that are closer to literal, than figurative, re-election is a life-or-death last stand for the former president: he knows winning back the White House is his best (perhaps his only) ploy to avoid dying in prison.

The American tragedy of the Trump epoch is ensconced amongst some of our nation’s most egregious mistakes. Perhaps the most tragic of all is the trauma MAGA has wrought across every inch of America; this trauma is best observed amongst the true believers of MAGA—of which I once was and am now working to help others leave MAGA. Even though MAGA supporters are a minority of the electorate, they still number in the millions.

Trump and the GOP have kept MAGA voters in yearslong states of panic and desperation; I was in such a state for several years. The Trump faithful continue to be exploited, including financially: so many who lament about inflation spend their hard-earned money on a false prophet who will lead them astray for as long as they are willing. That they would purchase physical keepsakes worn by Trump confirms how subsumed their identity is by MAGA. 

I don’t presume to think my solutions to persuade others to leave MAGA are the only effective ones; if there is any chance to permanently break the bond, however, I implore those with MAGA relatives and friends: Don’t give up on them.

“A lie is still a lie”: Judge Engoron says Trump expert “lost all credibility” in scathing ruling

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud trial on Monday rejected his motion to toss the case for “at least” the fifth time.

"At least five times during the recently concluded ten-and-a-half-week trial of this matter, defendants moved for a directed verdict," New York Judge Arthur Engoron wrote in a three-page ruling. "The first such time was at the close of plaintiff's case, which is when defendants normally move for such relief. This court took that motion, and most of the others, under advisement. It denied two of them on the spot."

Engoron already found Trump liable for fraud before the start of the trial after he inflated the value of his assets to secure favorable loans and deals. Trump’s latest motion for a directed verdict came after his defense team concluded their case. The defense presented multiple expert witnesses who argued that valuations may be based on different criteria without constituting fraud.

Engoron wrote that there were “fatal flaws” in the defense argument.

"Valuations, as elucidated ad nauseum in this trial, can be based on different criteria analyzed in different ways," he wrote. "But a lie is still a lie. Valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to, and valuing restricted funds as cash, are not subjective differences of opinion, they are misstatements at best and fraud at worst."

One of Trump’s expert witnesses was Eli Bartov, a New York University School of Business professor who argued that valuations are inherently subjective. Bartov admitted on the stand that he was paid nearly $877,500 by the Trump Organization and the pro-Trump Save America PAC.

Bartov testified that there was “no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud.”

We need your help to stay independent

"Bartov is a tenured professor, but all that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say," Engoron wrote, adding that Bartov “lost all credibility” by claiming that Trump’s financial statements were completely accurate even though his pre-trial ruling found “numerous obvious errors.”

Bartov in a statement to the Associated Press argued that he never “remotely implied” at the trial that the financial statements were “accurate in every respect” and had simply argued that the errors were inadvertent and there was “no evidence of concealment or forgery.” He also argued that he billed Trump at his standard rate.


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


Trump fumed over the judge’s ruling on Truth Social.

“Judge Engoron challenges the highly respected Expert Witness for receiving fees, which is standard and accepted practice for Expert Witnesses,” he wrote. “The ignorant Judge did not even try to listen to the Expert Witness. This is a great insult to a man of impeccable character and qualifications. The Judge ignores the Law!”

Scientists discover hidden population of stars that are the “bluest of blue”

Supernovae are rare events, yet they are critical to the inner workings of our universe and even our own biological makeup. The calcium that makes up our teeth and bones originated from these massively fascinating events, which are the final moments of dying stars. As the late Carl Sagan famously said in an episode of Cosmos: "The lives and deaths of the stars seem impossibly remote from the human experience, and yet we're related in the most intimate way to their life cycles." Despite this, there remains a lot of mystery around these super-powerful explosions that shape our world and universe. 

To date, scientists have felt confident that two basic types of supernovae exist which are each characterized by their presence of hydrogen. But for decades, astrophysicists have been perplexed by the fact that there are more “hydrogen-poor supernovae” than science could explain, in part because they hadn’t been able to identify the missing original star population behind these events. The perplexing mystery, and unexplainable phenomenon, put the theoretical models at risk for being inaccurate.

“Being hydrogen-poor indicates that the precursor star must have lost its thick hydrogen-rich envelope,” said Ylva Götberg, a new assistant professor at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA) in a media statement. “This happens naturally in a third of all massive stars through envelope stripping by a binary companion star.”

Binary stars evolvingThis artist's impression shows how hot, brilliant and high-mass stars evolve. The more massive brighter star expands first, until the outer layers start to strongly feel the gravitational pull of the companion. (Navid Marvi, courtesy of the Carnegie Institution for Science)

“What we showed is that we just weren't looking in the right way before. They were hiding in plain sight."

If they were so common, where were these stars located that evolved into hydrogen-poor supernovae? This was a question that couldn’t be answered until now. Through a collaborative effort, Götberg and Maria Drout, a faculty member at Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics at the University of Toronto in Canada, have documented a first-of-its-kind star population as the mysterious stars behind hydrogen-poor supernovae. Their findings were published in the journal Science.


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


Described as "intermediate mass helium stars stripped through binary interaction," the scientists found 25 stars that fit the profile located in two neighboring galaxies, the Large and the Small Magellanic Clouds. The astronomers long believed that these stars will eventually explode as hydrogen-poor supernovae, and are necessary to form neutron star mergers — the kind that can emit massive gravitational waves that are detected by the LIGO experiment.

“What we showed is that we just weren't looking in the right way before,” Drout told Salon in a phone interview. “They were hiding in plain sight, as it turned out.”

Astronomers have theorized that massive stars evolve to become red giants. At some point, the outer edges of hydrogen are stripped away by the gravitational pull of its companion companion star, as most massive stars have a partner star. As a result, its very hot helium-core is left exposed. This process can take up to hundreds of thousands of years. But these stars that have been stripped of their hydrogen have been difficult to find because the light they emit is outside the visible light spectrum. It’s likely that the light can be blocked by dust or outshone by their companion stars, too. 

Study authors on the Magellan telescopes at Las Campanas ObservatoryStudy authors Bethany Ludwig, Anna O’Grady, Maria Drout and Ylva Götberg observing on the Magellan telescopes at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, where they gathered data for this research. (University of Toronto/Ylva Götberg)

The scientists relied on ultraviolet light and optical spectroscopy to discover the stars, which showed the pair had strong signatures of helium, confirming their outermost layers were helium and that their surfaces were very hot. 

When asked to describe what these stars look like, Drout said to think of the “bluest blue” you can think of, a shade that is almost violet in color. 

On Earth, when we think of stars, we think of bright white lights in the sky. This population of stars is different. When asked to describe what these stars look like, Drout said to think of the “bluest blue” you can think of, a shade that is almost violet in color. 

"If you just looked at the dot it would look like an intense blue,” She said. “But they’re also very small, because it’s the core of this star, and so even though it was a massive star, and it's still decently heavy, it's a very tiny star compared to its companion.”

Drout said the biggest implication for astronomy regarding this finding is confirming that these stars exist, adding that people in astronomy were getting “quite nervous” about this mystery.

We need your help to stay independent

“The fact that all of our models from supernova to supermassive stars, even for the types of like neutron star mergers and black hole mergers that LIGO and VIRGO are seeing gravitational waves now, all of our models for understanding where those phenomena come from, say that a lot of stars should go through this binary stripping process,” she said. “Now this shows that these stars really do exist, they were just hidden before.”

Next, researchers will seek to better understand specific properties of these stars, like solar wind. 

“Depending on how strong it is, that's going to affect things like how many neutron star mergers we get and what type of supernova you see,” she said. “Even how much ultraviolet light should be coming from distant galaxies that we're now finding with the James Webb Space Telescope.”

Florida was supposed to be the future of the GOP — now the state party is in shambles

It may seem hard to believe right now, but this time last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the rest of Florida's Republican Party were being heralded as the post-Donald Trump future for the GOP. Republicans had underperformed in the 2022 midterms in most parts of the country — except in Florida. DeSantis won re-election that November by a whopping 20 points, which was especially impressive considering his 2018 margin of victory was less than half a percentage point. Desperate for some sign that there was hope for their party after Trump, Republican elites decided DeSantis had discovered a magic formula with his aggressive culture war politics that involved book-banning, dropping the word "woke" every few seconds, and waging war on Disney

"Ron DeSantis shows he’s future of the GOP," declared a New York Post headline on November 9, 2022. 

"Murdoch’s media empire celebrates DeSantis as future of GOP after midterms," read a CNN headline from the same day

"Post-midterms, Ron DeSantis positioned as GOP's 2024 'front-runner,'" announced an Axios headline the next day. 

For months, there were glowing reports that DeSantis's "miracle" win in Florida would render Trump a "non person." Polls showed DeSantis leading Trump in the GOP primary, often by robust margins. Then DeSantis officially announced his presidential run, while Trump got arrested and charged with 91 felonies in four separate jurisdictions. Since then, there's been a stampede of GOP support back to the glowering orange criminal who first captured their hearts with his blunt racism. 

Most of this gets blamed on DeSantis for lacking charisma and on Trump for leveraging his criminality into a campaign asset with the GOP base. But it's worth taking another look at the Florida GOP and asking if the culture war-heavy politics practiced there have actually been such a political winner. The Florida Republican Party that was deemed so mighty a year ago is looking less than robust these days. 


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


On Sunday, the Florida GOP did everything in their power to push their party chair, Christian Ziegler, out the door. Ziegler has been under investigation for rape, after a woman who alleges she had previously had a three-way sexual encounter with Ziegler and his wife contacted the police. Ziegler has refused to resign, even though there is apparently video showing him having sex with the accuser. So the party reduced his salary to $1 and stripped him of legislative power. 

 

The draconian war on reading was central to the argument that the Florida GOP would lead the national party into its post-Trump era. Instead, the 2023 election demonstrated that book banning backfired politically.

As I wrote earlier this month, what we can say with confidence is the haste to boot Ziegler cannot be attributed to anything resembling morality, decency, or even consistency with the GOP. This is a party that has eagerly backed Trump, who is both an adulterer and a sexual predator. His defenestration suggests he and his wife, Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, have lost the support of the party for political reasons. 

Besides DeSantis himself, no one has had more sway over the direction of Florida Republican politics than the Zieglers. When not allegedly engaging in three ways, the two pushed the party into embrace an anti-education, pro-censorship campaign. They helped draft Florida's "don't say gay" law and have been deeply involved in the legal harassment of the Disney corporation for publicly speaking out in defense of LGBTQ rights. With Moms for Liberty, Bridget Ziegler spearheaded the book-banning mania on the right. She played an instrumental role in passing laws that terrorize Florida teachers and librarians with threats of being dragged into court if a student is caught reading a book some right-wing parent doesn't like. 

This draconian war on reading was central to the argument that the Florida GOP would lead the national party into its post-Trump era. Instead, the 2023 election demonstrated that book banning backfired politically, causing a surge of angry pro-education parents to turn out and elect Democrats to run school boards. Other post-election anaylses show that "don't say gay" laws and attacks on trans kids are also political losers. The Zieglers and their "brilliant" strategy turned out to be an egg. 

Meanwhile, DeSantis continues to fall in the GOP primary polls, despite his aggressive efforts to win over MAGA voters with showy stunts. Indeed, he's getting so desperate that he's decided to involve himself in a silly GOP tantrum over a Satanic display in the Iowa statehouse. 

Long story short: The Satanic Temple, as they are wont to do, applied for the right to include their holiday display in the capitol building. The state allowed it because, under the First Amendment, if they let Christians erect a display, they have to let everyone do it. So some MAGA nut made the trek from Mississippi to Des Moines to destroy the Satanic altar. He's been charged with vandalism, and Republicans are rallying to his side, because they are fine with desecrating other people's religious displays, even if they would cry bloody murder if someone did this to a Christian decoration. 

DeSantis, in his try-hard way, is now getting involved. 

We need your help to stay independent

DeSantis, it is worth remembering, got his law degree at Harvard. He knows full well that the U.S. cannot legally ban or discriminate against any religion, no matter how much the MAGA base may want them to do it. But having fully committed to a failed political strategy of opposition to religious freedom, he apparently feels he has no other path forward but to simply reject the First Amendment's clear language on this matter. 

DeSantis's cynical posturing does make some sense. Polling shows the majority of Republicans buy into Christian nationalism, which necessarily requires opposing religious freedom. But it's not working for him the way it does Trump, who is basically channeling Hitler these days with his speeches full of genocidal rhetoric. I suspect the main reason is there's a two-bit quality to DeSantis's tactics. The MAGA crowd is so bloodthirsty they don't want to hear about how he will give a little money to defend a guy who attacked a Satanic altar. They want to hear about how he'll round up all the Satanists and send them straight to prison. 

Ultimately, that may be why the Florida strategy isn't the godsend Republican elites wanted it to be. The DeSantis/Moms for Liberty methods both managed to be so fascist they scared normal people, but fell short of what the MAGA base longs for. They angered regular people by banning books for minors, but by leaving the books legal for everyone else, they frustrated the larger ambitions of the Christian right. They banned acknowledgment of LGBTQ identities in school, but have done little to turn back the clock to the time when it was simply illegal to be gay at all. The Florida GOP promise was a path to authoritarianism that would somehow not offend the majority of non-authoritarian Americans. But it was an empty promise, and the party's current shambles shows it. 

New York City is crumbling — but officials don’t “have enough oomph” to build it back up

New York City is a complicated place where several million people make life work for themselves and their families every day. It’s a place where on the same day a seven-story apartment building can collapse with no one injured, and a few hours later an 11-year-old boy can hang himself with his shoelaces.

It’s a mélange of the miraculous and the despairing.

It’s recovering from a once-in-a-century mass death event that, at one point, was killing over 700 people a day early in the more than two-year  COVID pandemic that also disabled tens of thousands more. State and local governments, depending on the severity of their COVID experience, are still dealing with the consequences  of the fractured, dysfunctional, and hyper-partisan response to the pandemic by the Trump administration

Such an unprecedented tribulation, including shutting down much of the economy for an extended time period, has impacted everything from truancy to building code compliance and enforcement. Hundreds of career New York City civil servants died due to their occupational exposure to the deadly virus that they brought home to their families. Thousands of career civil servants from a myriad of essential titles like first responders, civil engineers, social workers, mechanics, and teachers have opted to retire or move on.

There isn’t a realm of city services not affected — from social service agencies to the city’s Department of Design and Construction. The latter is shy several dozen engineers and architects. The Department of Buildings has 73 building inspectors open positions from its existing 550-member workforce.

Fiscal quicksand 

This year, New York City’s full recovery is being kneecapped by a budget shortfall of several billion dollars that’s a consequence of excessive spending by the previous administration, as well as long-standing hidden subsidies  to Wall Street, including the rebating back for decades of New York State’s nickel per hundred dollar Stock Transfer Tax that’s been on the books since before the First World War.

Since the early 1980s, when Albany decided to send the nickel per $100 tax back to Wall Street, the state lost out on well over $300 billion, all while the level of wealth concentration and inequality rose to levels not seen since the Gilded Age.

And while the federal government has declared the pandemic over and ended billions in state and local aid, the very local consequences from COVID are still playing out. The ending of the expansion of the Earned Income Child Tax Credit and curtailing of easier access to Medicaid means more struggling families turning to local and state agencies for help. Surviving family members are now caring for orphaned children. Teachers are grappling with a significant increase in chronic student absenteeism with Chalkbeat reporting   “thirty-six percent of New York City public school students were chronically absent last school year, missing at least 10 percent of the school year.” 

That represents an improvement from the previous year when chronic absenteeism exceeded 40 percent, “the highest rate in decades.” It  still remains a “stubborn challenge” for educators trying to help students make up for “years of pandemic-fueled disruptions,” the news source reports.

“Every collapse is a bad collapse. But many of our buildings come from an older stock, and so you have this from time to time.” — New York City Mayor Eric Adams

We need your help to stay independent

New York City’s last such mass death, the so-called Spanish Flu during the First World War, officially took the lives of 30,000 New Yorkers when the city’s population was 5.6 million. COVID took the lives of nearly 45,000 New York City residents out of a population of roughly 8.3 million. Half a million of those survivors have subsequently left.

“When compared with other large U.S. cities, especially its two largest neighbors, Boston and Philadelphia, New York City did not fare poorly in its overall mortality burden. During the [Spanish Flu] pandemic, New York City's excess death rate per 1,000 was reportedly 4.7, compared with 6.5 in Boston and 7.3 in Philadelphia,” according to public health researcher Francesco Aimone’s paper The 1918 Influenza Epidemic in New York City: A Review of the Public Health Response

By contrast, New York City’s cumulative per capita COVID-19 death rate was about 50 percent  higher than Los Angeles County’s, according to data from Johns Hopkins University through early March of this year.

“In raw numbers, New York City — with a population of more than 8.3 million — reported about 45,000 COVID deaths. L.A. County’s death toll was notably lower, about 36,000, even though the region is home to roughly 1.7 million more people,” the L.A. Times reported. “Put another way: For every 1 million New York City residents, about 5,400 of them died from COVID-19. The comparable figure in L.A. County is about 3,540.”

Arresting crime 

At Mayor Eric Adams’ most recent press conference, he rightly took credit for his administration’s crime reduction efforts post-pandemic, with murders seeing better than an 11-percent drop going from 488 in 2021 to 433 last year, which was still nowhere near the well over 2,000 recorded annually in the early 1990s.

“Crime is down, what I ran on,” Adams told reporters. “Jobs are up. People are back on our subway system. Our economy is recovering, maybe not at the rate we want, but it is. We've put money into great programs from summer youth employment to all of these initiatives that we are doing constantly in this city.”

At Mayor Adams’ weekly Tuesday press avail, he parried reporters’ questions on the ongoing federal criminal probe into his campaign finances, as well as on the city’s shaky finances. On the previous Monday, a portion of a Bronx seven-story, almost 100-year-old apartment building, collapsed. A few hours later, an 11-year-old migrant from Venezuela hung himself with a shoelace at the Stratford Arms Hotel in Manhattan.

Adams observed that while the loss of the young boy was a life-altering tragedy for his family, it radiated a wake of misery and moral injury for the first responders and clinicians at Mount Sinai Hospital who fought with all they had to save him.

“Seventeen percent of our children in high school have serious suicidal thoughts —these are some very scary moments for our children, and it's very painful. It hurts a lot,” Adams said. “You start to ask, did you do enough? Should we have done more? And we know we've done all we could possibly do with what we have, but it hurts a lot.”

In asking about the Bronx apartment building complex, a reporter referenced the April parking garage collapse on Ann Street in Lower Manhattan that killed one person and left five others injured. In that case, the facility had a number of open violations, including one from a 2003 inspection when officials wrote the property owner for “cracked, degraded and defective concrete," according to the New York Times.

Adams disputed that there was an increase in catastrophic structural collapses on his watch.

“One, I don't know if our numbers are larger than normal, if there's such a turn as normal," Adams said. “Every collapse is a bad collapse. But many of our buildings come from an older stock, and so you have this from time to time.” 

But both collapses were the foreseeable consequences of systemic, multi-layered failures in a city that’s official mantra is “see something, say something.” With over one million structures and just 500 Department of Building inspectors to monitor them — the City of New York needs to rely on the eyes, nose, and ears of its population to speak up. Yet, in a sprawling bureaucracy that vested interest can easily exploit, those complaints often get lost. 

See something, say something — but who is listening? 

That’s exactly what thousands of New Yorkers did last year lodging over 21,000 emergency complaints with the Department of Buildings, up considerably from just over 17,000 four years earlier. 

Tenants lodged over 364,000 complaints with the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development for things like the lack of heat and hot water, up considerably from the 261,300 three years ago.

As the Daily News vividly reported, tenants at the Bronx apartment building had lodged dozens of complaints last month alone. 

“In recent years, residents of the brick complex complained of strange odors, elevator outages that lasted days, or weeks and, in some cases, a general sense that the building was not structurally sound. ‘Multiple apartments in this building are overcrowded and you can hear the building deteriorating,’ said a complaint filed in 2017, according to the city Buildings Department.” 

Miraculously, no one was killed in this partial building collapse in the Bronx. Would it not be unwise for the City of New York to think that luck will continue?

At the press conference following the collapse, Building Commissioner James Oddo, a former member of the City Council and Staten Island Borough President, said there was ongoing work on the apartment building's façade, and that the cause of the collapse was under investigation. 

Joel Kupferman is a public interest attorney who leads the New York Environmental Law & Justice Project which often represents tenants and workers with serious environmental issues where they live or work. He says the city’s real estate industry, which donates considerably to the city’s politicians, can easily escape accountability under current law.

“We are doing cases with major complaints and they [DOB] go to inspect and they are not allowed into the building,” Kupferman told Work-Bites. “So, there’s no seriousness about investigating. A landlord with just a little bit of smarts will just bar entry and avoid on-site inspection. There are thousands of cases that have been closed administratively — not because they determined the site was safe — but because the agency didn’t have enough oomph to follow up on enforcement.”

The annual Mayor’s Management Report supports Kupferman’s observation that gaining access is a considerable impediment to the DOB. In cases where the agency was investigating an alleged illegal residential conversion, which has had deadly consequences for civilians and firefighters, it only got site access 30.9 percent of the time, down from 41.4 percent the previous year. Similarly, in complaints about construction work being done without a permit access was granted and a violation was issued in just 30.4 percent of the cases, down from 33.4 percent the previous year.

“We make every effort to get inside of buildings with potential violations, visiting properties multiple times to investigate complaints if we can't get inside the first time,” DOB press secretary Adams Rudansky said, adding that his agency has to also be respectful of property owners’ Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to construction sites, the DOB spokesman told Work-Bites, “If we are denied access to a permitted building construction site under our jurisdiction, it will result in an immediate Stop Work Order and violations.”

But Kupferman notes, even when city enforcement produces a fine, landlords and developers often ignore the law and continue to prosper. According to an April report by the city’s Independent Budget Office, between the outstanding fines at DOB ($627 million), the FDNY ($76 million) and the Department of Sanitation ($76 million), there’s close to $800 million outstanding in uncollected fines that have accumulated between 2017 and 2022.

“Even when they get fined, they don’t pay it,” Kupferman said. “So, to me that’s the clearest sign of bad intent. The city is supposed to withhold work permits or new leases — but they don’t do that.”

STRUCTURAL FACADE?

Glenn Corbett is an assistant professor of fire science and public administration at John Jay College at the City University of New York. He believes that the collapse of the apartment building in the Bronx should prompt a citywide review of all structures of a similar vintage that fall under what’s categorized as a Type 3 ordinary construction where the façade of the building, as in the case of the Bronx apartment building, can provide actual structural support.

“I don’t like that term façade because it implies its purely decorative — a surface application — but in this case, it was that old school construction with the masonry exterior walls with the wood floor joists where the wood beams live in a pocket in that wall," Corbett told Work-Bites. “We need to consider doing a routine inspection of all of these old buildings, perhaps using a threshold of 50 or 75 years old. It could be targeted depending on the age of the building. It needs to be done.”

Corbett said that in the age of climate change, with extreme weather events like flash flooding, higher temperatures and water tables, older structures can be especially vulnerable. He conceded that the city doesn’t have the workforce to accomplish what he sees as a vital task, and so it would have to rely, as it does now, on third party certified professional engineers whose work would need to be audited by the city’s engineers.  

“You will get pushback from the real estate industry because they are not going to want to do this because it is expensive and it could find a lot of problems that need to be corrected that will mean lots of dollar signs,” Corbett said. “California did this and they were able to retrofit these buildings with additional structural support so they had a better chance of standing through an earthquake.” 

Corbett believes that the Department of Buildings needs to be led by a licensed professional engineer as opposed to a career politician. “I fall into the camp that believes having expertise and experience of having done the jobs of the people you are overseeing as a commissioner is critical — that’s particularly true for police, fire and agencies like DOB,” he said.

Council Member Gail Brewer is chair of the Committee on Oversights and Investigations. She told Work-Bites that she has been told by the Adams administration that the current hiring freeze doesn’t include building and housing inspectors. But in its response to Work-Bites, the DOB said it “had to make painful cuts in the face of significant fiscal challenges.” The agency further stated it is  being “mostly” impacted through vacancy reduction” that it expects won’t have “major impacts on current service levels, or service disruptions.”

For Brewer, both April’s garage collapse and the Bronx apartment building’s structural failure are blinking red lights. Both had open violations. 

“It’s a good topic for Oversight and Investigation to take a look at the buildings with the most violations and where they have started the investigation, what’s been done to resolve them, “Brewer said.

After all, it’s urban 101, a city can only endure if it keeps its building structures standing.

James Webb Space Telescope snaps stunning new image of Uranus

Uranus is not the first planet that comes to astronomers' minds when they hear about rings; its more spectacular celestial cousins like Saturn and Jupiter earn that distinction. Yet the rings around Uranus are quite magnificent on their own, as revealed among other things by recent images taken by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

The images, which were captured by the JWST's NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera), are particularly notable for the clarity and detail that they offer in showing the rings of Uranus. Among these is the famous zeta ring, a very faint and dusty celestial object first discovered by the Voyager 2 satellite in 1986. On its website NASA describes this ring as "elusive" and adds that the JWST was only able to capture an image of "the extremely faint and diffuse ring closest to the planet" because of its "exquisite sensitivity."

The rings of Uranus are certainly not alone as far as standout images from JWST are concerned. While the Voyager 2 images of Uranus shows a cyan ball, the new JWST images show a number of hues: Electric bright white, soft purple, light blue and dark blue. The JWST also caught images of many of the 27 moons that orbit Uranus and sport Shakespearean names: Belinda, Bianca, Cressida, Desdemona, Juliet, Perdita, Portia, Puck and Rosalind.

NASA scientists also pointed out that the new images reveal tumult beneath the seemingly placid Uranusian surface. They note that there are several bright storms visible both near and below the southern border of the polar cap. It's a good thing we got this image, because there are no NASA missions officially planned to the distant planet, though one may launch between 2028 and 2038.