Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Court monitor catches Trump quietly moving $40 million in violation of judge’s order: report

A court-appointed monitor caught former President Donald Trump quietly moving $40 million without disclosing the transfers as required by Judge Arthur Engoron, according to The Daily Beast.  

Engoron, who is overseeing Trump’s New York fraud trial, last year put the Trump Organization under court monitoring after the New York attorney general raised concerns that he may try to move money out of the company before it is potentially sanctioned. Engoron appointed former U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones to oversee the finances and required Trump to report any transfers larger than $5 million.

Jones notified the court on Wednesday that she discovered that the Trump family failed to report $40 million in transfers despite the order.

"These transactions included a cash transfer of $29 million to Donald J. Trump, which I have confirmed was used for tax payments," she wrote in the letter, which was published by The Messenger. "Based upon Defendants explanations I have also confirmed that the other transfers were for insurance premiums and to an attorney escrow account."

Jones wrote in a footnote that the attorney escrow account was for Trump’s appeal in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault judgment.

"We have discussed with Defendants why these transactions were not previously disclosed and I have now clarified (and Defendants have agreed) that all transfers of assets out of the Trust exceeding $5 million must be reported," Jones wrote.

The former judge told the court that Trump and his co-defendants in the case have since agreed to enhanced monitoring.

"Defendants continue to cooperate with me and are generally in compliance with the Court's orders, and have committed to ensure that all required information, including tax information and cash transfers, are promptly disclosed to the Monitor," she wrote.

Trump attorney Christopher Kise stressed that his client is cooperating with the court-appointed monitor.

"As before, the report confirms the defendants continue to cooperate with the monitor and remain in compliance with the court order," Kise told The Messenger. "Also as before, the report contains no mention of suspicious activity or suspected or actual fraud, because none exists."

We need your help to stay independent

Engoron prior to the beginning of the trial found that Trump committed fraud for years by deceiving banks, insurers and others by undervaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth in documents used to make deal and secure loans. Trump has appealed the ruling and the trial is still ongoing to litigate other claims brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James as well as the scope of any potential sanctions. James is seeking $250 million in penalties and the dissolution of Trump’s New York businesses.

Trump’s lawyers earlier this week sought to call Jones as a witness but Engoron shot down their request.

“Besides being untimely and inappropriate, Judge Jones and her staff are arms of the court,” Engoron said.

Jones in an August 2023 report found that Trump’s disclosures had been “incomplete” and that his trust had “not consistently provided” the required certifications of the financial statements’ accuracy.  

Trump is afraid of a rematch

Exactly one year from now, we will all be gathered for Thanksgiving. In addition to the traditional thanks offered for family, friends and loved ones, how many will be thankful for the outcome of the 2024 presidential election – which will be just three weeks in the rearview mirror?

Among those trying to become their party’s nominee, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump appear to have the inside trackt to set up a rematch of the 2020 election. Should Trump lose, he’ll obviously claim it was the work of those involved in dastardly deeds against the country and he was the victim. We are likely to see more violence and more bloodshed in a country that bathes in it. Sometimes it is nearly impossible to believe that everyone alive was the sperm that won the race.

This is what comes to mind every time I interact with politicians who remain nothing more than evidence of the randomness of life and the scarcity of intelligence. The names Jordan, Boebert, Greene, Trump, and a host of others stand prominent in the low-lives of American politics. Or, as President Joe Biden said of Rep.  Lauren Boebert in Pueblo, Colorado Wednesday, Boebert and certain members of the Republican Party represent a “massive failure in thinking.” 

As Tip O’Neill once said with a withering criticism about Republicans, “I hold them in the highest minimum regard.”

President John F. Kennedy in 1962 appeared in Louisville, KY, and infamously said, “Are we going to drift along with a majority of the members of the Congress saying 'no' to every proposal that we put forward, and having none of their own? Can you tell me one single piece of constructive legislation that has been suggested in the last 30 years by the Republican Party? Because I can’t. I can tell you what they’re against, but what are they for? Eighty-one percent of the members of the House of Representatives on the Republican side voted against aid for higher education," the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.

This means that the GOP has suffered through nearly a century of thoughtlessness.

We need your help to stay independent

Trump is well known for his massive failure in thinking. His former vice president, Mike Pence, as reported by NBC news recently, told us all about Trump’s failures on the run-up to the January 6 insurrection. Trump “surrounded himself with "crank" attorneys, espoused "un-American" legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a "constitutional crisis," according to sources familiar with what Pence told investigators.

Pence said he grew concerned when, within days of the election, Trump began ignoring the advice of credible and experienced attorneys inside the White House, instead relying on outside attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who pushed notions of widespread election fraud and, as Pence allegedly told Smith's team, "did a great disservice to the president and a great disservice to the country."

Biden has the edge, not only because he’s more healthy, but also because he’s not mentally compromised like Donald Trump.

No court – even those populated by Trump-appointed judges, has found there was any election fraud in 2020. What we’re staring at now is a divided country whose politics have long been fractured, and whose final straw was Donald Trump. 

Mick Mulvaney, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration, wrote in The Hill this week that his guess was that it was a “gradual trajectory from ‘normal’ to whatever it is that we have today, which feels like a weird alternative universe.”

He also said, “U.S. politics more closely resembles a bad Hollywood screenplay than a competition to govern the world’s most important nation.”

I think Mulvaney, who once reminded me of Herb Tarlek in WKRP in Cincinnati, would make an excellent used car salesman. He’s also a cheerful sort, but his assessment of American politics leaves a lot to be desired

It isn’t a bad screenplay. It isn’t a weird alternative universe. It is the United States of America where many people don’t vote and won’t take responsibility for their actions. This allows the tyranny of the minority and allows people many of us would never want to speak with publicly, to become public representatives. Further, those who don’t vote are among those who scream the loudest about the results. They see a “deep state” that usurps all the authority vested in the people, and still they do not vote. 

We do not get better because we don’t put more effort into the work. American politics is a study in the lowest common denominator. Donald Trump, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene remain the greatest examples of that study.

That means that in 2024, we are staring at two senior citizens jockeying to become president who — if the actuarial tables are to be believed — probably won’t survive the four-year job for which they’re trying to get elected.

Worse, one of those running for office is Donald Trump.

There are Democrats, Republicans and Independents who want to make sure Trump never comes back to power. It isn’t, as Trump claims, because he’s been “hounded by political wolves,” it is merely that Trump is a truly loathsome human being. He has no class, no tolerance, nothing of joy is derived by him unless it is at the expense of others. Those who’ve had the misfortune of being associated with him in anything from friendship to kinship end up grease for the engine, grist for the mill, and are run over by the Trump bus.

In her new book, "Oath and Honor," due out next week, Liz Cheney talks about a conference call in which she gave a firsthand account of the planning of January 6. CNN, in an exclusive report, exposes Trump’s actions and also raises questions about the integrity of the Republican Party and its commitment to the rule of law.

The problem is that there are too many people in the Republican Party like Lee Grant in “Ransom for a Dead Man” (The second pilot for "Columbo"). As Peter Falk’s titular detective Lt. Columbo explains to her, “You have no conscience, and that’s your weakness. Did it ever occur to you that there are very few people that would take money to forget about a murder? It didn’t, did it; I knew it wouldn’t. No conscience limits your imagination. You can’t conceive of anybody being any different than what you are. And you are greedy,” he explains.

That is the Republican Party today. We have met the enemy and he is us, Walt Kelly’s Pogo told us.

On the other side, we have the incumbent president Joe Biden. He made positive strides with such little drama that many are convinced he’s done nothing. His detractors are convinced of worse: He is either crooked or sleepy, often both, and always called by the MAGA crowd, “the most corrupt president in our lifetime.” They believe he is a man who didn’t win the last election and may or may not be a foreign spy owned by a variety of shady national and international players straight out of a bad James Bond movie — so Mick got that part right.

Sane people will note that comparing Biden to Trump sounds like a bad skit on "Saturday Night Live." 

But here we go. And right now plenty of people are questioning if Biden can pull out a victory again. “No” is the answer being repeated on social media and in several media reports that reference recent polls. The question is why? As it turns out, age and energy are the current issues — which ignores facts and the future.


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


If it comes down to Biden vs. Trump, I doubt there is little reason for those other than the diehard Trump fans to vote for a man who talks openly about dismantling the Constitution. The question is, can Biden energize the rest of the country out of their stupor and vote next year? I understand Biden’s belief that he should run again, but I’m really concerned about the future of both parties. What in the hell happens even two years from now? Who is the future for the Democrats and Republicans?

Sure, Trump is anathema to the democratic process and gives people like Jordan, Boebert and others the freedom to embrace their worst angels. But none of those people have a following that would get them elected nationwide. They are so overwhelmingly loathed by even others like themselves, that a national run for office is laughable for almost every Republican other than Trump.

Some who would vote for Trump happily say they can’t stand the man, but remain faithful he’ll “drain the swamp,” which reminds me a lot of “infrastructure week” during Trump’s tenure: long on promises and short on delivery.

On policy, the difference between Trump and Biden boils down to their difference of opinion on something very simple: wind energy, as expressed this week. While Trump apparently hates wind energy, Biden does not. Trump said wind energy causes cancer, was bad for the whales (I guess there are a lot of whales on top of cliffs and in fields), birds (“kills all the birds”) and said “I know more about wind than you do,” on numerous occasions while also describing it as glitchy, pricey and a fraud. 

Biden, on the other hand, supports wind energy, and showed up Wednesday in Pueblo, CO, to speak at the world’s largest wind turbine factory, touting his administration’s efforts to support and expand American productivity.

That, in a nutshell: the two leading candidates for the highest office in the land. But do not forget there are several Republicans who’ve yet to throw in the towel, though they’ve tossed their hat in the ring. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, just got an endorsement and lots of money from the Koch brothers. Ron DeSantis, the current governor of Florida, while floundering, is still around, as is Vivek Ramaswamy, even though his political director recently quit to join the Trump team. Why work for Darth Maul when Darth Vader is around?

The Democrats also have a few people in the race, though none of them appear to have a chance of winning. Then there are the independents. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in the race and gargling a box of razors. Joe Manchin, who gargles Democrats, is also eyeing an independent run for president. Those are just two candidates who could have a large influence on next year’s Thanksgiving table blessings.

But the real question remains, and it is one that we cannot dismiss lightly: Will either one of the front runners for the office win, and what is the chance of their survivability for the next four years?

Biden has the edge, not only because he’s more healthy, but also because he’s not mentally compromised like Donald Trump. Each week Trump exposes his lunacy even more because his many criminal charges are scaring him straight into oblivion. That's ultimately good for Biden and the Democrats because there are few if any other Democrats sitting on the bench who could run for president successfully right now.

And while the early, useless polls, indicate Biden trails Trump, I for one still have doubts that Trump will be on the ballot next year. 

The greatest threat to the country right now is the Republican Party, or what’s left of it. It is filled with seditionists, greedy despot wannabes and no one that appeals to a majority of voters — despite what Haley, Trump, DeSantis or anyone else in the party says.

As the author once said, I believe Trump is destined to fail in his effort to be re-elected and will go down in history, "unwept, unhonoured, and unsung."

And, right now, the only declared candidate who can do the job is Joe Biden.

But things change. 

Dark matter could have an invisible “periodic table,” study suggests — but it’s still elusive

When wading into the murky realm of theoretical physics, one of the more difficult concepts for scientists to explain is that of dark matter. It’s the invisible form of matter constantly eluding scientific hard proof, whose existence is suggested only by the circumstantial evidence we can measure around it. It doesn't interact with light — it's literally "dark."

As mysterious as dark matter may seem, however, most scientific theories assume its ingredients are pretty basic — just one weird, lightweight particle found all over the universe, that hardly ever touches other kinds of matter. But all that may now be up for debate.

A recent study published on the arXiv preprint database has thrown dark matter’s theoretical simplicity out the window by researchers who may have actually figured out how to generate massive dark matter particles. Those particles, they propose, aren’t lightweight at all and could come in all kinds of “species” — with their own “dark matter periodic table” of invisible elements, originally formed soon after the Big Bang after getting trapped in black holes. They dub this process "recycling."

 

As exciting as the researcher’s proposed theory may be, however, the problem of actually detecting these particles remains the most pressing question and may still be a hurdle for cosmologists. The key to that detection may lay in understanding how dark matter was historically formed. 

“The formation history of dark matter itself is more complex. This is the challenge for astronomers like myself,” said cosmology professor Henk Hoekstra, of Leiden University. “Many different ideas for dark matter result in practically indistinguishable features and only direct detection experiments may be able to tell the difference. This paper now suggests that the formation process may be even more complex, which in turn may broaden the possibilities for detection.”

"Many different ideas for dark matter result in practically indistinguishable features and only direct detection experiments may be able to tell the difference."

The new theory’s change in mass also ties dark matter to black hole formation more intimately, from previous assumptions that all dark matter particles are lightweight (known as WIMPs or weakly interacting massive particles) to the possibility that some might be ultraheavy. It’s currently understood more widely that when fundamental forces of nature began to splinter off from each other during the Big Bang — creating gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force — that splintering was not straightforward, but included some transitional states.

As LiveScience’s Paul Sutter explains concisely, the underlying physics change at each one of these transitional phases then pockets of the universe would then exist where some older physics were in still in effect even though the rest of the universe around them had changed — like how bubbles in boiling water are trapped pockets of transitional air.


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


The researchers suggest that it was in these pockets of transitional physics that the once-lightweight dark matter particles could have gotten trapped, until they became so ultraheavy that they collapsed into black holes before evaporating through radiation. 

While the idea of these heavier particles might seem to suggest they’d be easier to find for scientists, that may not actually be the case, and a bigger particle might not necessarily help observation efforts either. The University of British Columbia’s Ludovic Van Waerbeke pointed out that this difference could potentially even cancel out new possibilities of detection.

“The model proposed in this paper assumes the existence of very massive dark matter particles. They are indeed very numerous, but because of their mass is greater than WIMPs’ mass, their number density is also very low — much lower than WIMPs’ number density, so they would escape direct detection as well,” Van Waerbeke told Salon.

If there really are a bunch of new particle types, does that also mean there could be a whole host of currently undetected laws of physics, operating silently this whole time?

The problem of actually detecting dark matter particles, however, isn’t something that every new model of dark matter looks to solve. This type of approach — known generally as an ad-hoc approach to scientific theory — may have its limitations, but it has also been foundational to exploring the basic assumption in the field to date.

“It is not a criticism. It is a general feature of dark matter models beyond WIMPs,” Van Waerbeke said. “They postulate some ‘dark sector’ based on hypothetical dark matter physics, but it does not have any direct observational motivation.”

Underneath the new theory’s assumptions, however, is an even bigger question that could play a role in the quest to prove the existence of dark matter: If there really are a bunch of new particle types, does that also mean there could be a whole host of currently undetected laws of physics, operating silently this whole time? If so, it could form a periodic table, much like our own, that atlas of all known matter that includes everything from hydrogen to oganesson.

“It is hard to tell since the paper does not explore the astrophysical consequences of the model,” Van Waerbeke said. “What comes to mind is the possible observational signature of the continuous injection of photons across the universe's history.”

We need your help to stay independent

In other words, the question of “whether it could affect the physics of the cosmic microwave background or later, during the formation of the first stars — the so-called cosmic dawn," Van Waerbeke said.

And that history, as Hoekstra explained, could become more complicated to understand through the lens of the new theory. Still, there would likely be limits to the theory’s implications on the laws of physics as we understand them.

“The process that is described acts only in the very early universe, so it does not change anything today,” Hoekstra said. “Still, yet-unseen physics does operate under our noses, because dark matter flies through our bodies all the time.”

Students for Trump founder said guns made “women equal” — before allegedly pistol-whipping a woman

Ryan Fournier is a professional MAGA troll, though not an especially talented one. The founder of Students for Trump has a Twitter feed that is a cookie cutter replica of every tired right-wing "joke" and attempted "gotcha" we've all heard a million times. It's a testament to the mediocrity of the Donald Trump fandom that white guys can make a full-time living making the same hackneyed remarks calling trans women "biological males" and unconvincing fantasies about how to "frighten Liberals." And like every cut-rate right-winger online that could easily be replaced with a chatbot, Fournier is fond of claiming that conservatives, not feminists, are the real champions of women. "Feminism is more so about hating men than it is about empowering women," he wrote in a typically tedious tweet. 

Unsurprisingly, then, this 27-year-old "youth leader" of Trumpism trotted out the same boring line about how guns do more for women than feminism, claiming that the "2nd Amendment" did more to make "women equal" than feminism ever did. I'd share the tweets here, but on Wednesday, Fournier made his Twitter account private. 

"Guns empower women" is one of the many thought-terminating clichés that proliferate on the right. These clichés aren't meant to be persuasive, so much as to fill the air with illogical noise to shut down anything resembling critical inquiry of indefensible positions.

The likely reason isn't hard to suss out. Fournier was arrested last week in North Carolina on allegations that he beat his girlfriend with the very weapon he championed as the great gender equalizer. According to the police record, "the defendant unlawfully and willfully did assault and strike" a woman "by grabbing her right arm and striking her in the forehead with a firearm." The arrest record goes on to describe the weapon as a "9MM Sig Sauer P229." 

Not to get too dark here, but I wonder if the editorial board at the Washington Post is ready for another op-ed pressuring women to marry Trump voters


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


Does anyone actually believe that guns are good for women, much less that women benefit more from guns than they do from having the right to vote, control their own bodies, or have paid employment outside of the home? It's almost certainly not true that Fournier ever believed it, and certainly not when he was allegedly using a gun to control a woman with violence. 

"Guns empower women" is one of the many thought-terminating clichés that proliferate on the right. These clichés aren't meant to be persuasive, so much as to fill the air with illogical noise to shut down anything resembling critical inquiry of indefensible positions. It's why disingenuousness is one of the primary traits of modern Republicans. The simple truth is conservatives hate feminism because they don't agree that women should be equal. But rather than say so out loud, we get these tortured, trolling "arguments" about how feminists are the bad guys and the people who voted for the pussy-grabber are the good guys because, uh, guns and power and stuff. Republicans don't argue. They deflect. 

One can, of course, point to the decades of evidence that show conclusively that guns make violence against women worse, while feminism makes women safer. An abuser with a gun is five times as likely to kill his partner, which is why about 70 women a month are murdered by gun in domestic violence incident. Over a million living women have been shot by an abuser, and 4.5 million have been menaced by a partner with a gun. In contrast, feminist actions like passing the Violence Against Women Act and no-fault divorce laws have dramatically reduced rates of domestic violence, as well as prevented female suicides. These are facts that right wingers try to drown out with bad faith canards about guns and feminism. 

The reason these facts don't penetrate the MAGA bubble of delusion is simple: They never actually cared about women's safety. On the contrary, all the right-wing talk about "protecting women" is a fig leaf over the right-wing reality of toxic masculinity and a compulsive desire to dominate women. Statistics show guns are far more likely to be used to harm women than protect them. That doesn't bother the MAGA masses, because deep down inside, they always knew that. Underneath all the sentimental talk about "chivalry," the dark truth is the ability to control women has always been a major appeal of guns. 

All of the right-wing talk about "protecting women" is a fig leaf over the right-wing reality of toxic masculinity and a compulsive desire to dominate women.

There's a reason that both the left and right tend to rhetorically link debates over gun safety and reproductive rights, though usually in the trivial way of each side accusing the other of hypocrisy. Liberals are irate that conservatives give more rights to a gun than they do a woman over her own body. Conversely, conservatives whine about liberals who find abortion rights in the Constitution but don't see how language about a "well-regulated militia" doesn't confer the individual right to own weapons of war. 

But really what links these two issues isn't rigorously applied logic, but the way both guns and reproductive rights stand in for larger struggles over gender and power. Gun "rights" and opposition to abortion are linked in that both give men immense power over women — indeed, the power of life and death. For most feminists, the flip of this is also true: Legal abortion and gun bans are about freeing women, by limiting the tools men can use to trap and even kill us. 

We need your help to stay independent

It's never been a surprise to me that so much of the leadership of the rising gun safety movement looks exactly like the people who have fought for so long for reproductive freedoms. In a word: Women. No doubt funding was a major reason that Moms Demand Action became the behemoth in the world of anti-gun activism. But in my experience, especially when covering Democratic campaign events where the Moms often turn out in force, it's also because a lot of activists were motivated by the framing of gun safety as a woman's issue. It resonates for the same reason that abortion rights do. Women see the way male domination links the issues together, and how women especially need both reproductive rights and gun control to feel safe and be free. 

Ultimately, people like Fournier are trolling when they pretend to believe guns "empower" women. The goal is not to persuade, but to annoy. When the goal is aggravating liberals, adding a layer of dishonesty to the misogyny gets the job done. The mistake, which all too many people make, is assuming that the sadism is limited to the "lulz" generated by outraging feminists. The online misogyny takes root offline, leading again and again to real life violence against women. 

From denial to panic: Democratic despair grows over 2024 polls

Over the weekend, Politico published the latest in a tidal wave of stories about President Biden’s dwindling prospects for re-election. Under the headline “The Polls Keep Getting Worse for Biden,” the article pointed out that Biden is trailing the presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in a large majority of the latest polling.

The trend is dire, Politico reports. “The president’s standing in head-to-head matchups with Trump is falling: Among the latest surveys this month from 13 separate pollsters, Biden’s position is worse than their previous polls in all but two of them.” He continues to slip in key swing states.

The outlook is now grimmer than ever, but the big divide between Biden’s low popularity and public support for the Democratic Party overall was clear a year ago, despite the hype giving Biden credit for midterm election results in November 2022. Back then, the New York Times reported that one House Democrat offered a more candid assessment: “Biden’s numbers were ‘a huge drag’ on Democratic candidates, who won in spite of the president not thanks to him, the lawmaker said on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the White House.”

We need your help to stay independent

Our RootsAction.org team had no reason to avoid antagonizing the White House. Immediately after the 2022 election, we launched the Don’t Run Joe campaign. Last winter, it included TV ads in New Hampshire and other early primary states as well as in DC. We also placed full-page ads in print editions of The Hill newspaper, widely read on Capitol Hill; one depicted congressional Democrats as having their heads in the sand. A steady flow of news releases went out, citing data on Biden’s electoral vulnerabilities. A mobile Don’t Run Joe billboard circled the Capitol and White House when Congress reconvened in January.

After Biden formally filed as a candidate seven months ago, Don’t Run Joe transitioned into Step Aside Joe. The campaign has continued to be adamant that Biden should voluntarily be a one-term president.

But elected Democrats, loyal boosters and allied organizations stuck with the party line. Apparently, they couldn’t imagine being independent enough to call for a candidate who could champion a progressive agenda and be a stronger contender than the anemic Biden in the 2024 race. Now the president is scrambling to sell his accomplishments and scold pundits out of any critical assessments. “I think they’re just misreading what’s going on,” the president said of his critics at a Colorado campaign stop on Wednesday. “They can be surprised as much as they want.”

Ironically, we were often told that shining a critical spotlight on Biden’s re-election chances or his corporate militarism would help Donald Trump or another Republican to win in 2024. But the opposite has been the case. Biden’s amen-corner enablers — going along to get along rather than risk disapproval from the White House — have been unwitting helpers of the upcoming GOP ticket.


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


The bleak poll numbers might actually understate the problem, as they measure only voter discontent and not activist discontent. For months next summer and fall, Democratic activists will be needed to win over undecided voters and mobilize occasional voters. But many activists who worked hard to elect Biden over Trump in 2020 now have little enthusiasm for the president, due to his policies on climate, racial justice, Gaza and other vital concerns.

After Biden formally filed as a candidate seven months ago, Don’t Run Joe transitioned into Step Aside Joe. The campaign has continued to be adamant that Biden should voluntarily be a one-term president.

“The truth remains that a president is not his party’s king and has no automatic right to renomination,” a statement from Step Aside Joe said in April. “Simply crowning Joe Biden as the 2024 nominee is unhealthy for the Democratic Party and the country. In the face of clear polling that shows he is ill-positioned to defeat a Republican nominee, Biden is moving the Democratic Party toward a likely disaster in 2024. As the Democratic standard bearer, Biden would represent the status quo at a time when ‘wrong track’ polling numbers are at an unprecedented high.”

But Joe Biden and his coterie of backers continue to insist that he wear a  crown. The fascistic forces behind Donald Trump are surely delighted.

How Trump weaponizes the First Amendment

It’s exasperating to watch the American legal system bend over backward to protect a lawless man committed to its destruction, but here we are. 

Last week, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the proper scope of Donald Trump’s gag order in the 2020 election fraud case. Whatever they decide, their opinion will be sorely tested as the trial proceeds through jury selection, evidentiary rulings and closing arguments sure to enrage an already incendiary defendant with no impulse control.

Trump, whose unparalleled dominance of right-wing media and fact-challenged fans yields a menacing threat, is flexing to dismantle the rule of law rather than submit to it. Lacking a viable legal defense to multiple prosecutions for business and tax fraud, hush money campaign fraud, “find-me-eleven-thousand-votes” conspiracy fraud and “Hang Mike Pence” fake elector fraud, Trump’s brazen strategy is to skip all substance and go straight for the jugular of judicial authority itself. 

Anyone paying close attention is getting an extraordinary civics lesson wrought from a perilous chapter in American history.

The legal theory behind gag orders

To the trial bar, a gag order presents a simple intersection between two common interests: the rule of law and free speech. 

Gag orders preserve fair trials by making sure witnesses, jurors and prospective jurors are not intimidated or frightened into silence (or perjury). Such orders often run up against the First Amendment, because they limit speech and communication for the duration of a trial, which can last many months. 

Trump’s particular case is without precedent because of his vitriolic attacks and his status as a defeated president re-seeking the presidency. Most defendants are counseled by their defense lawyers to keep quiet; they certainly don’t go out of their way to attack the rule of law or the judge presiding over their case. Not so with Trump, who openly encourages political violence and routinely attacks prosecutors, judges, staff, witnesses and the American legal system itself.

We need your help to stay independent

In Trump’s unrelated business fraud case with its own challenged gag order, presiding Judge Arthur Engoron and his staff received hundreds of credible threats following Trump’s attacks.

In the election fraud case, Trump has made nonstop references to Special Counsel Jack Smith — “Deranged Jack Smith” and “Smith’s team of Thugs.” Trump’s public promise that “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU,” and his salivating reverence for putting officials to death alongside petty shoplifters, have infused domestic politics with a sinister threat of violence, a threat now deemed acceptable to a substantial percentage of Republican voters.

Using plausible deniability as a weapon

Public speech meant to intimidate witnesses or influence their testimony is simply not protected speech. Under federal law at 18 U.S. Code § 1512, Obstruction of Justice, whoever uses the threat of physical force with intent to influence witness testimony in an official proceeding can be imprisoned — up to 20 years.

Although Trump attacks his legal opponents to amplify his fundraising, with the ultimate goal of rendering the rule of law irrelevant if he is re-elected, trials are not like political elections to be won through manipulation and spectacle. First Amendment protection generally yields at the point where speech intimidates or incites violence, criminal acts or a riot. 

During appellate argument on Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order, Trump’s lawyers advanced a free-for-all absolutist view, one that would allow Trump to walk a tightrope adjacent to the line of inciting violence, just like his “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore” Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse

As his theory seems to go, Trump could obliquely encourage MAGA to burn down a witness’s house while he sleeps, without using those exact words. If the house remains un-charred the next morning, Trump’s speech is protected under the First Amendment because 1. He didn’t explicitly mention arson and 2. The possibility of future violence is too remote. 

As the prosecution put it, “(Trump)… well knows that by publicly targeting perceived adversaries with inflammatory language, he can maintain a patina of plausible deniability while ensuring the desired results.”

What passes for substance on Fox is no more than a platitude

Trump’s relentless attacks against the Department of Justice and Jack Smith’s “thugs” fall under the rubric of political speech because Smith was appointed special counsel by an attorney general serving under Joe Biden’s presidency. No factual nexus or evidence linking Smith’s decisions to Biden is needed; Trump’s right-wing echo chamber feeds on insinuating headlines alone. 

Trump’s alleged political speech is clearly intended to delegitimize the legal system itself, as he campaigns on an overt promise to weaponize the rule of law and seek revenge. Judge Patricia Millett, who served on the gag order appeals panel, told defense counsel that labeling Trump’s attacks as “core political speech” begs the question of whether it is both political speech and speech “aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process.” 

In other words, Trump’s counsel’s constant refrain of “core political speech protected by the First Amendment” is circular and empty, like using a word in a sentence to define what that word means. 

Trump wasn’t gagged in a vacuum

Contrary to his self-perpetuated martyrdom, Trump has a long history of hiding behind a weaponized Firstst Amendment.

During his first impeachment for his attempt to hijack funds approved for Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelensky “found” dirt on Joe Biden, Trump threatened the source of information about the incident. Trump said in a speech that whoever had leaked the information about his discussion with Zelensky was like a spy, and that “in the old days” spies were “dealt with differently.”  


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


Threatening anyone who dared to spill was attempted intimidation, plain to see, a pattern Trump has continued. 

When he recently learned that key witness and former chief of staff Mark Meadows had been granted immunity in his election fraud case, Trump publicly signaled to Meadows that witnesses who hurt him were weaklings, cowards and  enemies of the nation. After previously referring to Meadows as a “great chief of staff — as good as it gets,” Trump now fears him, and is hedging his bets.  

Chutkan saw Trump’s post as a clear attempt to influence Meadows, while proving the necessity of her gag order in the first place. 

Threats of violence hit their mark

Prior to the Meadows post, Chutkan heard undisputed testimony that Trump’s public statements about other individuals had led to threats and harassment against them, which Trump’s counsel called “totally irrelevant.”

There’s nothing more relevant to a witness than his life and his family’s safety, and there’s nothing more important to the administration of justice than witnesses unafraid to tell the truth. 

Desperate to move his legal battles to the more easily manipulated court of public opinion, Trump characteristically called Chutkan’s gag order “another partisan knife stuck in the heart of our Democracy by Crooked Joe Biden, who was granted the right to muzzle his political opponent…”

Sigh.

For now, the gag order remains on hold while the appellate court examines its scope. Whatever the outcome, the tension between Trump’s free speech and the rule of law will likely be appealed again and settled by the Supreme Court.  

Weaponizing the First Amendment in unprecedented ways, Trump has transformed a venerated legal shield into a lethal sword that threatens democracy itself. 

The painful civics lesson from this saga, likely to get worse before it gets better, is that the United States is just as vulnerable, just as susceptible as any other nation in the world, to the evil march of fascism. 

In that regard, Trump is teaching us a valuable lesson: the U.S. is not exceptional after all.

Why indoor air pollution can be just as deadly as wildfire smoke and coal plant smog

Picturing air pollution isn’t hard in a world where 99% of people breathe polluted air. While reading this, you’re probably mentally visualizing an outdoor urban area with factories leaking out dense, dark smoke or intense car traffic releasing dirty fuels in rush hour. But although our immediate association of pollution tends to lean on the outdoors, the issue goes way beyond external environments.

Household air pollution is a silent and often neglected threat that causes about 3.2 million deaths in the world every year, according to World Health Organization (WHO) estimates. That corresponds to nearly half of the 6.7 million annual deaths worldwide attributable to air pollution. Among all lethal illnesses associated with household air pollution exposure, the organization points out that ischaemic heart disease accounts for 32% of the 3.2 million annual deaths, followed by stroke, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.

Home is supposed to be a safe place. But people might not be aware they don’t even need to go outside to be exposed to harmful pollutants. The air inside can be just as dangerous.

Indoor air pollution can derive from a wide range of particles and components that people might be exposed to in and around their homes. It can also encompass other indoor environments where many people spend significant time, such as schools and workplaces. Among indoor pollution sources, those with the largest burden of disease globally are the ones associated with household fuel combustion from the use of dirty cooking, heating and lighting systems.

Current estimates from the WHO indicate that over 2 billion people — or around a third of the world's population — are exposed to household air pollution. Most of the affected population lives in low and middle-income countries, where many people still rely on polluting fuels and devices, especially for cooking. The most affected countries are in the global south including South Sudan, Burundi, Liberia, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Laos and Vanuatu. These are regions in which more than 90% of the population relies on these systems, according to WHO's Global Health Observatory data.

The problem lies in cooking with open fires or stoves fueled by kerosene, coal and biomass (such as wood, crop waste, and animal dung). These sources emit large amounts of pollutants including carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxide. 

Current estimates from the WHO indicate that over 2 billion people are exposed to household air pollution.

“These levels of pollutants from fuel combustion are very high, much more than you get necessarily in your ambient, outdoor air. It's typically in concentrations higher than that,” explained Heather Adair-Rohani, head of air quality, energy and health at the World Health Organization. But getting people to transition to alternative, safer ways of cooking isn’t easy. “A behavior change is a very big challenge to try and get households to uptake,” she said. “They've been doing it for so many generations, and this is what they're used to.”

Tackling polluting cooking systems, however, should not obliterate people’s caution with other important sources of air pollution like household heating, Heather notes. 

“In many cases, people are trying to solve the household air pollution problem by only looking at the cook stove, but if you still have the open fire burning to stay warm at night, this is mitigating much of the impact you may have had from the clean cooking aspects,” she said, adding that inefficient lighting such as kerosene lamps make up another significant source of household air pollution. “People typically are close to the kerosene lamp as well, causing them to really inhale a lot of the particles.”


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


Fine particles, tobacco smoke and radon are among the most common pollutants in the U.S.

Although the use of polluting fuels for cooking is not as common in higher-income nations like the U.S., people may still be exposed to numerous other sources of air pollution in their homes.

“Indoor environmental sources and their impacts on human health and the indoor environment are highly variable due to many factors including difference in construction, location, individual sensitivities and occupant behavior,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Salon in an email. “With that qualification, we can point to some more common sources of concern [in the country]. Estimates of the health burden of fine particles (PM2.5) are consistently high, therefore exposure to sources of fine particles, such as outdoor air (including wildfires), poorly-vented indoor combustion (e.g., from cooking and heating), and tobacco smoking can be of concern for large parts of the population.”

After tobacco smoking, radon is the country’s second leading cause of lung cancer, causing 21,000 deaths every year.

The EPA also notes many other chemical solvents used indoors can be sources of toxic aldehydes and other volatile organic compounds, which have a wide range of health effects that may vary from eye and airway irritation to the impairment of vital body parts such as the central nervous system, liver and kidney. The agency warned that formaldehyde, and other contaminants, which can be found in building materials  such as composite wood products, can be toxic or react with ozone or other pollutants to form toxic substances. Finally, it highlighted the risk of biological contaminants, including molds and infectious viral and bacterial agents.

Another threat that affects indoor environments in the U.S. and around the world is radon gas infiltration, which “continues to be a well-characterized indoor air risk in many regions of the country,” the EPA said, which has developed a map of areas in the country with a potential range for elevated indoor radon levels. It is a radioactive, colorless and odorless gas that can be found in the soil, bedrock and groundwater, getting into homes through cracks and cavities in the building, as well as through groundwater supply.

After tobacco smoking, radon is the country’s second leading cause of lung cancer, causing 21,000 deaths every year. For people who smoke and are exposed to radon, the risk of developing lung cancer multiplies to around 10 times greater compared to those who don’t use tobacco. 

To improve air quality indoors, the EPA recommends the first priority is controlling polluting sources inside our homes.

“Improving ventilation is a general-purpose strategy that can be effective for many indoor air quality problems, provided the quality of outdoor air is good,” the agency informed. “The treatment of indoor air with supplemental filtration-based portable air cleaners or improved HVAC filters (rated MERV 13 or higher, when possible) is a third option that is effective for particle pollution.”

The agency recommends that any household test radon levels, which can be done with a relatively inexpensive test that measures indoor concentrations of the gas.

The smaller, the more dangerous to our health

A grain of sand is generally used for expressing tininess, or insignificance. When we bring the subject to the scope of air pollution, though, tiny particles can grow in significance to human health the smaller they get. While beach sand is around 90 micrometers in diameter, and human hair around 50 to 70 micrometers, the particles that are 10 micrometers or less are those posing the greatest risks to our health. These very small particles suspended in the air make up particulate matter, which, like carbon monoxide, is a major pollutant found in household fuel combustion.

The larger, so-called coarse particles, have diameters between 2.5 and 10 micrometers; some examples of this type of particulate matter include wind-blown dust, fly ash and animal or vegetal particles. These are typically stopped in our thoracic cavity as they enter the lungs.

Children, women and elderly people are generally more vulnerable to the risks of indoor air pollution.

The reason the smaller group of airborne particles, referred to as fine particles and with 2.5 micrometers or less in size, can be so much more dangerous to human health is because they can pass through the lungs and enter the bloodstream, affecting vital body parts such as the heart and the brain. These particles are commonly found in smoke, soot or haze.“It's so small that it can get in and really impact the body systemically,” Adair-Rohani said.

Children, women and elderly people are generally more vulnerable to the risks of indoor air pollution. Aside from typically spending more time indoors, the elderly population can also be at increased risk due to the higher prevalence of other diseases that exacerbate air pollution effects, the EPA notes. The WHO points out that children and women around the world tend to spend more time exposed to polluting sources due to their daily routines and consequent exposure to dirty fuels and devices.

There are also physical aspects involved in air pollution health risks: “Children are considered a vulnerable population for air pollution (indoor or outdoor) because of developing respiratory systems and metabolic factors,” the EPA explained. According to global WHO estimates, every year over 237,000 deaths of children under the age of five are associated with household air pollution. Health effects might originate even before birth: researchers have pointed out correlations between prenatal exposure to high levels of air pollution and impacts on neurodevelopment in early childhood. There are studies that also suggest that air pollution can impact women’s reproductive health.

Climate change might aggravate air pollution levels, including indoors

Climate change, which is driven by burning fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gasses, is expected to make both indoor and outdoor air pollution worse. As these emissions continue to rise, extreme events like wildfires are projected to increase in frequency and intensity. Experts point out that global warming effects might impact outdoor and indoor air pollution in several ways primarily due to the inevitable exchange between outdoor and indoor air.

“Climate change is known to increase ground-level ozone and particulate matter, and lead to increases in wildfire smoke, an increase in dust in the southwest (as well as dust-borne pathogens like valley fever), and increases in some kinds of aero-allergens,” the EPA said. “These increases in outdoor air pollution will also make indoor air pollution worse.”

Carbon monoxide concentrations can also increase indoors due to climate change effects.

The impacts can typically go the inverse way as well, as indoor emissions also contribute to increasing outdoor air pollution. “In some states of India, over 50% of ambient air pollution is actually caused by the household air pollution, leaking outdoors,” Adair-Rohani exemplified. “Pollution is being generated in the home, it's going in the chimney, but then it goes into the local communities.”

Another important factor is that household air pollution is one of the largest sources of black carbon, which has a high warming potential, she notes. An estimated 25%  to 50% of global black carbon emissions come from residential fuel combustion. It is a short-lived pollutant that only lasts a few days or weeks in the atmosphere, but is one of the largest contributors to climate change since its warming impact is estimated to be up to 1,500 times stronger than CO2.

Carbon monoxide concentrations can also increase indoors due to climate change effects, the EPA explained, given an increase in power outages from storms and other extreme events can lead to HVAC system interruptions, encouraging the use of generators. Also, the agency notes that as climate change will increase total precipitation in the east, it can also enhance the impacts of biological contaminants such as mold, fungus and bacteria in indoor spaces. Furthermore, it cites that climate effects may change people’s relative exposure to indoor versus outdoor air. “Increases in temperature will lead to changes in behavior: more time spent indoors with windows closed in the summer, but less time in other seasons.”

We need your help to stay independent

Improving indoor air quality through realistic energy transition

At the community level, reducing indoor air pollution requires that nations transition to cleaner energy sources. Adair-Rohaniobserves, though, that this transition may vary according to the country or region's status regarding the use of clean energy. “One high-income country may have a problem with natural gas in the home because of asthma, so they could lead to electric renewable cooking; that would be the ultimate clean one,” she said. “Whereas households in some African countries, for example, where 99% of their population are relying on traditional fuels and stoves for cooking, that's a whole different problem.”

Adair-Rohani adds that tackling household air pollution is also an important way to help mitigate the effects of climate change, but acknowledges that access to cleaner systems continues to be a challenge for many populations.

“In some cases, buying cleaner fuels and technology to use requires some upfront investment,” Adair-Rohani said. That is why she believes it’s critical that countries provide people with “an enabling policy framework and situation where they can actually get access to these fuels and technology, that they're available and affordable, and that they meet the needs and preferences of the users.”

Life expectancy rises for the first time since the start of the COVID pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts noticed a disturbing statistic: Starting in 2020, the average American life expectancy began to plummet. The downward trend was primarily attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, but as early as the 2010s, the average American life expectancy had started to plateau and even slightly dip. In addition to a historic pandemic, Americans' collective health has taken a hit due to the obesity epidemic and inequitable access to quality health care.

Yet according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American life expectancy rose by 1.1 years between 2021 and 2022. Through the CDC's Division of Vital Statistics, agency experts ascertained the average life expectancy is 77.5 years — or 80.2 years for women and 74.8 years for men.

"Declines in mortality due to COVID-19 were the primary reason for the increases in life expectancy from 2021 to 2022 observed for the total population and each of the five Hispanic- origin and race groups shown in this report," the authors wrote. Decreases in COVID-19 mortality accounted for 92.4% of the life expectancy increase for Hispanic Americans, 80.6% of the increase for White Americans, 79.5% of the increase for Asian Americans, 71.9% of the increase for Black Americans, and 70.0% of the increase for American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic populations. The news is not all rosy. The average life expectancy would have been even higher if not for increases in mortality due to malnutrition, kidney disease, flu and pneumonia and birth problems.

Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, dies at 100

Henry Kissinger, who worked U.S. foreign policy throughout the administrations of Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford, has died at the age of 100. The news broke on Wednesday night via a statement from his consulting firm, detailing that he passed at his home in Connecticut, but not revealing an exact cause of death.

As The Washington Post highlights in their coverage, Kissinger was the only person to be both White House national security adviser and secretary of state at the same time, describing him as someone who "exercised a control over U.S. foreign policy that has rarely been equaled by anyone who was not president." Other outlets, such as Rolling Stone, sum him up as a "war criminal." To that end, those very words can be found right beneath his name, presently, in the "what's happening" column of X (formerly Twitter) as people flood the platform with what could only be viewed as celebration.

"Everybody is celebrating Kissinger dying and no one is thinking about the low wage workers forced to build an entire new level of hell at depths never reached before. You guys are so anti-labor," writes Mo Weeks.

"It finally happened!!!" writes Alejandra Caraballo, along with an illustration of the Grim Reaper pulling Kissinger out of a claw machine.

Per his consulting firm, Kissinger will be interred at a private family service and, at a later date, there will be a memorial service in New York City.  

 

Why Omid Scobie’s new royal tell-all “Endgame” has been pulled off the shelves in the Netherlands

The royal drama never stops, and anew potential development could be an interesting turn in the neverending saga of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's defection from the royal family.

Author and royal expert Omid Scobie has been enjoying some notoriety for his royal tell-all "Endgame," released Tuesday. (Be sure to check out our "Salon Talks" with Scobie on Thursday.) However the book has caused a firestorm in royal circles and outrage among royal fans who find the information contained within not just divisive but also harmful to the monarchy. Some have painted it as one big conspiracy theory.

But the biggest move to discredit the book has come in the form of trying to stop its sales altogether . . . in the Netherlands. Apparently, the Dutch version of Scobie's book contains sensitive information – a name or names – that hasn't been included in the other copies. Due to the resulting outrage, the Dutch book is now being pulled from shelves.

Let's take a look at the controversy surrounding the book, that particular translated version including those names and how this all connects to that fateful Oprah Winfrey sitdown interview with Harry and Meghan in 2021.

The Oprah interview with Meghan and Harry the world watched

A seemingly jaded and newly freed ex-royals Meghan and Harry were awaiting the right time to share their experiences with the world, and boy did their 2021 sitdown with Oprah prove to be explosive. During the interview, the couple revealed numerous troubling allegations and experiences they faced in their role as senior royals.

But the biggest bombshell was that while Meghan was pregnant with their son Archie, there were "concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born," from members of the royal family. Oprah was not told the identity of the person but Harry told her it was neither "his grandmother nor grandfather [Queen Elizabeth or Prince Philip] that were part of those conversations." Meghan, who also refused to name names, said that if the identity of the person came out it "would be very damaging to them."

Since the interview, many have publicly speculated about the person or potentially the people who made the racist comment. The royal family denied the accusations of racism, Prince William telling reporters, “We’re very much not a racist family." Elizabeth said she was “saddened” by the accusation and that “while some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.”

Scobie claimed he knew who said the racist comments about Archie's skin color in "Endgame"

"Endgame" follows the behind-the-scenes drama that happened in real time after the racial comments were made. Scobie claimed that in a series of private letters between Meghan and the now King Charles, she told him the names of the two royal household members. During the Oprah interview, it was revealed that it was one royal who said the comment but according to Scobie, it was two.

Not only did Scobie reveal it was two people, but he also knew who made the comments and purposefully chose to omit to name them because “laws in the United Kingdom prevent me from reporting who they were.” He told a Dutch television show, "There's never been a version that I’ve produced that has names in it.” 

Therefore, it came as a surprise that the Dutch translated version of "Endgame," has allegedly revealed the undisclosed name of the senior royal who questioned Archie's skin color.

We need your help to stay independent

"Endgame" is pulled from shelves in the Netherlands 

The anticipated book was released to the public on Tuesday but things quickly went awry as the Dutch translation included the redacted names. While chaos ensued, the Dutch publishing house Xander Uitgevers responded almost immediately on Tuesday evening. The publisher's managing director Anke Roelen said, "An error occurred in the Dutch translation and is currently being rectified."

"Endgame" has now been temporarily removed from sale by its publisher and the "rectified" version be re-released in the Netherlands on Friday, the BBC reported.

As the leaked names spread online and the buzz circulated the British tabloids, Buckingham Palace said it would be “considering all options” against Piers Morgan after he named the royals who allegedly commented on Archie's skin color during his show's Wednesday evening broadcast. Morgan said the public deserves the “right to know” who was accused of racism by Meghan and Harry. He even posted the segment to his X account, spreading the names widely to his followers and people on X.

Scobie said on X before the book's release: “Incorrect and bad translations, snippets without context, leaks etc. do not tell the full or accurate story. Thank you.”

 

Mother and son who aided in theft of Nancy Pelosi’s laptop on Jan. 6 get home incarceration

Maryann Mooney-Rondon and her son, Rafael Rondon, were sentenced on Wednesday for aiding in the theft of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's laptop during the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, receiving 12 and 18 months of home incarceration, respectively. 

During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb referred to their case as a "difficult" one, according to NBC News, saying that neither of the defendants were "criminal masterminds" and describing their actions on the day in question as being “juvenile.”

Prior to being handed down their time, Rondon admitted to the FBI that "he helped a man who was trying to rip cords out of Pelosi's laptop, which she used for Zoom meetings," per the outlet's reporting, saying "that was probably stupid of me." And Mooney-Rondon "admitted that she helped a man who took the laptop, giving him gloves so he wouldn't leave fingerprints behind," calling it “a very bad lapse of judgment." 

"I’m a very — generally — measured, calculated person. I think things through. How the heck that happened, I really don’t have a clue," the mother said. In a statement made prior to sentencing, she reflected further, saying, “I was the adult in the room and I failed. I have brought embarrassment to my family.”

 

 

Report: Golden Bachelor’s secret history – from a shady LinkedIn résumé to hush-hush girlfriends

Turns out Gerry Turner, the swoon-worthy, 72-year-old star of ABC’s “The Golden Bachelor,” isn’t as “golden” as fans have been led to believe.

In anticipation of the show’s finale on Thursday, The Hollywood Reporter released a deep dive into Turner’s past, revealing inconsistencies regarding his career and romantic relationships that allegedly took place shortly after his wife’s death. The self-described “hopeless romantic” quickly garnered public sympathy during the show’s first episode, when he tearfully spoke about Toni, his wife of 43 years, who died of an infection just one month after the pair moved to their dream retirement house on Big Long Lake in Hudson, Indiana.

Much of Turner’s story centered on the fact that Turner loved his wife both deeply and passionately — so much so, that he said he was incapable of being ready for a new relationship a year after his wife’s 2017 passing. “I mean, I haven’t dated in 45 years,” he told Entertainment Tonight.  

The ladies competing for Turner’s heart on the show fell for him fast – as did viewers. Turner’s past and persona all seemed too good to be true. And although many hailed him as the quintessential “Perfect Man,” recent revelations suggest otherwise.

According to the report, Turner allegedly had a three-year-long relationship with an undisclosed woman (The Hollywood Reporter calls her “Carolyn”) just a month after his wife’s death. Carolyn (who requested not to be named to protect her privacy) is 14 years his junior and worked as a staff accountant at the Vera French Mental Health Center, where Turner was once employed as a maintenance man.  They reportedly dated for 10 months and then lived together for one year and nine months. One friend named Susan was shocked when on the show Turner claimed he hadn’t been kissed in six years: “And I’m like, what? He’s got to know that people are paying attention to this show. I’m just flabbergasted.”

Although Carolyn initially stayed mum about her past relationship with Turner, she decided to come forward with her story after seeing Turner pull similar shenanigans with the bachelorettes on live television.

“The idea that I’d go out with a recent widower just mortifies me,” Carolyn told THR. “I just really didn’t see it. Until I went back and looked at my text messages, I never realized Gerry’s texts had turned hot and heavy so relatively soon.”

In one exchange, Turner texted, “I got LUCKY when you first said you would go to dinner with me two weeks ago. I mean how often does an old geezer get the beautiful girl?” He later wrote to Carolyn, “You are the right woman for me. No need to look further.”

On Sept. 2, 2017, less than three months after Toni’s death, Turner texted Carolyn, “Damn, I go to bed at night thinking of you and wake up in the morning thinking of you.”

Those who watch “The Golden Bachelor” may recognize that infamous line. Turner recently said something similar to Leslie Fhima, the Minneapolis-based fitness instructor, who became one of Gerry’s two finalists: “I have to have you with my morning coffee, I have to have you when I go to bed at night,” told her in Costa Rica. 

At the peak of Carolyn and Turner's relationship, the topic of marriage was floated, and she even changed jobs to be closer to him. However, things took a turn for the worse soon after. In October 2019 Carolyn claims Turner shamed her for putting on 10 pounds. After the breakup, Carolyn says she was was injured falling down the stairs, and Turner accused her of using the injury to lengthen her stay at his place. He eventually kicked her out, forcing her to check into a hotel.


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


Turner’s dating history didn’t just include Carolyn, according to Heather Lanning-Adams, a waitress at The Shady Nook, a bar and restaurant located next door to Turner’s lake house who talked to the U.S. Sun.

“He dated a couple of women. They weren’t all long-term, but they . . .weren’t short-term either,” Lanning-Adams said.

In addition, The Hollywood Reporter found additional inconsistencies with his work history. The show describes Turner as a “retired restaurateur,” but that’s far from the actual truth.

A quick scan of his LinkedIn found that Turner last owned a restaurant in 1985, when he sold his Mr. Quick hamburger drive-in franchise in Iowa. He then held several sales and management positions in the meat business with undefined timelines. 

Turner’s claim that he retired at the young age of 55 also doesn’t match up. He held several “post-retirement” positions, including installing hot tubs at Gannon Pools near Davenport, Iowa, and working as a maintenance man at the Vera French Mental Health Center.

The major bombshells couldn’t have come at a better time as Turner gears up to propose to one of his eager ladies. As for whether the finale will promise even more drama than expected . . . only time will tell.

Shannen Doherty says cancer has spread to her bones: “I don’t want to die. I’m not done with living”

“Beverly Hills, 90210” star Shannen Doherty is opening up about her Stage 4 breast cancer, recently revealing that her cancer has spread to her bones.

“I don't want to die,” she told People on Wednesday. “I'm not done with living. I'm not done with loving. I'm not done with creating. I'm not done with hopefully changing things for the better. I'm just not — I'm not done.”

The “Charmed” star was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2015 and went into remission two years later. However, in February 2020, Doherty announced that her cancer returned the year before and was categorized as stage 4. In June of this year, she took to Instagram to share that it had metastasized to her brain.

“When you ask yourself, ‘Why me? Why did I get cancer?’ and then ‘Why did my cancer come back? Why am I stage 4?,’ that leads you to look for the bigger purpose in life,” she explained.

Doherty said she hopes to raise awareness and funds for cancer research, adding, “It’s insane to me [that] we still don’t have a cure.” She also wants to counter the misconception that those with cancer are now useless:

“They put you out to pasture at a very early age — ‘You’re done, you’re retired,’ and we’re not,” she said. “We are people who want to work and embrace life and keep moving forward.”

Doherty continued, “I know it sounds cheesy and crazy, but you’re just more aware of everything, and you feel so blessed. We’re the people who want to work the most, because we’re just so grateful for every second, every hour, every day we get to be here.”

“World’s saddest elephant” dies after 45 years of captivity

Mali — an Asian elephant gifted to former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos by the Sri Lankan government in 1981 and held captive at Manila Zoo in the Philippines for 45 years — has died. The announcement of her death was made during a news conference held on Wednesday by the city's mayor, Honey Lacuna, and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is outraged as they'd extended an offer to transport her to a sanctuary, but their offer was turned down.

Often referred to as the "world's saddest elephant" because she lived completely alone in what PETA is calling a "barren" enclosure where she endured "intense confinement, loneliness, boredom and isolation," Mali was seen rubbing her trunk against a wall towards the end of her life, which Dr. Heinrich Patrick Peña-Domingo, the chief veterinarian at the zoo, said is an indicator that she was in pain. According to CBS News, "vets gave her antihistamines and vitamins when she was breathing heavily on Tuesday, but she died later that day." In a statement to CBS News, PETA Asia said Mali died because of "indifference and greed."

"Despite PETA's repeated warnings, zoo and city officials ignored Mali's clearly painful foot problems, sentencing her to years of suffering," PETA Asia's statement furthers "The Manila Zoo has announced that Mali had cancer that was not detected by their veterinarians until after she died. Due to the fact that there is no elephant expert in the country, Mali was never provided with routine veterinary care—something she would have been given at the sanctuary PETA was prepared to transfer her to."

 

 

US food insecurity surveys aren’t getting accurate data regarding Latino families

The federal government has conducted the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module for more than 25 years. The data collected annually from about 50,000 U.S. households helps form estimates of the scale of food insecurity — not having access to enough food for a healthy life — at the national and state levels.

But the way Latino parents respond to some of the questions in the annual U.S. Department of Agriculture survey used to measure food insecurity doesn't always reflect their true experiences. We published this finding in a special October 2023 issue of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Our team, which included development sociologist Christian DiRado-Owens, conducted a study in California, New York and Texas, using surveys and interviews to help the USDA assess the accuracy and acceptability of these questions among Latino families.

Many of the responses to the survey questions didn't align with more detailed descriptions of the personal situations of the people we interviewed. When asked to explain their answers, many of them found it easier to talk about how they managed or coped with food insecurity than to respond to questions about how often they worried about or were not able to feed their families as they wished.

 

Room for improvement

Student researchers asked 62 Latino parents and caregivers the questions from the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module, letting them select either the English or Spanish version. For half of the 18 questions, people need to answer "often," "sometimes" or "never."

For example, the first statement is:

(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) got money to buy more. Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

The rest are "yes" or "no" questions, such as:

In the last 12 months, since last (name of current month), did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?

After people completed the survey, interviewers prompted them with open-ended questions to elaborate further. This approach allowed participants to give feedback about the survey and share their thought processes about their responses.

We found that comprehension of the English words or the Spanish translation of these questions wasn't the main issue. Rather, the way the questions were written could be improved.

For instance, when asked how often they skipped meals or reduced the size of meals, some of the people we interviewed answered "never." But they went on to describe how they often prepared significantly smaller meals. In some cases, they recounted having eaten a small snack instead of a meal.

In addition, some of the people who responded that they could always afford enough food for their families later shared how they regularly relied on food pantries and similar programs designed for intermittent or emergency use. While their answers showed a commitment to feeding their families, they did not align with the intention of the questions – indicating that the survey may be underestimating true levels of food insecurity.

Overall, the sensitive nature of the questions and the limited number of possible response options made it hard for some people to answer them accurately – especially on the subject of their children not having enough food. Many people also said they felt that the phrasing of the questions about being able to afford food didn't reflect their personal situations or experiences.

 

Higher levels of food insecurity

U.S. food insecurity increased from 10.2% in 2021 to 12.8% in 2022, according to official estimates.

Government agencies, nonprofits and researchers like us use the survey's findings to address food insecurity and make decisions about food assistance and nutrition policies and programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The Latino population is growing quickly and has become the nation's largest racial or ethnic group. About 19% of the U.S. population, as of 2022, identified as Hispanic or Latino. Without accurate data regarding this large community, the picture of food insecurity is incomplete. And until now, there has been too little research done to assess whether the survey questions are eliciting valid data for Latinos.

Food insecurity among Latino families with children is already high, according to the most recent official data, which was collected in 2022: 13.2% compared with 5.5% for white households with children. But based on our findings, it's likely that the real picture is even worse.

 

Next steps

Our team is now analyzing data from the interviews we conducted to take a closer look at the strategies these Latino families used to cope with food insecurity at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We're also seeing whether Latino parents and caregivers living in very large urban communities answered questions differently compared with those residing in smaller cities and towns.

In addition, we want to assess any differences among Latinos of different heritages – such as Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans – to find ways to get more accurate data regarding food security for Latino families with children.

Cassandra M. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Nutrition, Texas State University; Amanda C. McClain, Assistant Professor of Nutrition, San Diego State University, and Katherine Dickin, Associate Professor of Public & Ecosystem Health, Cornell University

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

Former prosecutors warn Trump lawyers’ “dumb” move in NY fraud trial could badly backfire

A former federal prosecutor on Tuesday argued that lawyers for Donald Trump are making a mistake by deciding to make the former president the last witness they plan to call to the stand in his New York civil fraud trial. According to HuffPost, Trump's attorneys said Monday that they would call him to testify for the final time on Dec. 11 in the $250 million lawsuit, in which New York Attorney General Letitia James accuses him, other Trump Organization executives and the company itself of heavily exaggerating assets for financial gain. 

Former assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth de la Vega argued that the decision was "well, dumb," on X/Twitter. After Trump testifies on direct examination, he will have to face cross-examination, she wrote. "Any benefit Trump's [attorneys] think his direct testimony provides will be destroyed by the time AG [attorneys] finish with him," she predicted. Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman agreed that the move could backfire. "Don't expect the AG to let him just bloviate as they did in their case," he wrote. "He'll deliver whatever informercial he wants on direct, but then the cross should be a classic surgical examination."

Guy Fieri signs $100 million contract for three more years at Food Network

Guy Fieiri — the Mayor of Flavortown U.S.A — will be on Food Network for (at least) three more years.

As reported by Jennifer Maas with Variety, Fieri "signed a new three-year deal with Food Network, which sources tell Variety is valued at more than $100 million." As Maas writes, Fieri is the highest-paid talent currently on the network, though neither Food Network nor Warner Bros. Discovery would comment on the specifics of the deal. Three years added on to his tenure will make Fieri one of the few who's been on the iconic network for 20 years or more. Warner Bros. Discovery head of food content Betsy Ayala said "Recognized everywhere he goes, there is only one Guy Fieri." 

Fieri originally joined the network after his 2006 win on "The Next Food Network Star," which he then parlayed into numerous shows, from "Guy's Big Bite" to "Diners, Drive-ins and Dives." He also now leads a production company called Knuckle Sandwich LLC, which also opens and operates many restaurants nationwide.  

"In addition to being a star on Food Network, Guy is a global phenomenon with millions of fans throughout the world and he’s an incredibly creative content producer as well," said Warner Bros. Discovery US Networks chairman and CEO Kathleen Finch. "We’re thrilled to extend our long-standing partnership with Guy and to continue to entertain his legions of fans." 

 

 

What would happen if everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow?

Humans eat a stunning amount of meat every year — some 800 billion pounds of it, enough flesh to fill roughly 28 million dump trucks. Our carnivorous cravings, particularly in industrialized, beef-guzzling countries like the United States, are one reason the planet is warming as fast as it is. Raising animals consumes a lot of land that would otherwise soak up carbon. Cows, sheep and goats spew heat-trapping methane. And to grow the corn, soy and other plants that those animals eat, farmers spray fertilizer that emits nitrous oxide, another potent planet-warming gas. 

For all those reasons, and many more, activists and scientists have called for people to eat less meat or abstain altogether. At last year’s United Nations climate conference in Egypt, activists chanted slogans like “Let’s be vegan, let’s be free.” At this year’s conference, which starts November 30, world leaders are expected to talk about ways to shift diets toward plant-based foods as a way to lower animal agriculture’s climate pollution, the source of 15% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions.  

Cutting out meat can be an effective tool: The average vegan diet is linked to about one-quarter the greenhouse gas emissions of a meat-intensive one, according to a paper published in Nature in July. 

But what would happen if everyone actually stopped eating meat tomorrow?

“It would have huge consequences — a lot of them probably not anticipated,” said Keith Wiebe, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. 

Such a quick shift probably wouldn’t cause the sort of turmoil that would come if the planet immediately ditched fossil fuels. But still, the upshot could be tumultuous, upending economies, leaving people jobless and threatening food security in places that don’t have many nutritious alternatives. 

Livestock accounts for about 40% of agricultural production in rich countries and 20% in low-income countries and it’s vital — economically and nutritionally — to the lives of 1.3 billion people across the world, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. One-third of the protein and nearly one-fifth of the calories that people eat around the world come from animals. 

Researchers say the economic damage caused by the sudden disappearance of meat would fall disproportionately on low-income countries with agrarian economies, like Niger or Kenya, where farming and raising livestock are critical sources of income. Niger’s livestock industry makes up about 13% of the country’s gross domestic product; in the U.S., the entire agricultural system accounts for only around 5%

It’s tough to predict exactly what the economic shock would look like on a global level. There has been “relatively little” research on how phasing out meat would affect employment around the world, Wiebe said. “It’s an issue that deserves a lot more attention.” 

Millions of people would lose jobs, but demand for other sources of calories and protein might rise and offset some of those losses. Some workers might be drawn into agriculture to grow more crops like legumes. That shift in labor, some researchers hypothesize, could slow economic growth by pulling people out of more profitable industries. 

Still, the effects would vary across cultures, economies and political systems, and they aren’t as clear-cut as, say, the amount of methane that would be saved if cows ceased to exist. “It depends on the species of livestock. It depends on the geographic location,” said Jan Dutkiewicz, a political economist at the Pratt Institute, in New York City. “It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to talk in universal terms about addressing those kinds of things.” 

It’s easier to talk in broad terms about another challenge with getting rid of meat: nutrition. Eliminating livestock overnight would deprive many people of essential nutrients, especially in regions like South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa,  where meat comprises a small but crucial sliver of the average person’s starch-heavy diet. Animal-based foods are high in vitamin B12, vitamin A, calcium and iron. That’s why researchers say preserving access to meat, milk and eggs is key to keeping people healthy in low- and middle-income countries right now, where nutritious plant-based options are harder to come by. 

And then there’s the issue of cultural damage. Taking away meat, according to Wilson Warren, a history professor at Western Michigan University, would do more than just deprive Americans of hot dogs and hamburgers and Italians of salami. 

“Historically, the way that most people understood animals was through farming and having close contact with their livestock,” said Warren, who’s also the author of Meat Makes People Powerful, a book about the global history of meat. “You get rid of that sort of close connection, [and] I envision people in some ways being even less environmentally in touch.” (Warren grapples with this idea in a self-published novel called Animeat’s End about a future world in which eating meat is a serious crime.) 

Many researchers agree that phasing out meat entirely, let alone immediately, isn’t an ideal solution to the climate crisis. It would be plenty, they say, to reduce consumption methodically and to focus on the countries that eat the most, particularly wealthy ones like the United States that have no shortage of alternatives.  

It might be easier for the average American, who eats about 220 pounds of red meat and poultry each year, to trade a daily hamburger for a bowl of lentils than for someone in rural sub-Saharan Africa, who eats 10 times less meat, to give up the occasional goat or beef stew for something less nutritious. Such a shift in beef-loving countries also might reduce heart disease and cancer linked to eating a lot of red and processed meat.   

Dutkiewicz suggested using guidelines established by the EAT-Lancet Commission, an international group of scientists who have designed a diet intended to give people the nutrients they need without destroying the planet. It consists of roughly 35 pounds of meat per year. Adopting that diet would require a drastic reduction of cows and chickens in countries like the United States, Australia, China, Brazil and Argentina, and a slight increase in parts of Africa and South Asia. 

Gradually replacing meat with plants could have immense benefits for the planet. “It would be a huge net win for the environment,” Dutkiewicz said. By one estimate, a complete phaseout of meat over 15 years would cut as much as one-third of all methane emissions and two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions. Water use would fall drastically. Biodiversity loss would slow. Animal welfare advocates would be happy to see fewer animals packed into tight pens wallowing in their own poop awaiting slaughter. And there would be ample opportunity to rewild abandoned rangelands and pastures at a scale that would sequester a whole lot of carbon — as much as 550 gigatons, enough to give us a pretty good shot at keeping warming below catastrophic levels.

Given the complexities and pitfalls of a complete phaseout, researchers and advocates have pointed instead to a more modest goal: cutting meat production in half.  Replacing it with plant-based alternatives would lower agricultural emissions 31% by 2050, a recent study found. 

“It doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing approach,” Raychel Santo, a food and climate researcher at the World Resources Institute, said in an email. 

The solution, in other words, lies somewhere between culling cows in Niger and gorging ourselves on factory-farmed flesh.

How “Fargo” made an icy villain out of Dave Foley, the famously nice Kid in the Hall

Accidents happen all the time in the “Fargo” universe, but there is little happenstance in its design, including that the name of Dave Foley’s character, Danish Graves, is introduced before we see him. The moniker adds to the gravitas of the always besuited right-hand man to the most powerful woman in Minnesota, if not the country, Lorraine Lyon (Jennifer Jason Leigh).

When Lorraine's son Wayne (David Rysdahl) bails his wife Dot (Juno Temple) out of jail after a fateful community rumble, Wayne thinks he's comforting her by sharing, "Mom said she's putting Danish Graves on it, so . . ."

We don’t know much about Danish. His eyepatch only adds to his mystery.

Without knowing who or what Danish Graves is — assassin? Scandinavian mortician? Both?— the party on the business end of whatever Lorraine is scheming, that is an ominous sentence. Danish, in name and in behavior, represents something grimmer than his boss. As the head of the largest debt collection agencies in the nation, Lorraine depends on remaining in the good graces of lawmakers and finance officials while she bleeds the peasants dry.  Enforcing her will, mainly through threats, well-timed phone calls and paperwork, falls to him.

For all her fabulously entertaining displays of insensitivity, Lorraine will do anything it takes to protect her family. Achieving that requires using men like Danish “as, basically, her pit bull,” Foley told Salon during a conversation that took place during a late winter visit to the "Fargo" set earlier this year.

In Foley’s view, this is more of a dark calling for Danish than simply a job. “There's an ability to somehow excise humanity from the equation that is interesting, where there's no consideration of the people that are manipulating to achieve whatever they want to do,” he observed. “And there's a glee in it . . . a sense of accomplishment that comes out of just having the power over other people.”

Three episodes into the fifth season, we don’t know much about Danish. His eyepatch only adds to his mystery. When I spoke with Foley on the frigid, snowed-blanketed Calgary set back in March, we knew even less. Production had recently gotten underway, and there weren’t any episodes to share with the small group of participating reporters..

No matter, because we know plenty of figures like Danish – people who erase blunders and correct mistakes. Lorraine suspects one of those slip-ups may be Wayne's marriage to Dot, who Danish correctly suspects may not be who she says she is.

But Lorraine's politesse has limits, as a pair of Minnesota’s finest find when they pay a visit to her office to inquire about her daughter-in-law’s connection to a North Dakota crime. Lorraine can barely muster the bother to look at them. Eye contact is Danish’s job. “If North Dakota wants to question either Mrs. Lyon, Wayne or Dot, they’ll need to go through me,” he says.

Lorraine may have a viper’s tongue, but she leaves the poisonous biting to Mr. Graves, family violence included.

“Slap him,” Lorraine orders over the phone as Danish sits with Wayne in the second episode. “You heard me. My son needs a slap, and I’m not there to give it to him, so as my attorney, I authorize you to knock his f**king block off.”

FargoDave Foley as Danish Graves and Jennifer Jason Leigh as Lorraine Lyon in "Fargo" (Michelle Faye/FX)

Foley has no compunctions about describing Leigh’s Lorraine as a vastly more intelligent and worldly version of the twice-impeached “stable genius.”

Lorraine is deadly serious, but Danish’s compliance with that order has a comedic crackle that recalls the absurdist delight of Foley’s seminal work in “Kids in the Hall.” Or it may be that we can’t yet shake our association with Foley playing a lovable figure, which is why he's embracing "Fargo."

“Outside of sketches that we wrote for ‘Kids in the Hall,’ you mostly get hired to play yourself,” he said. “So this was a nice chance to play someone who isn't me, or like me in any way, and who isn't nice.”

This is as apt a place to confirm your worst suspicions regarding the “Kids in the Hall” revival in 2022: Foley told Salon that Prime Video declined to pick up a second season. (Given the restrictions agreed to as a condition of the set visit, we couldn’t say anything until now.) But that doesn’t mean the band has broken up. “The troupe is committed to doing some other ‘Kids in the Hall’ stuff down the road,” he said. “We’ve just been having internal discussions about what that's going to be.”

We need your help to stay independent

Playing a snake in “Fargo” only expands Foley’s options, making him part of the anthology’s tradition of casting familiar comics as serious men. The first season featured Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele as ineffectual federal agents, and Bob Odenkirk as a hapless police chief.

Back then Hawley likened Key and Peele to the Shakespearean figures Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Now that critics have seen most of the current season – its third episode airs this week – we have some sense that Danish Graves is no less classic but remarkably less “classy.” His type alloys themselves to power and quietly takes care of the unseemly tasks that are beneath their employers. They assume many forms, Michael Cohen being one. The taciturn family lawyer Mark Hamill channels in “The Fall of the House of Usher” is another, although Danish is comparatively more polished, befitting his role as Lorraine’s delegate in most matters.

Watching “House of Usher” isn't a required prerequisite to fill in the blanks in Danish's curriculum vitae. Are you awake and aware right now? That's sufficient; not much has changed since 2019, which is when the fifth season takes place. Brutish numbskulls still have too much power and threaten to abuse it further if or when they’re given the chance.

FargoDave Foley as Danish Graves in "Fargo" (Michelle Faye/FX)

Neither series creator Noah Hawley nor the “Fargo” producers would claim that this season expressly critiques the policies and culture that Donald Trump’s presidency begat. But Foley has no compunctions about describing Leigh’s Lorraine as a vastly more intelligent and worldly version of the twice-impeached “stable genius.”

Does that make Danish the Rudy Giuliani in this relationship? I ask.

“Sadly it does,” he sighs. “But again, they're smarter than Trump and Giuliani, and I think that makes them a little more fun to watch because there’s not just a naked ugliness to them.”


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


"We live in this world of unguarded terribleness and unguarded cruelty."

Foley takes care to qualify his opinion by saying that Hawley’s writing is psychological as opposed to expressly political. “He deals more with what flaws in human character allow these things to happen more than the political structures behind it,” he said. “Every season of the show explores that. What is so broken about the human character that the events in these stories can happen? What is broken in people? And where is there something in people that isn't broken? What is there to consider redemptive about humanity?”

Foley’s satisfaction in playing a well-heeled scoundrel is palpable. But he cites the peril in cheering on Lorraine and Danish – especially the fixer, who he described as someone with a front row view of Lorraine exploiting the indebted and aspires to be as ruthless and powerful as she is. “Fargo” being what it is, he isn't quite up to the challenge.

“We live in this world of unguarded terribleness and unguarded cruelty,” he said. “People used to be embarrassed by being cruel, embarrassed about being corrupt and dishonest, and tried to act like they weren't. Suddenly, we're in a world where the more horrible you can be publicly, the more you're rewarded. All the curbs on terrible behavior are gone.”

He continued, “I think that's a little bit of what this season's about: people who just have no sense that they should be ashamed of themselves in any way at all and feel like there's some sort of higher moral imperative that comes from the fact that they get away with it.”

New episodes of "Fargo" air 10 p.m. Tuesdays on FX and stream the next day on Hulu.

Robert Smigel on evolving from “SNL” satire and bawdy dog puppets to family-friendly fare like “Leo”

"I never set out to be dangerous," says Robert Smigel. The man behind the bawdy, brazen Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and "Saturday Night Live's" iconic Ambiguously Gay Duo simply says, "I did set out to be satirical," adding, "and I didn't put limits on myself if Lorne Michaels didn't."

Smigel still isn't putting limits on himself — and he's never left behind his cigar-chomping canine alter ego — but these days he's pushing himself in different directions. After co-writing the first two "Hotel Transylvania" movies, he's carved out a new niche in family entertainment. And now, he's a co-writer, co-director and costar of Netflix's animated feature "Leo." Starring Adam Sandler as a seen-it-all septuagenarian tuatara, the film is a multigenerational "Saturday Night Live" reunion of sorts, with Cecily Strong, Rob Schneider and Heidi Gardner also lending their voices.

In a recent "Salon Talks" conversation with me, Smigel opened up about his button-pushing eras in late-night comedy, his current transition to family fare — and the "SNL" sketch that shocked even Dave Chappelle. 

You can watch my full "Salon Talks" interview with Smigel here, or read the transcript of our conversation below.

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

Tell me about “Leo.” It is charming and funny and witty and weird — all the things that a movie should be.

Five or six years ago, Adam Sandler said, "Smighty, we've got to do a musical, like 'Grease' for kids. We both have kids, and they both go to school. Let's make a movie." At that time, I was doing something with Triumph, and then I moved right into directing “The Week Of,” which was a movie Adam did with Chris Rock. Then, Adam was like, “Try this, Smighty. I already wrote the script.”

Me and the other two directors who ended up on the movie, Robert Marianetti and David Wachtenheim, we all kind of thought the script was missing something that needed a reason to be an animated movie. We took a few things out of that script that are in this movie. The kindergartners, that idea came from that script, and so did the kid who has the drone following him.

There was a narration just a couple of times in the movie. At the very end, it was revealed that it was a snake that was in the room. That sort of set me on this “Leo” idea, which I kind of talked to David and Robert about. What if we made this about the class pet?

I have kids in elementary school and I know their friends. I remember this as a kid, your problems seem so important, but they're so minor in the eyes of adults. Whether it's just not being invited to a party or somebody looked at me the wrong way, anything incredibly trivial. I thought of combining those anxieties with this class pet who's seen everything, every type of kid in the last 75 years. He's like, "Oh, no, that's like Michael Jakovich in 1963, and he figured out a way." It was one of those ideas that came pretty quickly, and usually the best ones do.

It's about childhood and the eternal problems of childhood.

The eternal problems of childhood and tween-hood or pre-tweens. These kids are, they're like 11. The “Oh my God,” years. “Oh my God, this is the worst thing that's ever happened.”

It hits so many of your sweet spots because it's animation and music. You really like doing musical things.You were the guy who wrote “Mr. Short Term Memory,” the song.

That set off an entire era. It almost was like a pox on “Saturday Night Live” because at the time of that sketch, which was Conan [O’Brien]'s idea that we did for Tom Hanks but we all wrote it together. At that time, every sketch started with, "And now another episode of Short-Term Memory Man." It was like Don Pardo. I was like, "Let's do a jingle." I wrote that one, and within a year, every character sketch all started with jingles and montage.

I loved writing, even when I was a kid. I was a comedy bully a little bit. I would do impressions, draw cartoons of kids, and sometimes I would just make up little jingles about kids and then it grew into on “SNL,” occasionally I would write like “Christmastime for the Jews.”

It's the time of year to remember and reflect upon the beauty of “Christmastime for the Jews.” I love that song. I love the video. It captures so many elements of what make the season great. You've got the Phil Spector Wall of Sound kind of production.

I know, and Darlene Love.

And you've got the Rankin/Bass-inspired imagery. How did this minute-and-a-half-long thing come together, Robert? 

Like most of the songs in this movie, that came out of the plot of the story. OK, here's a song I'll write about kids wishing things were easier back when they were 10 or a kid. In this case, it was a strange thing. I had a tune in my head, which rarely happens. I mean, sometimes I just walk around, and there's a tune in my head because I can't play a musical instrument. The only way I write songs is, there's a tune in my head, and then I'll sing it into Garage Band or something. 

"I didn't put limits on myself if Lorne Michaels didn't."

“Christmastime for the Jews” was just a tune that was just sitting around and I couldn't think of a premise. Then I came up with that one and I was like, “Oh, great. It's a cartoon.” There were some great Christmas cartoons from when I was a kid. Not when I was a kid, but when I moved to Chicago. They were  classics. There were these very cheaply done stop-motion cartoons called “Hardrock, Coco and Joe" – it's a very Midwestern thing – and "Suzy Snowflake." That's really what, even preceding Rankin/Bass, but I knew it would evoke Rankin/Bass as well. We just went for it, and we got a special group from the Midwest who actually did stop-motion, and they did it for us.

It's a classic “SNL” moment. And this movie, “Leo,” has so many “SNL” veterans in it. You've got Adam, Cecily [Strong], Heidi [Gardner]. You.

Jason [Alexander] hosted.

I want to go back to your “SNL” era because this is what obviously has established you in many ways. You were also boomeranged on the show, which is unusual. You left.

I left and came back.

Everyone who talks about you and your time at “SNL” says you were special to Lorne [Michaels]. Lorne gave you latitude and fought for you and fought for your ideas in a way that very few people got.

He did. He did.

A lot of people have not made it out of that steel cage. You made it out and then went back in.

Well, you put in the time. I think, Lorne, yes, it's a bit of a meritocracy there and that's OK When I first got there, I thought Lorne hated me for a year, and then I barely got rehired after the first year, which was a disastrous year in 1985, '86, with Michael Hall and all these really great people, Joan Cusack, one of the funniest people I've ever known, and Randy Quaid. The show struggled, and we were getting beaten up for the writing, but then they ended up keeping most of the writers, including me, and I survived it. Then we brought in Phil Hartman and Jan Hooks and Dana Carvey, and Nora [Dunn] was there, Kevin [Nealon] and Victoria [Jackson]. It was just sketch veterans, people who really were born to do sketch comedy. It just changed overnight.

I was watching some of these sketches that you wrote and "TV Funhouse." The stuff you get away with, the stuff that I can't believe ever made it to television, shocks me now. Were there ever things that you had to really go to the mat to fight for or that actually didn't make it? 

Well, one of those was pulled permanently. We did Michael Jackson three times. That was one of my first ideas when I went to Lorne and said, "I want to go back to the show. Here's three things I can do. I can do this Ambiguously Gay Duo thing, this ex-presidents cartoon and this Fun with Real Audio thing where we take real audio and turn it into a cartoon." And then the fourth one actually was doing Hanna-Barbera kind of character cartoons about celebrities. The first one I pitched was Michael Jackson as kind of a Yogi Bear. The way Yogi Bear kept snatching picnic baskets, Michael Jackson did the same with underage boys basically. That was the premise. That's what was going on in the '90s.

The '90s were an insane time comedically because the dam burst in the '90s. Basic cable had sort of joined the fray in the '80s, and then HBO had broken out, and there was all this pressure suddenly on network television to compete with basic cable and pay cable, to be more outrageous and reflect the real world more. 

Suddenly in the early '90s, the standards department was dissolved at NBC. It came back in a much softer capacity, and that just happened everywhere. Fox with "In Living Color," the kind of stuff they would do. And everybody applauded it at the time because it was considered taboo-breaking and outrageous. Isn't this great? The networks are loosening up. But in retrospect, some of the most politically incorrect things that would be perceived now, like sketches that made fun of handicapped people or gay people, relentless kind of sketches that way. The '90s and early zeros, I would say would be most reflective of that time.

There were also things that were absolutely brilliant and I think still hold up today.

I'm still proud of the Ambiguously Gay Duo, at least the concept, because it was supposed to make fun of homophobia and our obsession with, "Are these guys gay? They seem gay." And just the absurdity of caring so much, to the point where superheroes, the most heroic people in the world, and all they're trying to do is save the world, and the audience is obsessed with whether they're gay or not.

I was thinking of something that Tina Fey said when Norm McDonald died, which was that he was the last dangerous cast member on “SNL.” I think about that word “dangerous” and the kind of writing that you've done. Do you think what you were doing was dangerous?

"Suddenly in the early nineties, the standards department was dissolved at NBC."

I never thought of it as dangerous. I never set out to be dangerous, but I did set out to be satirical, and I didn't put limits on myself if Lorne Michaels didn't. Also, especially during the Bush administration, the show seemed to struggle after Will Ferrell left. I thought some of the characterizations of Bush, like Will Forte's, were very funny, but they were struggling to do humor about the administration. I  felt like we need to talk about this and so I did some very intense stuff about Bush and about Dick Cheney in particular.

One time, it was almost so far that the audience barely laughed. Oddly enough, Dave Chappelle was visiting the show that day, and he looked at me after the sketch and just was like, "You've got balls." It was like all about the Dick Cheney creating robots to avoid the torture limitations of the Geneva Conventions. He creates a robot because it's technically not a human.

Anyway, “Leo” is a kid movie for the whole family.

Dave Chappelle going, “Wow, you went too far.” That's like Sean Penn saying, “You've got an attitude problem.”

I want to get it back to “Leo.” You have this career that's always also been rooted in nostalgia and childhood, and now you have this other dimension to your life where you are making family films. How does that translate for you in the kind of work that you want to do and the kind of sensibility and sense of humor that you're trying to bring to your work?

That's an interesting question because I just guess, I feel like I'm always just interested in the premise and the idea, and if the idea makes me laugh, whether it's for kids or whether it's a summer comedy, or whether it's a sketch or something for Triumph to do with the real world, it's always, I'm just going to be motivated and excited to do it. 

I think I got a lot out of my system, to be honest with you, in the '90s, Just every trick that was possible, I was able to do, like live animals or having simulated sex with puppets. And to me it was just like a playground. Everything we did at "Conan," all the insane visual jokes, I confess, I probably felt like after a certain point, I had gotten that out of my system, and then I sort of became more interested in stories and less interested in short form.

I had written movies, the “Hans and Franz” movie that was completely insane, that Conan and Dana [Carvey] and Kevin [Nealon] and I did a podcast of this summer. But as I continued to write movies, they resembled real movies a little bit more,. “You Don't Mess with the Zohan” certainly had a lot of insane stuff in it, but it had an arc. It had a character arc at least. 

By the time I got the offer to rewrite “Hotel Transylvania,” I was ready for it. I had a couple of kids by then. I have an older boy with autism, and then 10 years later, we had twin boys that were about two years old when I wrote “Hotel Transylvania,” and they were my obsession. Everything about them informed every aspect of my life, and so writing something for kids came at the right time that way as well.

Trump lawyers cite Russian interference he decried as a “hoax” as defense in D.C. criminal case

Donald Trump's worldview over the last seven years, according to Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, has revolved around two core beliefs: First, that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 presidential election, but even if it or someone else had, it didn't matter because Trump won on his own merit. And second, that Trump's loss of the 2020 election "was not a function of his personal failures but, instead, of systems rigged against him in the abstract or directly altered to his detriment." 

But that perspective — and the false claims of a stolen election Trump has been pushing alongside it — Bump argues, has presented the former president with a significant problem: a federal indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith hinged on his efforts to overturn his electoral defeat that his attorneys have been battling in a Washington, D.C. federal court since it dropped in August. 

In a court filing this week, Trump's attorneys argued that the former president is not at fault because others believed the election may have been undermined. They asserted instead that Russian election interference in 2016, the same subversion that Trump often deems "the Russia hoax," was at least in some part to blame for the distrust of the 2020 election results.

Politico's Kyle Cheney noted the irony in the filing, which centers on efforts of Trump's legal team to acquire materials they believe will be useful for their defense. Among those requested materials is the classified version of an Intelligence Community Assessment titled, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.” The document, an unclassified version of which was released to the public shortly before Trump took office, assessed the scope of Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election and American politics.

This document, Trump's lawyers argue, contains “information relating to a ‘significant escalation’ of foreign influence in the 2016 election motivated then-President Trump and his Administration to focus on foreign influence and cyber risks, as reflected in Executive Order 13848, and to be skeptical of claims about the absence of foreign influence in the 2020 election.”

Trump signed Executive Order 13848 in September 2018, shortly ahead of that year's midterms, the first federal election after the 2016 contest in which Russia had sought to forge significant influence. The order doesn't mention Russia specifically, nor does it indicate that it was a product of Trump's interest in countering Russia's actions. The order instead allowed for the government to respond to similar, general actions.

The Department of Justice announced shortly after the 2018 midterms that no significant interference had been seen in that election and insisted that “Efforts to safeguard the 2020 elections are already underway.”

"But you see why this is useful to Trump’s team," Bump writes. "Here’s a document suggesting that there was a risk from foreign interference — something that would understandably make Trump worried about 2020, at least in theory."

A frustrating moment for the former president came in the wake of the 2020 election when his administration Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other agencies announced on Nov. 5, 2020, that there was “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised” during the presidential election. Trump fired back on social media, dubbing the statement “highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud.”

"There was no evidence for Trump’s claim, since it was not true. But this is the sort of 'skeptical' response his lawyers have to address," Bump writes, arguing that the lawyers, in this week's filing, spun the response as they demanded the classified ICA.

We need your help to stay independent

“Whereas the Special Counsel’s Office falsely alleges that President Trump ‘erode[d] public faith in the administration of the election,’” Trump's attorneys wrote, “the 2016 Election ICA uses strikingly similar language to attribute the origins of that erosion to foreign influence — that is, foreign efforts to ‘undermine public faith in the US democratic process.’”

But that assertion isn't entirely correct, Bump notes, The unclassified version of the ICA makes a more specific claim than what Trump's legal team outlined: that “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency,” and that “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

Trump's lawyers omitted those details.

Having the full ICA, they continue, will provide “the detailed information supporting [its] conclusions … in order to demonstrate to the jury that [Trump] did not create or cause the environment that the prosecution seeks to blame him for.”

But the environment Trump is being accused of fostering is pushing the idea that the 2020 election was tainted due to widespread voter fraud, like in the claim he made in response to CISA rejecting the idea that there was no election interference in 2020 and the unfounded claims he's repeated since.


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


ICA language also doesn't state that Russia succeeded in creating the environment of skepticism around the elections, just that it sought to. The effort to introduce skepticism around the election was successful almost certainly among those who wanted Trump to lose in 2016, not his supporters, Bump points out. Critics of the former president still say that his victory was a product of Russian interference, while his supporters, echoing his views, have long argued that Russia did nothing at all or that their efforts didn't affect anything. 

"The fact that Trump supporters responded to 2020 by insisting that there was an environment of eroded confidence in the election was very obviously not because they had lost confidence because of Russia’s 2016 efforts," Bump writes. "It was because of Trump."

The former president didn't make much effort to hold Russia accountable for the actions of 2016, even going on to deny two months before signing Executive Order 13848 (with Russian President Vladimir Putin at his side) that Russia had interfered at all. Now, however, the notion that he, his administration and his supporters widely questioned the integrity of American elections as a result of interference has become a useful defense in the face of criminal charges.

"So now, it seems, he’s at last willing to concede that Russia interfered," Bump concludes. "Or at least, his attorneys are."

“Unnecessary and unacceptable”: Why the American hunger crisis could get worse in 2024

Just a few days before Thanksgiving, new data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey showed that nearly 28 million people reported experiencing food scarcity in October — both the highest number of 2023 and the highest number recorded by the survey since December 2020. 

It’s already been a difficult year on the hunger beat as many of the pandemic’s comparatively supercharged nutrition benefits, which had kept millions of Americans out of food insecurity, expired. However, the same issues that had inspired bipartisan support for ramping up SNAP in 2020, including surging inflation, unemployment and an ongoing labor crisis, hadn’t disappeared. 

In a March statement to Salon Food, Eric Mitchell, the executive director of the Alliance to End Hunger, wrote that there is never a good time to make it harder for people to buy food, but the cessation of those benefits came at a particularly brutal time. "With inflation and food prices still near record levels, it is still far too expensive for many Americans across the country to put food on the table," Mitchell said. "Without these extra dollars, millions of people will be at risk of hunger."

Food insecurity experts deemed that prospect a “looming hunger cliff” — and again and again this year, our country has fallen off the precipice. However, could a new year bring some relief? 

There are some things working in favor of lessening food insecurity; inflation is finally slowing, though as reported by CNBC in September, it may take a while for the price of many consumer goods to go down accordingly. 

“It is going to be more difficult for the Fed to wring extra inflation out of the economy,” Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services, told the publication. 

This is actually having a dual impact on food insecurity in the country: When grocery prices are high, that’s when many Americans who haven’t traditionally qualified for SNAP (or who don’t qualify under this year’s newly introduced program stipulations) have relied on the assistance of community-based hunger groups like food pantries and soup kitchens. However, as Axios reported last week, while the demand for food bank services remains high, food bank donations have actually fallen. 

According to a new report by Divert, Inc., nearly half of surveyed respondents said they are more likely to donate to food banks during the holiday season than at other times of the year. 

“Yet, with the 2023 holiday season approaching — in which demand for food banks is expected to surge — only 25% of respondents said they are more likely to donate during this year’s holiday season compared to years past,” the report said. “Those who are donating less to food banks this season cite increasing food and grocery costs as the number one reason driving their decision.” 

Per the report, this behavior is emerging despite “overwhelming knowledge among respondents that food insecurity is a growing concern.” Eighty-five percent of the survey respondents indicated they believed food insecurity levels increased since the COVID-19, with 63% believing that the U.S. is “significantly more food insecure” than the latest USDA data shows.

We need your help to stay independent

Food bank organizers and leaders are seeing the ground-level impact of the current hunger crisis. In a recent interview with USA Today, Susannah Morgan, president of Oregon Food Bank, described the situation as the “the logical result of 40 years of dire economic inequality.” 

"This is the worst rate of hunger in my career," said Morgan, who has worked at food banks in Boston, San Francisco and Anchorage, Alaska. “It’s so large, it’s hard to wrap your head around."

There is a lot of government action that could have been taken to prevent this crisis, but one thing that could be done now in an effort to curtail the potential impact is by making the decision to fully fund the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as WIC. 

While WIC has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, as Politico reported, that consensus is now fraying, with House Republicans pushing to pare back WIC spending this year, arguing tough cuts are needed across the government amid the nation’s mounting debt. However, Georgia Machell, the interim president and CEO of the National WIC Association, argues making cuts to this particular program could have dire consequences. 


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


“For the nearly seven million women, infants and children who participate in WIC, the peace of mind that comes with knowing that WIC is on solid ground through the holidays is tempered by the growing uncertainty that looms when funding will expire on January 19,” Machell said in an emailed statement. “Congress has for months refused to consider the Administration’s urgent request for additional funds to cover WIC’s growing caseload.”

She continued: “That inaction increases the chances that states may have to start turning eligible participants away in 2024, or that current participants may at some point face benefit cuts. Either outcome would be unnecessary and unacceptable.” 

So perhaps the question surrounding food insecurity in America these days isn’t so much, will things get better — but without appropriate intervention, how much worse can they get?




 

“Epic humiliation”: GOP mocked for rejecting Hunter Biden offer to testify publicly

The House Oversight Committee's top Democrat Jamie Raskin, D-Md., slammed his GOP colleagues for denying Hunter Biden's request for an open hearing on Dec. 13, the date the president's son is scheduled to appear for a closed-door deposition. Raskin in a statement on Tuesday called House Republicans' move "an epic humiliation" and “a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own Members to pursue it,” referring to his GOP committee members, according to The Hill

“Let me get this straight,” the Maryland Democrat wrote. “After wailing and moaning for ten months about Hunter Biden and alluding to some vast unproven family conspiracy, after sending Hunter Biden a subpoena to appear and testify, Chairman [James Comer (R-Ky.)] and the Oversight Republicans now reject his offer to appear before the full Committee and the eyes of the world and to answer any questions that they pose?” He further argued that Committee Republicans rejected the request because they feared a public hearing would show they did not have evidence to prove President Biden's wrongdoing. “What the Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth," Raskin wrote. 

Raskin's statement comes after Hunter Biden's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, responded Tuesday to a subpoena from the Oversight Committee suggesting a public hearing instead of the committee's proposed closed-door deposition. In his letter, Lowell explained that he did not trust the committee to provide and accurate account of the closed-door proceedings, citing how they have seen the committee "use closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort the facts and misinform the public." Comer on Tuesday rejected the request but asserted that Biden will have the opportunity to publicly testify at a later date.

Trump targets Judge Arthur Engoron’s wife on Truth Social

Donald Trump is now taking aim at the wife of the New York judge overseeing his $250 million civil fraud trial, Raw Story reports. On his Truth Social platform Tuesday, the former president shared at least four posts from conservative activist Laura Loomer that accuse New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron's wife, Dawn Marie Engoron, of attacking Trump via images shared to X/Twitter. One post Loomer screenshotted showed the account, screen-named Dawn Marie with the handle @dm_sminxs, post an image of a person spray-painting "F—k Trump" on a brick wall, while others showed him in prison wear. Other posts from the account also mocked Trump lawyer Alina Habba's courtroom performance.

In a statement to Newsweek earlier this month, Dawn Engoron firmly denied making the posts and told the outlet that the account does not belong to her. "I do not have a Twitter account. This is not me. I have not posted any anti Trump messages," she said. While conservatives argued the posts should result in a mistrial or dismissal of the civil case, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that the social media of a judge's spouse is "not by itself grounds to disqualify a judge," pointing to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas', pro-Trump posts.

"Judges themselves have to post something that raises concerns about their impartiality for recusal or disqualification to be appropriate. Family member social media activity, even one's spouse, isn't enough," Rahmani added. Trump's sharing of these attacks comes as he awaits a ruling from an appeals court on a gag order Engoron imposed on him early in the trial that prohibited him from talking about court staff. The gag order, which has been temporarily suspended does not bar discussing the family members of court personnel.