Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Celebrate Italian-American ingenuity and the lore of New Orleans with this iconic sandwich

The muffaletta (also spelled muffuletta), like the po’-boy, was created in what I like to think of as my own (extended) backyard: the incomparable city of New Orleans.

Of Sicilian origin, muffuletta is actually the name of the Italian bread that holds the virtual charcuterie board of ingredients that make up this massive sandwich together. If you’ve never seen one, muffaletta bread is a large, round, somewhat flat, sesame seed-topped loaf, traditionally baked and wrapped in paper during religious holidays in Sicily. It is now, of course, synonymous with the sandwich; and like beignets, jambalaya and pralines, it is quintessentially New Orleans.     

The origin of this (unusually large) sandwich was between 1890-1920 when nearly 300,000 Italians immigrated to New Orleans, Louisiana. Most set up shop in an area of the French Quarter that soon became known as Little Palermo and one such man, by the name of Salvatore Lupo, opened a small Italian-American grocery store in 1906 called Central Grocery. It was there — at 923 Decatur Street in the heart of what was Little Palermo, where he sold Italian meats, cheeses, breads, olives and such — that he would soon combine the ingredients and create what is now known as The Muffuletta.  

Now owned and operated by the third generation of the Lupo family, Central Grocery is still in business. It actually remained in the same location, 923 Decatur Street, for 115 years, serving paper-wrapped muffaletta and so much more. Unfortunately, Hurricane Ida (August 29, 2021), a Category-4 storm that came onshore exactly 16 years to the day of Hurricane Katrina (August 29, 2005), inflicted heavy damage on the building when a brick wall fell onto its roof. Restoration is still not complete at the time of this publication, but hope remains the family will one day be able to return.

“My” recipe is an homage to the Central Grocery/ Lupo family original, but it is simpler to make and just as satisfying to eat. It was given to me by a retired chef named Brenda, who moved to Mobile, Alabama in the early 1990s from Chalmette, Louisiana, a little town not far from New Orleans. She was a kind and patient teacher and I soaked up all I could during our time together.


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


This is one of the best sandwiches ever and another gift from all the cultural melding that took place in the South, in New Orleans in particular, at the turn of the 20th century. It would be nice to think the Italians were welcomed with open arms, that their work ethic and all they brought to the table was appreciated, but that was certainly not the case. Luckily, these hard-working, entrepreneurial people survived the xenophobia and endured. As a result of their perseverance, we are the lucky recipients of their flavors and cooking methods they brought with them from their native Italy. 

This sandwich packs a punch from the briny, garlicky olive salad and spicy cured meats, but the creamy cheeses and fluffy, chewy bread mellow and balance its flavors absolutely perfectly. And it is everything your body craves after a sweaty day of fun in the sun.   

Muffaletta
Yields
12 servings
Prep Time
15 minutes, plus 6 to 8 hours refrigeration time 

Ingredients

For the olive salad:

1 1/2 cups chopped green olives

1 cup chopped, oil-cured black olives

2/3 cup extra virgin olive oil

1/2 cup chopped pimento (or if you prefer, extra finely chopped red bell pepper, though this is not traditional)

1 tsp. dried oregano

1/3 cup finely chopped Italian parsley

1-3 cloves minced fresh garlic

Juice of 1/2 lemon

Ground black pepper to taste

 

 

Remaining ingredients for the sandwich:

1 large round Italian loaf

1 cup shredded lettuce

2 cups thinly sliced tomatoes, preferably de-seeded

1/2 lb Italian salami, ham, pastrami, pepperoni (combo of cured meats of choice)

1/4 lb thinly sliced mozzarella, provolone and/or Swiss cheese

 

Directions

  1. For the olive salad: Combine all ingredients in a bowl with a cover and allow to marinate several hours.
  2. To assemble sandwich: Cut bread in half horizontally and remove the majority of bread from inside the bottom half, leaving about an inch of full, intact bread as a border all around.

  3. Drain the olive salad, reserve oil for a salad dressing later. Place about half of olive salad in the hollowed out, bottom bread. Do not spread to edges, leave the border clean for easier serving.

  4. Layer on first lettuce then tomato, then cheeses and then meats, in that order. Spoon a mound of olive salad as the final layer on top of meats and cover with top half of bread.

  5. Wrap sandwich in Saran Wrap, then place in between two flat pans, plates or cutting boards. Place an iron skillet or something heavy on top to provide weight in order to press the sandwich.

  6. Refrigerate while weighted down for half the day or overnight.

  7. To serve, unwrap and cut into small slices. It is very filling!


Cook’s Notes

-The muffaletta is made for travel and only gets better the longer it sits chilling, which makes it a go-to for a day on the boat or a day spent at the beach. It’s ready to slice and serve straight from your cooler.

The Bread 

Although I am sure this is blasphemous to even suggest, you can make this sandwich on French bread or baguette. (You won’t miss the sesame seeds.)

The Meats

Traditionally, a muffaletta has Genoa salami, ham and/or mortadella, an Italian luncheon meat made from pork sausage. Whatever you choose, purchase from a deli and ask it to be sliced very thinly.

The Cheese

Some say Provolone and Swiss, some Provolone and Mozzarella — the choice is yours. Whatever you choose, thinly sliced from a deli is best.

The Lettuce and Tomato

It is hard to beat cold, shredded iceberg lettuce for this sandwich. Iceberg gets a bad rap, but it the perfect lettuce for sandwiches thanks to its crispness and mild flavor. I am a proponent of peeling and de-seeding tomatoes and in the case of preparing this sandwich, I remain steadfast. The watery, seedy pockets of tomatoes are just that: watery and seedy. They offer nothing but moisture, which is the last thing you want for your sandwich. So even if you choose not to peel, consider de-seeding. (See here for more information and an easy how-to.)

The Vegetarian Muffaletta

Yes, it exists. I’ve had it and love it! You can obviously omit the meat (and increase the cheese slices) and call it vegetarian, but there are other ways to prepare this for your favorite herbivore. You can add chickpeas to the olive salad, as well as chopped artichoke hearts and other finely chopped vegetables. Increase the liquids and seasonings as needed to keep everything covered in the marinade. You can cook and crumble tempeh or other vegetarian protein and add it to the olive salad as well.

The Hot Muffaletta

This is simply a preference: Do you like your muffaletta heated or not? Napoleon House, in a building nearly 250 years old, is one of the oldest bars/eateries in New Orleans and also has Italian immigrant history. Joseph Impastato opened his Italian-American grocery store on this site in 1914. Today, Napoleon House serves their muffalettas hot, claiming to be the first to introduce hot muffalettas, using the following method: Construct your sandwich and lightly brush oil on top of bread. Wrap completely in aluminum foil and bake in a 350 oven for 20 minutes.

 

The actual, original muffuletta recipe ingredients, from Central Grocery

Ingredients

Olive salad:

1 lb pimento stuffed green olives

1 lb black olives

4 pickled onions

2 large pepperoncini, drained and left whole

4 tbsp capers

1 head minced garlic

3 tsp oregano

1 qt. pickled cauliflower, drained and sliced

1 stalk celery, chopped

1 tsp black pepper

2 tbsp lemon juice

Mixture of olive oil and canola

 

Sandwich Ingredients:

Italian round bread

Olive salad

1/4 lb each: mortadella, ham and hard Genoa salami 

1/4 lb each: Mozzarella and Provolone cheese

Optional: lettuce and tomato

GOP up in arms over New York court ruling that could give Democrats up to 6 more House seats

A New York appeals court on Thursday ordered the state to redraw its congressional map, a move in Democrats’ favor that would allow the liberal-dominated state legislature to shift as many as six House seats in their direction for the next decade, The New York Times reports.

The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Albany said in its majority opinion that last year’s competitive, court-drawn maps were only meant as a temporary fix and ordered the state’s bipartisan congressional redistricting commission to restart the process. Republicans vowed to appeal the decision, pushing the case into the lap of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, just a year after it intercepted Democrats’ earlier attempt to gerrymander the congressional district maps. The map a neutral-court-appointed expert drew last spring was intended to bolster competition and ultimately helped Republicans flip four seats in the House.

If Thursday’s ruling stands, both parties believe Democrats could conceivably create passable district lines that would make it next to impossible for incumbent Republicans —like Representatives Mike Lawler and Marc Molinaro in the Hudson Valley, and Anthony D’Esposito and George Santos on Long Island and in Queens — to be re-elected. “New York Democrats are attempting a blatant partisan power grab thinly disguised as a court case,” Jack Pandol, a spokesman for the House Republicans’ campaign, said. “Republicans will appeal to protect the will of the voters of New York, and we will fight to hold the line in the Empire State.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene fumes after Secret Service closes White House cocaine investigation

The Secret Service investigation into the cocaine found at the White House concluded with no usable forensic or video evidence that could identify the person responsible for bringing the substance into the building, three Secret Service officials with knowledge of the probe told NBC News

The small plastic baggy with the powder, found in a storage cubby at the White House on a Sunday evening earlier this month, received advanced testing and was examined at two federal labs but no DNA or fingerprints were found, the officials said. Security camera footage was also reviewed but “[t]here was no surveillance video footage that produced investigative leads,” the Secret Service said in a statement Thursday. Without that kind of physical evidence, agency officials conceded, “The investigation will not be able to single out a person of interest from the hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered.”

A congressional briefing on the incident took place privately Thursday morning after House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer requested it in a letter to the agency’s director. “With all the drug testing tools available, a list of approx 500 people, surveillance cameras, fingerprints, and more, the Secret Service is ending their investigation on who brought cocaine in the White House with ZERO suspects! But the DOJ is still arresting and prosecuting more people for J6,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a former member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, wrote of the investigation’s end.

Ex-DOJ official: Michigan interview shows Jack Smith targeting pro-Trump “broad national conspiracy”

Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team interviewed Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for “several hours” in March as part of the ongoing federal investigation into efforts to interfere with the 2020 presidential election, Benson told CNN Wednesday.

“[The interview] really underscored, I think, the depth through which the federal prosecutors are looking into everything and the seriousness with which they’re taking what occurred and the quest for justice to ensure it doesn’t happen again,” Benson told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Wednesday evening.

Though Benson did not disclose specific details about the interview — including whether she was asked about former President Donald Trump or if Smith was present — she did reveal that prosecutors focused on, among other subjects, “the impact of the misinformation on [election workers’] lives and the threats that emerged from that from various sources.”

“Myself and the election officials who have – at request or simply because we have a story tell – have been speaking to authorities, I think it’s really a reflection of our desire to ensure that the law is followed, and where there’s evidence of wrongdoing, there’s justice that is served,” Benson said.

She added that she is “willing to speak with anyone,” including the grand jury, “about what we endured.”

“If and when we are requested, we’ll be a part of any proceedings that require my testimony,” Benson said, adding that “it’s important for the American public to know that what occurred in 2020 was really detrimental to who we are as Americans.”

Benson’s interview with federal prosecutors is the third recent meeting between Smith’s team and officials in key battleground states that Trump and his allies targeted in efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election reported in recent weeks. CNN reported that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger met with prosecutors last month in connection to the probe, and former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers told Collins last week that he was interviewed by investigators seeking information relevant to the federal inquiry a few months ago.


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


The revelation also indicates the special counsel’s meticulousness in building up the case regarding the former President and his allies. CNN legal analyst Elliott Williams, a former deputy assistant attorney general, argued on Thursday’s edition of “CNN This Morning” that Benson’s recent meeting is evidence of the depth of Smith’s investigation.

“They have spoken to people in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and now Michigan,” said Williams. “What I am seeing is a pretty broad national conspiracy touching on any aspect of election meddling or election interference. They could be building one massive case, the mother of all election conspiracy cases, that could be charged in any one jurisdiction bringing in evidence of all the others… it’s pretty vast!”

Olivia Troye, a former national security advisor for former Vice President Mike Pence, said during the appearance that the round of latest interviews appears to signal that Smith is nearing the end of his investigation and that charging decisions will be made soon.

“I think they’re getting close to wrapping it up, hopefully,” she said. “I think they need to move forward. I think they’re now talking to people who are really there at the front lines of it from 2020, being bullied and intimidated by these individuals.”

Benson’s interview occurred after her office complied with a government subpoena late last year, providing an array of documents including communication between Michigan officials, former Trump attorneys and individuals working for his campaign to Smith’s office. Included in the materials was an email from a local Michigan elections official reporting a voicemail they received from someone who identified as a lawyer for Trump’s former personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. 

“While the City Clerk of Rochester Hills, Michigan, I received voicemails in December 2020 specifically requesting access to the election equipment,” the email read.

Teacher who wanted students to sing Dolly Parton and Miley Cyrus song “Rainbowland” is terminated

A Wisconsin school board has terminated an elementary school teacher who tweeted in March about her disappointment that administrators had banned students from singing the Dolly Parton and Miley Cryus duet “Rainbowland.” The song was deemed potentially “controversial,” with WISN reporting that some “parents in the district said the decision was made because the song encourages LGBTQ+ acceptance and references rainbows.”

Melissa Tempel wrote earlier this year: “My first graders were so excited to sing ‘Rainbowland’ for our spring concert but it has been vetoed by our administration. When will it end?” Tempel tagged Parton, Cyrus, the Waukesha School District, the federal civil rights page and GSafe, a statewide organization working to create “just schools for LGBTQ+ youth in Wisconsin.”

The tweet went viral, and Tempel was put on leave in April. On Wednesday, the School District of Waukesha Board of Education unanimously voted to terminate her, effective immediately. An attorney for the school board claimed that Tempel had violated its policy of tweeting her thoughts before voicing them to her supervisors, according to WISN. Tempel’s attorney, meanwhile, rebutted that “she was exercising her right to free speech.”

“Rainbowland” was co-written by Cyrus, who identifies as queer. The allegedly “controversial” lyrics in this song about rainbows and acceptance include: “Living in a Rainbowland / The skies are blue and things are grand / Wouldn’t it be nice to live in paradise / Where we’re free to be exactly who we are.”

“It’s become a truism in recent years that the one thing all Americans agree on is a love for Dolly Parton . . . But now even Parton can no longer sidestep the escalating right-wing censorship campaign that is tearing through schools,” Salon’s Amanda Marcotte wrote in March.

 

Grocery prices remained steady in June, following significant food price hikes in May

Shoppers will be relieved to know that grocery prices have remained steady in June following a significant hike in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. Although food prices have risen more than overall inflation, the rate of increase has been slowing in recent months. In the past 12 months, food prices went up by 5.7%, while inflation grew by 3%. Grocery store prices also grew 4.7%, while menu prices went up by 7.7%.

Jared Bernstein, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, a group that advises the president, told CNN that the grocery increase in the year through June was “the lowest annual increase since September 2021.” From May to June, egg prices, which were at an all time high about five months ago, were down 7.3%. The prices of certain meat products — including ham, pork, bacon and certain cuts of beef — dropped, alongside milk and cheese prices. 

However in addition to the price decreases, there were a few items that saw overall price increases: uncooked ground beef, breakfast cereal, chicken and flour. The price of fruits and vegetables as a category also rose nearly 1%. 

 

“We beat ourselves up”: Michelle Buteau recognizes our insecurities and reflects our sexiness back

Michelle Buteau is winning. She has the husband, the beautiful kids and a spectacular career in show business. And she has put in the work. When I talked to the comedian ahead of the release of her Netflix show, “Survival of the Thickest,” she explained how this project has been years in the making.

Comedians that can do other things and be multi-hyphenates, we’ve been working for free for years — whether it’s writing sketches with your friends or hosting some stuff on a cable network,” Buteau said. “By the time you do get to a position like this, you know how to call the shots and you know exactly what you want.”

Buteau has been making waves on the comedy circuit for years leading up to her breakout Netflix special “Welcome to Buteaupia.” She’s also the host of “The Circle” and has starred in TV shows and movies, including “Awkwafina Is Nora from Queens,” “Rick and Morty,” “2 Dope Queens” and “Russian Doll.” “Survival of the Thickest,” which she produced, wrote and stars in as the lead Mavis, is inspired by her memoir and is out now on Netflix.

Mavis, who is loosely based on Buteau, is on the verge of a breakthrough in her career as a fashion designer, when she catches her boyfriend and business collaborator cheating with a younger, smaller version of her. As a result, Mavis blows up her life and has to start from scratch with a new apartment, in a new neighborhood, with a new possible love interest that must be vetted by her friend group, while she navigates her new career.

Mavis’ two best friends guide her through this journey while trying to figure out their own drama. “Survival of the Thickest” stays committed to the funny, but also deals with serious issues like ageism, race, homophobia and body positivity.

Watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Michelle Buteau here or read a Q&A of our conversation below to learn more about the making of “Survival of the Thickest,” why she sees flaws as part of life’s journey and how dads like me can better support our wives.

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

Welcome, Michelle Buteau, the brilliant actor, writer, producer and hilarious comedian. How’s it going?

You forgot mother, daughter, taxpayer.

Mother’s a big title. I see the stuff that my wife does and I couldn’t imagine.

I know y’all can’t, but we can because it’s real life and if we don’t do it, nobody else will. 

What do you say to dads who want to be better at assisting their wives? Because I feel like as a father, I’m the assistant.

I’d say read the room. Read the room more often. Because I think a lot of guys, if you’re in this heteronormative relationship, you just assume that it’s going to be done because she’s always doing it. But it would be nice to think three steps ahead. Like, is the laundry done? Are they going to eat? What are they going to eat later? They might need something to drink. Check it out. 

“I had a vision. I’m a good person. I’m funny as f**k, so just let me do it.”

Also, their development. Talk to them about something different. Take them somewhere. Plan a family day. Do all that stuff. Even with the bath time. As soon as the dinner is done – I don’t know who’s cooking – whoever’s cooking, the other person should clean. Let’s go do a bath. I’ll do the bath and also clean the bath. It’s just thinking three to five steps ahead, which is what most women do, and that’s why we tired. 

That’s why when you walk down the street and someone’s like, “Smile mama. You so pretty, smile.” It’s just like, “You want to come to my house and do what I do? Then you smile, b***h and shut up. Go tell your mom I said hi because you probably still live with her and collect checks.” 

You wrote “Survival of the Thickest.” You produced the show and you are the star. What does it feel like to put so much energy into something and then actually see it come alive?

It doesn’t come out of nowhere. I’ve been doing comedy since 2001. I’m bad at math so you do it. I think it’s over 20 years. Thank God I age well. Because Black don’t crack, and beige don’t age. Honestly, comedians that can do other things and just be multi-hyphenates, we’ve been working for free for years. Whether it’s writing sketches with your friends or hosting some stuff on a cable network. We’ve actually been putting in the work for a long time, so by the time you do get to a position like this, you know how to call the shots and you know exactly what you want.

If you’ve been lucky like me and you’ve been working on other sets for TV and film, you could say, “Oh my God, I really like this,” or, “Uh-uh, I wouldn’t do that.” I had a comedian named Wil Sylvince tell me a long time ago, “Just don’t go to the comedy clubs where you’re the best. Also go where you’re the worst. Because you learn from people who are at the top of their game.” That’s what I love to do, and I feel like I really got that opportunity with this show. 

All four of our directors are boss a*s bitches. All women. Most of the heads of our department were women. My showrunner, Danielle Sanchez-Witzel, she’s a boss a*s bitch. She’s done a ton of TV and she’s actually on the negotiation committee for the WGA right now. Like-minded individuals who only want to help you be your best, highest truest self is where it’s at for me. I really can’t f**k with anything else. That’s why I don’t talk to half of my family. Sorry. See you on Facebook.

You said something very interesting about coming up in the industry and doing the free work. I teach writing and when I talk to my students about being a writer and the grind and I talk about the free work, they look at me like I have three heads. This new generation, they’re like, “I’m going to have my self-care and you’re going to pay me for my time and my value.”

Yes, it’s precious.

Is that sustainable?

I don’t think so. Look, I think it’s a gray area. The reason why the Guild is fighting is because writers shouldn’t have to do stuff for free, but you should be able to get to a place where you’ve had enough experience writing on your own and with your friends because you love it and you’re so passionate about it and you really can’t do anything else that you should just have ideas in your back pocket to bring to the table. Nobody cares about a pretty face or how many followers you have on social media in a writers’ room. Because we need to get pages done. 

I was just in a TV writers’ room. We all were ugly. 

You can’t have pretty unless somebody know the ugly. It’s not going to be funny if it’s shiny all the time. I really appreciate ugly a*s writers. Because tell me what it is. Tell me what your life has been like. I think every story is important and valuable. How can we make it into a story for TV and elevate it?

“Fat people, disabled people and queer people are f**king sexy and we should see that on camera.”

Especially as books are being banned and this conversation about finding your truth about who you want to be and how you want to live is on the chopping block, which is just insane, these stories are way more important, more than ever, to put into the film and television. I’m really glad I got a chance to do that because my cast and crew is very diverse. We have Peppermint who’s been on “Drag Race,” and she is a Black trans woman. We had non-binary PAs and also actors. Everything I wanted to do, I got to do, which is very rare. But I had a vision. I’m a good person. I’m funny as f**k, so just let me do it.

Do you feel like being inclusive made the project take longer to come to life? I know sometimes when we want to do things our way, the industry tends to try to slow us down.

Definitely had to fight some fights, but I try not to look at it as a fight. It’s just more of a debate. Definitely you have to stand up for yourself and know why you have this opinion. If someone’s just saying, “Why does it have to be inclusive?” Then you have to give them the A, B, C to their X, Y and Z. There’s nothing wrong with that. You can’t just show up in a room and be like, “This is what I want,” unless you’re a Kardashian.

I think it’s important for you to know why you want this done too. Now I don’t think it slowed down the process in terms of doing the show. I don’t think it slowed down my process in terms of being a performer. Because I do believe we can get our jobs done without being an a*shole. You can be an a*shole and work, but also you’re going to age me, and that feels like emotional osteoporosis. I just feel like the way you do one thing is the way you do everything. I’m very inclusive with people in my life, so let’s go ahead and build on this and do something really fun and funny and slightly educational.

One of the best parts of the show is that New York is a character and it’s not just a basic, stereotypical version of New York that we’ve been spoonfed throughout our lives. In this beautiful diverse world, we have your character, Mavis. She is brilliant and talented. This is funny because when I say good stuff about Mavis, you get to own it. But if I say bad stuff about Mavis, you’re like, “Oh yeah, Mavis needs to work on that.”

It’s funny because it really is language. We beat ourselves up for our bodies. Like, “Oh, this is a problem area.” It’s not, it’s a human area. “Oh, I’m doing something bad.” No, you’re just on a journey to self-discovery and you’re just doing something real. If you’re not learning from your mistakes, then you might be an a*shole and you’re not reading the room. You won’t get anywhere in life and you’ll wonder why. 

“I’ve been cheated on before more than once in life. It was a jumpstart to the next part of life I was supposed to be living.”

I play Mavis Beaumont. Mavis was my grandmother’s name, and I love her so much, and she’s one of the strongest women I know and was introduced to in my life. When I was thinking of character names, the spirit hit me. I was like, absolutely it’s her. People always talk about, “Oh, when I’m 30 I need this to happen,” or 35. But really for I think men and women, when you’re approaching 40, your late 30s is a time for you to say, “OK, is this who I’m going to be?

“Am I going to be in this relationship with someone where I don’t really know if they’re the one, but they’re really good on paper? Am I going to be stuck in this job where it’s not fulfilling, but it’s definitely keeping the commas in the bank account? Am I going to live in this neighborhood where I don’t see myself reflected in the people, but at least I got a window in New York?”

Mavis, I can say, is cheated on and I really wanted her to be cheated on in the beginning. She’s cheated on right away from her boyfriend. I’ve been cheated on before more than once in life. It was a jumpstart to the next part of life I was supposed to be living. I was just staying in this relationship stagnant because I thought it was good. 

You don’t have to fight all the time for something to be bad. I didn’t know. Most of the women in my family had been cheated on and they figured out how to pick themselves up and keep it moving. That’s why I was like, “She going to be cheated on and she’s got to figure out who she wants to be.” Like I was saying, all those things that we think about in our late 30s before we head into being middle-aged. 

Her life blows up.

Yeah. When something happens in another chapter in your life, then you go to this other chapter and say, “OK, I guess it’s time to do this because now I can’t put this energy to something that’s not working anymore. I’m going to put it to something that will only serve me.” I think I really wanted my character, Mavis, to be a stylist because I definitely want to talk about body positivity and that fat people, disabled people and queer people are f**king sexy and we should see that on camera. Also, I really want her to be a stylist because I wanted a good a*s budget for the wardrobe. Don’t give me that Old Navy couture money.

Plus, it was just a beautiful platform to say, “OK, how do we just make all these oddy bodies and fatty bodies just look and feel good?” Also, it’s a job that your immigrant parents aren’t going to understand. People know how to dress themselves. Why are you dressing people for a living? Being a stylist hit all the marks in terms of what it was like for me to tell my parents that I wanted to be a comedian. They left Jamaica and Haiti to come to America to give me a better life. I’m out here just telling d**k jokes in Express jeans. Bootcut jeans! What a mess.

This show will spark some serious conversations about how cheating on your partner can affect the family. You’re not just cheating on the person you with, but you’re breaking up friend groups, you are knocking off a parent’s dreams and all of these different things happen. I was cheated on in high school and what I will say is when I got cheated on them back in high school, it felt a whole lot better being the person who cheated.

Because you cheated. Because you were young. Yes, of course. Full disclosure, I cheated in high school too. I didn’t have the vocabulary to tell somebody this isn’t working. I feel really seen and sexy by this other person. Later in life, absolutely you got to talk about that. 

“They left Jamaica and Haiti to come to America to give me a better life. I’m here telling d**k jokes in Express jeans.”

But I really want to make this character Jacques, who’s played by Taylor Sole, who’s amazing and relatable. Yes, he cheats on his girlfriend, but he is also a hardworking Black man who’s a photographer who’s starting to get a lot of cachet, a lot of money, a lot of things thrown at him that he never had before. What does that look like? When the love is really there and you really truly just step out for this one mistake because you didn’t talk about the stuff that was wrong in your relationship for so long. What does that look like? He wasn’t getting the emotional intimacy that he really wanted from her. She was stuck in the day-to-day of, I cook, I clean, I touch a d**k, we keep it moving, we’re good on paper, boom. It’s like there’s so much more in between, and what does a soulmate really look like? 

Also, even being in your late 30s, both of their families really wanted them together and work through it. There’s this generational thing that happens with cheating too. Where we’re just supposed to understand it. I think that stops at my generation where it’s like, “Or we could choose better.” 

I think having kids right now, a friend of mine, Jordan Carlos, we do a really hilarious podcast together called “Adulting.” He told me, “When you have kids, you’re going to learn how to parent yourself.” I didn’t know what he meant until I had to make some big decisions. I’m like, “Oh, now I’m an example for them.”

You have a close friend in the television show named Kahlil. I like the dynamic in your relationship because you don’t see that enough in television. I like how you guys hold each other accountable, and it’s like a brother and sister thing. Was that intentional? Was that something that you felt like was missing from television or did it just automatically happen?

Yeah. The minute Netflix was like, “Let’s turn your book into a show,” the first character I wrote about was Mavis’ best friend who was a guy that she’s known since seventh grade. Because that is copy and pasted from my life. My friend Rashim has been my North Star. A lot of people have always asked us, “Are you guys together? Are you hooking up?” It’s like, no, you could just love on each other. 

Many people that want to know about the show want to know when they’re going to hook up. I’m like, “Look, men and women should be friends. We can learn a lot from each other.” To say that “When are they going to hook up?” to me just felt hella misogynistic because you’re just saying that women are good for one thing. At some point we got to hook up and that’s not what it is. 

I thought it was really important to just showcase my New York and my world. That’s why I have Khalil, who is the brother that she never wanted, and also Marley who’s just like a rich b***h, older Black woman just out here like the Oracle taking names, kicking booty. If there was a Black girl reboot of “Wolf of Wall Street,” that’s who Marley is. It’s so nice to have someone like that in your life too, just to be like, sis, you ain’t doing it, so do it like this.

The show is hilarious. Everyone knows you are super funny. Are you on tour right now or are you preparing for another tour? Can we expect another special?

Oh my goodness. I would love to do another special. I feel like it’s been a good long time since my last special. I love when comedians take three to five years for the next special. We don’t need to be popping one out every year. That’s crazy.

You got to live some life, right?

You got to live some life, have some experiences. I have been doing that and I’m going on tour this fall. It’s going to be called “Full Heart, Tight Jeans.” Because whenever somebody asks me how I’m doing, I don’t like to be like, “Good, how are you?” I’m going to let them know. My heart is always full and my jeans are always tight, so I let them know. That’s what I named the tour. It’ll be very fun.

Where you going? What cities?

Good question. You can ask my agent. Sometimes I’m a pretty face. I’m no Christopher Columbus. I’m bad with directions. But I’m doing some America. Something in Canada and something in Europe. I actually have the same birthday as Amelia Earhart, which I always say we definitely are bold and bad with directions. Too soon.

You have two young kids, twins. You have this excellent advice column with Real Simple. Is having the advice column kind of like training to make sure you push your babies in the right direction?

Yeah, kind of. I really am going off of their personalities. There’s definitely the dos and don’ts in general. But I think for them, I’m just going to go off of them. Which I think is really important. I don’t think enough parents do. Because I’m realizing now they’re such a representative of you. If they do something embarrassing, it’s just like, that’s on me. But it’s not. Everything is happening for a reason, and they’re just testing boundaries, and people still do that in adulthood, to be quite frank.

I love doing this modern manners column. But I didn’t think it would be so hard. I realized that I’m really good at emotional relationship advice. The modern manners of it all is very interesting because America’s big. America’s like the Costco of countries. But for 330 million people, I don’t know how you live your life in Oklahoma. I don’t know what the Starbucks line is like.

Do people ask you questions sometimes you’re like, “Wait, I can’t answer this”?

I just try to answer the best of my ability. I just let them know what I would do and has that ever happened to me, personal stories too because this isn’t about me telling you how to live. This is about us having a conversation. Even if I’ve never met you.

With my daughter, I do the yes method. I say yes to everything. If she wants ice cream at two o’clock in the morning, yes. If she wants to go to a waterpark in February, I’m like, f**k it, we’re going to find one. I just say yes.

Why do you say yes? Did your parents always tell you no?

I just feel like I’m an old dad. She’s three. All of my friends started having kids when they were like 15. She was born when I was 39. I’m kind of like a grandparent in my friend group. Grandparents tend to say yes more than regular parents. Technically I’m kind of like a grandparent. It pisses my wife off. However, it makes my daughter really happy.

I have a lot of opinions. You want them?

Please.

OK. That’s going to work up until it’s not. She’s three now, but at 13 it’s going to be like a phone, a car, a night out. A crop top. A heel.

What? A night out?

Yes, 13 is sleepovers. They want to assimilate and do what their friends do. It’s just like, “Uh-oh we’re going to figure out how to have a conversation.” Honestly, you’re never going to be the bad guy because she knows that she’s loved. It’s OK. You don’t have to be good cop all the time.

I’m very scared of being the bad guy.

I know that, but she feels the love. She knows. You know when someone likes you, even if you don’t even know how to say words. She knows that you love her and it’s OK to be the bad cop. It is. Because then it’s a shared experience with your wife and it’s not like 90/10. Because it can’t just be all on her. Because then she’s never going to enjoy any of the yes moments either. You get all that, so it’s unbalanced. I would say do it together.

“Survival of the Thickest” is currently streaming on Netflix.

 

“DOJ wants clear precedent”: “Very surprising” DOJ appeal argues Oath Keepers’ sentences too lenient

The Department of Justice on Wednesday appealed the sentences of seven members of far-right extremist group the Oath Keepers — including founder Stewart Rhodes — for their roles in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. According to Politico, the appeal signals prosecutor’s dissatisfaction with the severity of the members’ sentences. 

“This is very surprising,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, a New York University law professor, explaining that appeals of sentences by prosecutors are “rare.”

“Sentencing appeals are unusual (judges have considerable discretion) & while the govt can object to procedural or substantive flaws at sentencing, the cases are hard to win,” wrote former U.S. attorney and federal prosecutor Joyce Vance. “Strong sign DOJ wants clear precedent for long sentences for those even more responsible for the insurrection that the Oath Keepers.”

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in May delivered the harshest sentence of any Capitol attack defendant — 18 years — to Rhodes to reflect his leadership role in what the federal judge described as a criminal conspiracy aiming to violently disrupt the transfer of presidential power.

The sentence for Rhodes, a disbarred attorney and Yale Law School grad, however, was seven years shorter than the prosecutor-recommended 25-year prison term and four years below the “guidelines range” they agreed upon based on Rhodes’ conduct.

Several of Rhodes’ associates received sentences that similarly fell below the recommended guidelines ranges. Among those who were convicted of seditious conspiracy like Rhodes:

  • Florida Oath Keeper leader Kelly Miggs was sentenced to 12 years; the Justice Department sought 21.
  • Robert Minuta of New York received a 4.5-year sentence; the DOJ sought 17 years.
  • Joseph Hackett of Florida was sentenced to 3.5 years; the DOJ sought 12.
  • Arizona’s Ed Vallejo was sentenced to three years; the Justice Department sought 17.
  • Florida’s David Moerschel received a three-year sentence; the Justice Department sought 10 years.

The department also appealed the convictions of two Oath Keepers who, though convicted of conspiring to obstruct Congress, were acquitted of seditious conspiracy. Jessica Watkins of Ohio received an 8.5-year jail sentence, though the DOJ sought 18 years, and Kenneth Harrelson of Florida was sentenced to 4 years, after the DOJ sought 15.


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


The sentences reflect Mehta’s view of Rhodes as the main force behind the conspiracies. During sentencing hearings, several defendants claimed that Rhodes manipulated or roused them into participating in the insurrection.

Dozens of Oath Keepers, after acting as security for speakers at former President Donald Trump’s rally that day, would join the rioters and lead one of the early advances into the Capitol. The group split up once inside with half the members gunning for the Senate and the other half heading toward the House. Three Oath Keepers involved pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and cooperated with federal prosecutors.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined Politico’s request for comment. Though scant information is included in the court filings — the appeal notes the government’s objections but does not provide a rationale — more information is likely to come from formal documents that will be filed in the coming months.

The government’s appeals will likely be considered alongside the appeals filed by the same defendants who are challenging both their convictions and their sentences.

House Freedom Caucus members say MTG dodging GOP chairman to avoid getting kicked out

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has officially been removed from the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., confirmed to NBC News Wednesday, citing the right-wing Georgian’s clashes with her colleagues. Greene is the first lawmaker to be booted from the ultraconservative group since it was started by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and then-Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., and others in 2015.

Other Freedom Caucus members had said the group voted on June 23 to oust Greene in part due to her argument with Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., on the House floor last month and vocal support of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., during his bid for the speakership and trillion-dollar debt deal with President Joe Biden. But confusion about her status in the group has mounted over the last few weeks after Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry, R-Pa. declined to comment on the matter, and Greene insisted she was not informed she was removed. Some members suggested Greene has been dodging Perry’s attempts to deliver the news. By Wednesday, she told NBC News that she and Perry still had not spoken personally about the issue. 

Buck said the Georgia conservative was removed because of her repeated “attacks” on her GOP colleagues, not her political views. “She has consistently attacked other members of the Freedom Caucus in an irresponsible way, and as a result of that she was kicked out of the Freedom Caucus,” he said, “and she should not be, she should not be a member.”

Joe Biden says the right things — in Lithuania. But does that even count?

This week I spoke to a longtime contact of mine who told me he had to swim to work.

He wasn’t bragging. He lives in Montpelier, Vermont, and both his office and his home were under water.

It’s all about the communication.

Meanwhile, President Biden stepped onto the stage in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Wednesday and gave a classic Joe Biden speech, devoid of rancor and with plenty of energy.

He spoke about the G7, NATO, the war in Ukraine and, yes, climate change.

He was immediately eviscerated in certain circles as “Sleepy Joe,” the proponent of the “Forever War” or “Cocaine Joe,” who heads a crime family intent on destroying the United States. 

Biden said, “The world is changing” —  what his opponents heard was that he is destroying it. Or at least that’s what they want you to believe.

It always boils down to communication.

Or, if you prefer, a communication breakdown. And yes, it’s always the same — especially in politics. It’s enough to drive you insane. Thank you, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, John Bonham and Robert Plant for that earworm.

If you’re an American voter, chances are you’ve said at one point or another that politicians won’t talk about the issues. If you’re a politician, you know that talking about certain issues turns off many voters. Either voters don’t understand the issues, or they don’t want to confront them — so you’re at risk of alienating the very people you need to get elected.

If you are Donald Trump, of course, it’s all about you.

Before an estimated crowd of 10,000 at Vilnius University, Biden bluntly confronted two of the most problematic issues facing us as we ramp up toward the 2024 presidential election: the war in Ukraine and climate change.

Joe Biden’s entire administration suffers from the “Cool Hand Luke” syndrome: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

In the case of climate change, it’s easy to walk into Congress with a snowball and denounce climate change as a hoax, or to ignore the issue completely on the campaign trail. It’s hard as hell to ignore it after the deluge in the Northeast this past week that caused hundreds of millions in damage. It’s even harder to ignore that scientists say the earth is hotter now than it’s been in recorded history — and maybe since the dinosaurs roamed the earth (hand in hand with humans, according to the creationists among us). As the New York Times reported this week, all this is driven by two main factors: continued emissions of heat-trapping gasses, mainly caused by humans burning oil, gas and coal; and the return of El Niño, a cyclical weather pattern.

That news is scaring climatologists and other scientists, including Brian McNoldy, a research scientist at the University of Miami (that would be in Florida, for you Ron DeSantis fans) who told the Times it was hard to get his head around the scary numbers.

This turns people off — because it’s a bummer, man. Who wants to admit that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we have soiled our own nest, and our children will suffer because of our stupidity? And yet there was Joe Biden, saying, “You know, we all must summon the will to actually address the existential threat of accelerating climate change. It’s real. It’s serious. We don’t have a lot of time. It is the single greatest threat to humanity.”


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


For voters, that may be tough to face. But for strategic planning purposes, it cannot be denied. You know who has to deal with it? The Department of Defense. “It’s a lot,” a DOD contact told me. “Climate change? It’s part of our planning now. It’s not something we talk about all the time, but then again we don’t have to — it’s settled for us. You can’t deny changes in coastlines, or how climate is affecting us when our success depends on understanding our environment.” Nice to know that our military leaders, at least on this issue, seem to be grounded in reality. 

By calling it the greatest threat to humanity in a major international speech, the president obviously understands reality. One person inside the Biden administration told me, “We mention it often and everywhere.”

That’s where I think they’ve got it wrong. The Biden administration suffers from the “Cool Hand Luke” syndrome: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I would argue that Biden doesn’t communicate often anywhere, and that the climate, along with infrastructure, abortion and the economy, are things he should talk about every day to everyone.

“Will we staunch the climate crisis before it is too late?” Biden asked the world in his speech. “It is only by working together that we’ll prevent the worst consequences of climate change from ravaging our future and that of our children and grandchildren.”

You won’t hear much talk about this on the campaign trail from Biden’s potential opponents in either party. Ron DeSantis would rather scream about where “woke goes to die,” when most of us thought Florida was where old people go to die. DeSantis has roughly the appeal of day-old roadkill and has been recently declared DOA by the donor class of the GOP. Rupert Murdoch has apparently soured on Florida’s governor as a potential nominee, effectively leaving the GOP with a twice-impeached former president under felony indictments in New York and in federal court as their standard-bearer. They must be so proud.

Donald Trump (remember him?) is too busy trying to get his Mar-a-Lago felony trial postponed indefinitely so he can, as he hopes, win the election and then have his handpicked attorney general drop the charges as he issues sweeping pardons to all his partners in crimes real and potential. He does not talk about climate change, unless it has something to do with his golf courses. As long as the back nine is in good shape, he’s OK.

Biden discusses it as part of an overall strategy and continues to say that we “stand at an inflection point” — that’s become a trademark phrase — while also saying he is hopeful we will make the right decisions.

Which is why during his trip to Lithuania he met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and discussed the other major issue that affects all of our lives. Biden told Zelenskyy that Ukraine wouldn’t be invited to join NATO quite yet, but also said, “One thing Zelenskyy understands, whether or not he is in NATO now is not relevant,” because the alliance stands with Ukraine and it is getting stronger. Biden’s message to Vladimir Putin and Russia was that NATO stands united. In the background of this issue is the troubling possibility of a nuclear confrontation with Russia. So far, it appears that Biden has played the situation masterfully, weakening Russia and strengthening NATO, without risking any real threat of an escalating situation that could blow up into a world war.

Putin started the war, but many Republicans now want to blame Biden for it — and scare us into believing that a nuclear conflagration is imminent and our support for Ukraine is a disaster.

This is one issue Republican candidates have not been afraid to address — because they can use it to scare voters. Even though Putin started the war, many in the GOP try to blame Biden for it, and to scare us into believing that the chance of nuclear conflagration is growing exponentially each day and that our support for Ukraine is a disaster. Trump has been the most outspoken on this, claiming that the Ukraine war is a fiasco, and an example of nefarious collusion between the Biden family and Ukrainian business. He also calls it part of the Democrats’ “forever war” strategy: He wants the U.S. to get out of Ukraine, and has never been a fan of NATO.

Those words portend disaster. If the U.S. abandons Ukraine, Russia would most likely take it over, and Putin might want to extend his hegemony with additional incursions elsewhere. Since he wants to get the old Soviet Union band back together, we know where that might lead. It doesn’t favor those who support democracy.

Many of Trump’s critics say he’s a Putin puppet. His cult members see him as a savior. Biden doesn’t talk about Trump much — what he does say is that the war could end today if Putin would quit being such an asshole and go home. Don’t expect that to happen anytime soon either, despite the recent short-lived uprising by the Wagner Group.

Again, it’s all about the communication. Trump uses his Svengali act to mesmerize millions into believing he cares about them, when it’s obvious that he is only running for president to try and keep his aging, flaccid backside out of prison.

DeSantis has no idea what he’s doing — only that he hates “woke.” In other words, he isn’t into empathy or leadership, unless it involves being a racist despot. Both he and Trump, through coercion and fear, push the boundaries as they seek authority and power for themselves — and the cost to the rest of us is life-threatening.

My longtime contact in Vermont told me he’d lost a lifetime of family memories in the devastating flood. He’d long ago lost faith in world leaders to do anything about climate change even as its effects are more dramatic every day. “That tells you how screwed I think we are,” he said. “I’m still holding out hope we don’t blow the world up first.”

Like I said, it’s all about the communication — at least if you want to get re-elected. 

Biden said we face a choice “between a world defined by coercion and exploitation, where might makes right, or a world where we recognize that our own success is bound to the success of others.”

Good words. Now come back home, Mr. President, and talk with us a bit more. The Brady Briefing Room awaits. We’d love to talk to you on the South Lawn or the East Room or even (God forbid) in the heatsink of the Rose Garden.

It’s all about the communication.

“Get the checkbook out”: Trump voter hires Dominion lawyer to sue Fox News for “destroying” his life

A Trump supporter at the heart of a Jan. 6 conspiracy theory pushed by MAGA allies filed a defamation lawsuit accusing Fox News of a years-long smear campaign.

Ray Epps, who attended pro-Trump rallies in D.C. on Jan. 5 and 6 and was seen on a video encouraging people to enter the Capitol but was not initially charged with entering the building himself, sued the network after former Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested that he was a government informant — which the FBI and Epps have denied, according to The Washington Post.

Epps claims in the suit that the Justice Department informed him in May it “would seek to charge him criminally,” which he attributed to “the relentless attacks by Fox and Mr. Carlson and the resulting political pressure.”

“Fox, and particularly Mr. Carlson, commenced a years-long campaign spreading falsehoods about Epps,” the lawsuit alleges, claiming that the falsehoods “destroyed” the lives of Epps and his wife, forcing them from their home.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Delaware, alleges that Fox and Carlson knew Epps was almost definitely not a federal agent but chose to disregard that information.

“Fox engaged in purposeful avoidance of the truth, intentionally ignoring information and evidence that directly contradicted Fox’s outlandish lies about Epps,” the complaint says. “Fox refused to retract, correct, or apologize for its demonstrably false and defamatory accusations against Epps well after Fox knew definitively that they were false, providing yet additional circumstantial evidence of actual malice. Fox thus broadcast its lies about Epps with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.”

Michael Teter, an attorney for Epps, sent a letter to the network in March demanding it retract its claims but did not receive a response.

“This lawsuit marks another moment of accountability for Fox News,” Teter said in a statement. “For years, Fox News and Mr. Carlson created and amplified conspiracy theories about Ray that lacked any foundation in fact. Their lies exposed Ray and his wife, Robyn, to harassment, intimidation, and abuse – voicemails warning Ray to sleep with one eye open, bullet casings found on their property, death threats sent to their home.”

Epps gained attention in right-wing circles after videos recorded on Jan. 5 showed him urging Trump supporters to “go into the Capitol.”

Epps in the lawsuit claimed that he believed parts of the Capitol would be open to the public and that Trump supporters could legally enter them. Epps’ photo briefly appeared on the FBI website seeking information about various protesters but was removed after he was interviewed by agents in July 2021.

The disappearance of the photo and lack of charges prompted a series of right-wing conspiracy theories alleging he was planted by federal agents to provoke otherwise peaceful Trump supporters into violence.

Carlson in January 2022 described Epps as a person who “helped stage-manage the insurrection.”

During another show earlier this year, Carlson focused on the fact that Epps hadn’t been charged.

“Why is that? Well, let’s just stop lying,” Carlson said. “At this point, it’s pretty obvious why that is.”

During a July 2022 episode, Carlson guest Darren Beattie, a former White House speechwriter, called Epps “the smoking gun of the entire fed-surrection” without any pushback.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham also discussed Epps in an October 2021 segment that featured a graphic asking “Were Federal Assets Involved in Capitol Riot?”

Some Republican members of Congress have also embraced the conspiracy theory.

“I think somebody that worked that hard to get people to go in the Capitol, why aren’t they rotting away in the D.C. jail?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said during a live stream last summer.

Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, during a hearing with FBI Director Chris Wray on Wednesday, brought up Epps and accused the FBI of “protecting this guy.”

Wray refuted Republican claims that the FBI was involved in the attack on the Capitol.

“This notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was part of some operation by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and is a disservice to our brave, hard-working, dedicated men and women,” he said.


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


The lawsuit says that Epps and his wife were “loyal Fox viewers and fans of Tucker Carlson and other Fox personalities,” and “were persuaded by the lies broadcast by Fox” that the election had been stolen. After Carlson’s segments, the lawsuit says, he and his wife were deluged with threats and harassing messages, forcing them to flee from Arizona, selling the property at a low price.

“After destroying Epps’s reputation and livelihood, Fox will move on to its next story, while Ray and Robyn live in a 350-square foot RV and face harassment and fear true harm,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a nearly $800 million settlement between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems over false claims the network aired about the election. Media Matters’ Matthew Gertz flagged that Brian Farnan, the lead Delaware counsel for Dominion, is listed as one of Epps’ lawyers in the lawsuit.

University of Utah Law Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones told the Post that Epps can show that he was harmed by the false claims but “the key question here is whether he was defamed, and that is going to require some careful situating of his facts within the framework that the law recognizes.”

Though Carlson never directly said Epps was a federal agent, “when the whole story added together leads to a defamatory meaning, it can be found to be defamatory,” Andersen Jones said. “This will almost certainly be the underlying theory of some of Epps’s case.”

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Thursday said Epps was one of numerous “ordinary people” whose lives had been ruined by Trump’s election lies, also citing Georgia poll workers attacked by TrumpWorld and predicting the network would be found liable for defamation.

“Let me say that again, not a public figure, not used to this,” he said. “The death threats, the security problems they had, I’m telling you, if I’m representing Fox News, I’m saying, ‘Get your checkbook out and start writing.’ They’re going to have to do it again, Tucker Carlson is probably going to do it again because this guy isn’t a public figure. It’s not going to be hard for him to prove defamation.”

Can in-utero exposure to acetaminophen cause autism and ADHD?

More than 100 families of children with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are suing companies that market acetaminophen, the pain reliever in Tylenol and an array of other medications. Tylenol-maker Johnson & Johnson, as well as major retailers that use acetaminophen in their store-brand products, knew about research linking prenatal use of acetaminophen to neurodevelopmental disorders in children, the families claim, and should have included warnings on product labels.

The court filings reveal mothers wracked with guilt, convinced that by taking an over-the-counter pain reliever, they caused their child’s disability. In case after case, these women say that if they had thought acetaminophen could possibly harm their baby, they would have minimized their use of the drug — or not taken it at all.

It’s hardly an open-and-shut case. Most of what is known about acetaminophen and pregnancy comes from a type of study that sifts through data looking for correlations between prenatal exposures and developmental disorders. Scientists have been fighting amongst themselves over how much weight to give these studies, which were not designed to prove that a given factor — in this case, acetaminophen — caused ADHD or autism.

The debate reached a boiling point in 2021, when a group of international scientists declared that the current research, limited as it is, warrants stronger warnings about the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy. In a consensus statement published in Nature Reviews Endocrinology, the scientists called for “precautionary action” through focused research and increased awareness of the drug’s potential risks. Ninety-one scientists, clinicians, and public health professionals from around the world signed on.

That statement was the “galvanizing incident” for the lawsuits, said Ashley Keller, a founding partner at the legal firm Keller Postman LLC and one of the lawsuits’ lead attorneys.

But there’s a hitch: The consensus statement does not, in fact, reflect the views of many experts or of any major medical organization. The same Nature journal published three rebuttals signed by numerous professional groups as well as individual researchers and clinicians. These critics wrote that the consensus statement used flawed data to exaggerate potential harms of acetaminophen and downplayed the drug’s essential role for treating fever and pain.

Johnson & Johnson has seized on those criticisms in its defense. The consensus statement “is an outlier opinion of a small group whose position has been rejected by their own medical organizations and every regulatory body to address the issue,” company spokesperson Melissa Witt told Undark in an email. Giving credence to theories not based in sound science, she said, could harm millions of pregnant women.

This debate over how to interpret the acetaminophen science lies at the heart of the lawsuits, and the answer has profound implications, both for individuals and for public health. Acetaminophen is one of the most common drugs in the world, and in the United States, up to 65 percent of all expectant mothers use it. The cases have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York. If the litigation proceeds to trial, attorneys expect tens to hundreds of thousands of families to join in.

It’s a shame that questions linger about the safety of a drug that’s been around for 70 years, said Christina Chambers, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego and lead investigator for a series of studies on exposures during pregnancy for the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, a professional society that provides advice on using medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

In an interview with Undark, Chambers expressed doubts about the consensus statement, saying that if acetaminophen has any effect on fetal development, that effect is likely to be modest. Still, she added, “What this accumulated data calls for is to do better study.”


Acetaminophen was discovered in 1878, according to an FDA history of groundbreaking medications. But it wasn’t until the early 1950s that researchers demonstrated that the compound worked as well as the two popular pain relievers of the time — aspirin and acetanilide — with fewer side effects. In 1955, drugmaker McNeil gained FDA approval and launched Tylenol Elixir for Children, advertising it “for little hotheads.” Four years later Johnson & Johnson acquired McNeil, and, in 1975, began aggressively marketing an “extra strength” 500-milligram version of the drug to adults. By the early 1980s, Tylenol was the top-selling pain reliever in the U.S.

Acetaminophen is now used in more than 600 over-the-counter and prescription medications, including combination products for sleep, cough, cold, and allergy.

Today, new medications typically undergo toxicity testing in animals before researchers study their safety and effectiveness in humans, but like many older drugs, acetaminophen didn’t undergo as thorough of a process. “Back in ’55 we weren’t doing preclinical testing for reproductive safety,” said Chambers.

Scientists do know that, in most cases, acetaminophen is the safest way for pregnant women to relieve fever and pain. “Not treating a fever — especially a high fever — can have consequences,” continued Chambers. Strong data from lab animal and human studies have associated a high fever at certain points in pregnancy with an increased risk of birth defects and other fetal abnormalities. And, while it’s an understudied area, she said, chronic pain is associated with depressive symptoms, insomnia, and other harms to the mother and could adversely affect her pregnancy.

Some common over-the-counter drugs treat both fever and pain, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin, ibuprofen (Advil), and naproxen (Aleve), but the FDA warns against using any of these after 20 weeks of pregnancy because these drugs can damage the unborn babies’ kidneys.

Meanwhile, other painkillers have their own drawbacks. Babies exposed to opioids during the first trimester of pregnancy are at increased risk for birth defects of the brain, spine, and spinal cord. In addition, studies show that regular use of opioids during pregnancy increases the risk of poor fetal growth, preterm delivery, stillbirth, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Medicinal cannabis may address pain, and some women might think of it as a natural and, therefore, safe alternative. But there’s very little data available on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies exposed to the potent products available today, said Chambers. Recent studies suggest that cannabis increases the risk of preterm birth and smaller babies, but it’s hard to tease out the effects from other factors. She described the drug’s legalization and increased societal acceptance as “a huge experiment happening now.”

“So, what are you left with?” she asked.


For pregnant people experiencing fever or pain, acetaminophen is widely viewed as the best option. But can it also harm the fetus?

To begin answering this question, researchers have analyzed preexisting datasets of health information, looking for associations between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental problems in children. Such research is referred to as observational, and while it can be useful, this approach can’t typically prove causality.

Autism rates have climbed steadily since the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, first established it as a distinct disorder in 1980. In 2000, 1 in 150 children were diagnosed with autism by the age of eight according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; by 2020, the number had risen to 1 in 36. ADHD rates increased as well, though not as sharply. In 2019, 6 million children between the ages of 3 and 17 (9.8 percent) had received a diagnosis of ADHD, compared to 4.4 million children in 2003, according to CDC data from a national survey of parents.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


Many experts attribute the bulk of that increase to greater awareness and broadening definitions of the disorders. Factors such as improved survival for premature infants and a trend toward starting families later may also play a role, as both prematurity and older parents are associated with increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

In the early 2010s researchers additionally became interested in whether acetaminophen, so commonly used by pregnant people, could affect fetal development.

In 2014, after a couple of observational studies suggested a possible link, the Food and Drug Administration began a formal process to track data on the issue. The findings from the agency’s initial review of the evidence, based on limited and contradictory data, were inconclusive according to a Drug Safety Communication published the following year.

Since then, researchers from several countries, including the U.S., have published a steady stream of observational research. In 2021, an international group of researchers came together to review the evidence and craft a consensus. “We all sat down and said, it’s time to put all this together; we’ve done reviews, there’s more and more evidence,” said lead author Ann Bauer, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. “We all felt that it was time for women to have this information.”

Of the 29 observational studies involving 220,000 mother-child pairs, 26 linked prenatal use of acetaminophen to neurodevelopmental disorders including ADHD, autism, language delays, lower IQ, and cerebral palsy among others. Sixteen studies showed a more-pronounced effect with longer-term use of the drug.

Bauer pointed out that a handful of observational studies published after the consensus statement also suggest an association.

The group conceded that the observational data is imperfect. The positive association could stem from other factors, such as heredity or the condition that prompted the woman to take the drug. Still, the researchers concluded that the combined weight of the data was strong enough to warrant warning labels on acetaminophen and for health care professional to caution women against indiscriminate use of the drug. Society should act now, they wrote, “not wait unequivocal proof that a chemical is causing harm to our children.”

In science, it’s always possible to find something wrong with individual studies, said David Møbjerg Kristensen, a professor of molecular biology at Roskilde University in Denmark, one of the consensus authors. “But it’s more when you have all the studies lining up that you begin to be concerned,” he said.

But other experts say that it’s misleading to stack up profoundly limited data and conclude that, as a whole, it carries more weight.

The paper from Bauer’s team was “irresponsibly published,” said Nathaniel DeNicola, an obstetrician-gynecologist based in Orange County, California, who helped review the evidence for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “It did not reflect the preponderance and overall weight of the data, and it did not reflect the clinical context.”

DeNicola, who has expertise in environmental exposures and health policy, pointed out that consensus authors didn’t include numerous reviews, including those from major medical organizations, that drew different conclusions. Both ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, for example, found no clear evidence that acetaminophen causes fetal developmental issues and no reason to change current medical advice and practice.

In the end, neither did the FDA. In 2018, the agency brought the issue before its Medical Policy and Program Review Council, which provides oversight and direction of policies. The council found the available data didn’t warrant changes on acetaminophen labels or updates to the existing safety communication, wrote FDA press officer Charlie Kohler in an email to Undark.

While the agency continues to monitor the issue, it closed the formal tracking process in 2020 said Kohler, because extensive reviews failed to turn up solid evidence of a link between the drug and neurodevelopmental issues.


The gold standard for understanding the effect of a medication is to randomly assign one group to take the drug and another to get a placebo, with neither researchers nor participants knowing who got what until the end of the study. However, those randomized clinical trials rarely include pregnant women because of potential risks to the fetus. As a result, acetaminophen researchers rely on observational studies and laboratory experiments, including those that test the effects of the drug on experimental animals.

It can be difficult, however, to study neurodevelopmental problems in these animals. For one, researchers wouldn’t diagnose ADHD or autism in a mouse, though some research finds that mice exposed to acetaminophen in the womb are more likely to have problems with learning, memory, motor skills, and social behavior. Additionally, the biological mechanisms that lead to a diagnosis in humans are complex and not well understood, said Kristensen, so researchers don’t know what to exactly look for when they study the brains of laboratory animals.

Research in test tubes and lab animals does show that acetaminophen affects several chemical systems involved in brain development. “The compound is doing multiple different things during development at specific time points when the fetus is vulnerable,” said Kristensen. But whether these factors contribute to neurodevelopmental problems, he added, is unclear. Kristensen said that he expects to publish data within the next year or so that could help clarify the connection.

It’s also hard to know what to make of the observational research, which has numerous limitations, according to DeNicola. Many of the studies rely on women’s recall of having taken acetaminophen, which can be faulty weeks and even months later, he said. And instead of a clinical diagnosis of a child’s developmental or behavior disorder, studies often depend on assessments by parents and teachers, which sometimes differ.

One of the biggest issues with the observational research is failing to adequately control for other factors that cause autism and ADHD, particularly heredity, said Per Damkier, head of research in clinical pharmacology at the University of Southern Denmark and a co-author of a consensus rebuttal by the European Network of Teratology Information Services. (Teratology is the study of diseases and conditions that are congenital, or present at birth.) Based on data from Western countries, researchers estimate that up to 80 percent of autism and up to 90 percent of ADHD results from genes children inherited from their parents. If you don’t account for that huge factor, he said, “you inevitably will come up with misleading results.”

For example, a 2017 Pediatrics study included in the original consensus review found that the father’s use of acetaminophen increased a child’s risk of ADHD just as much as the mother’s use during pregnancy. While the researchers theorize that acetaminophen could have altered how the fathers’ genes work, Damkier said that the more likely explanation is that the analysis didn’t sufficiently adjust for heredity.

The pain or illness that prompts a woman to take a pain reliever may also skew the data. In their consensus rebuttal, authors from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists point to the OTIS’ long-running MotherToBaby study, which found that compared to pregnant women who use acetaminophen for short periods, those who take it longer term report having more mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, and are more likely to take antidepressants — all factors studies suggest are associated with ADHD and autism in children.

In a 2020 study, epidemiologist Reem Masarwa, then a postdoctoral fellow at McGill University in Montreal, and colleagues explored whether confounding factors such as heredity and maternal illness could be biasing acetaminophen research. The group reanalyzed data from a meta-analysis Masarwa had published two years earlier, which had found a 35 percent increased risk of ADHD in children exposed to prenatal acetaminophen. This time the researchers stringently adjusted for parental ADHD and migraines in the mother.

The ADHD risk nearly disappeared.

The consensus authors cite two studies that overcome the limitation of relying on a mother’s memory of acetaminophen use. The first, a 2019 study, tested umbilical cord blood for traces of acetaminophen and the second, published in 2020, measured acetaminophen in babies’ first bowel movement. Both found that the higher the prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, the greater the chance of a child receiving a physician diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder.

“The beautiful thing about the new studies coming out is that the better the study, the stronger the associations,” said Kristensen. “Suddenly, you can see dose response, which is something we always look for because that argues that there’s something biological going on.”

However, both of those studies have drawbacks as well. Acetaminophen only lingers in the blood for a few hours, so the implication of the cord-blood study is that a single dose right before birth could have a dramatic effect on a child’s brain. Many experts find that result implausible.

Testing a newborn’s bowel movement may be a better measure as it is thought to reflect the mother’s use of acetaminophen during the last two trimesters of pregnancy. But as with some other observational studies, the researchers didn’t account for why the mother took the drug in the first place.


Plaintiff attorney Ashley Keller said that his first responsibility is to help his clients win compensation. In addition, he said, there’s also a public health issue at stake in that the women need full information to make informed decisions.

In April, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who is presiding over the pre-trial proceedings, took the unusual step of inviting federal regulators to provide an opinion on whether the science warrants adding a warning to acetaminophen labels about an association between prenatal exposure and ADHD and autism.

The FDA declined to comment on whether the agency would weigh in by the end of July as requested by Judge Cote.

Claiming that FDA regulations and federal laws prevent them from changing Tylenol labels, Johnson & Johnson is pushing for a dismissal. The company continues to evaluate the science and has not seen any evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes fetal development issues, Witt, the company spokesperson, wrote in an email. “Leading medical organizations agree with the current product label which clearly states, ‘If pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use.'”

Bauer said the lawsuits are helping get the word out about the accumulating research on acetaminophen’s risks. Up until now, she said, a lot of women have viewed the drug as “completely innocuous,” something to take “whenever they are in discomfort.” Others disagree. DeNicola said that the women he sees in his practice are conscientious about using acetaminophen.

One thing everyone agrees on is the recommendations for acetaminophen use, said DeNicola: “Use it only where indicated in the lowest dose for the shortest duration.” So, for pain or fever that means taking one pill, one time, to see if symptoms ease, he said.

Another point of real consensus is the need for more research. Bauer said that several groups are looking at possible mechanisms for how acetaminophen could affect development. “As far as the epidemiology, there’s a pretty perfect study that could be done,” she said, pointing out that, with smartphones, women can easily record what they take and why. “But it’s going to take us many, many years is the problem.”

“Something that is potentially this important for, not just fetal, but for childhood brain development should be studied,” DeNicola said. “And it should be studied in a real way.” For example, he would like to see studies that use blood tests and other measures throughout pregnancy to accurately track exposures not just to acetaminophen, but also to environmental substances of greater concern to fetal development, such as industrial chemicals. And, since a baby’s brain continues to develop after birth, studies should account for use of acetaminophen in childhood — a glaring omission from most of the current research, said DeNicola.

At the moment, no one is conducting exactly that type of study on acetaminophen.

However, FDA spokesperson Charlie Kohler said that agency is conducting a small study to see how people’s bodies absorb, metabolize, and excrete the drug. The agency is also planning a toxicology study in 2024, pending approval of funding.

And Chambers said that she is coordinating a study funded by the National Institutes of Health of about 8,000 mother-child pairs in 25 sites across the U.S. The Healthy Brain and Child Development Study will capture information on prenatal exposures, including to acetaminophen, and use brain imaging and standardized assessments to track brain development in children. Researchers will release data annually, so information on prenatal exposure to acetaminophen will begin to emerge in the next couple of years, she said.

If there’s anything good to come out of the controversy, it’s that every drug, over the counter or not, deserves rigorous research on safety, said Chambers — and society hasn’t invested in systematically doing that type of research. She pointed out that while the FDA requires new drugs to be assessed for safety during pregnancy, nobody has the resources of motivation to do that for old drugs like acetaminophen.

“And we need to stop that,” said Chambers. “We need to turn that wheel around, pay attention and do the work that needs to be done.”


UPDATE: A previous version of this piece incorrectly described the academic affiliation of Christina Chambers. She is at the University of California, San Diego, not the University of San Diego.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Tucker Carlson’s Twitter interview with Andrew Tate: Elon Musk is really getting desperate

“I love raping you.”

So reads an alleged text from Andrew Tate to a woman who filed a police report against the former kickboxer-turned-social media “influencer.” It was part of the evidence the woman said she turned over to British law enforcement when she alleged she was subject to rape and physical abuse by Tate. She also handed over an alleged voice message from Tate, where he can be heard taunting her with, “The more you didn’t like it, the more I enjoyed it. I f**king loved how much you hated it.”

The anonymous woman describes Tate “strangling me” while “screaming at me, ‘Take the f**king trousers off, b**ch.'” 

Two other women who filed rape complaints with the U.K.’s Crown Protection Services have also stepped forward after Tate was arrested in Romania earlier this year on charges of rape, human trafficking and setting up a criminal gang. He’s been accused of using a standard pimping technique: luring women into what they think is a romantic relationship and then forcing them into sex work. 

“He choked me so hard that my blood vessels had literally just burst,” another alleged victim told Vice

“I remember the sheer panic. He kept saying, ‘I own you.’ That’s when he strangled me so hard that I lost consciousness,” another woman told Glamour UK


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


These women’s stories are difficult to read, as are the messages Tate allegedly sent them. But it’s important to foreground this painful material because that’s exactly what Tucker Carlson did not include in his supposed “reporting” on Tate. Carlson, who has decamped to Twitter after being fired by Fox News, posted a two-and-a-half-hour interview with Tate on Tuesday, which was immediately hyped by Elon Musk.

It goes without saying that this is evil. But it’s also a sign of desperation from both Musk and Carlson, who have bet big on Twitter, only to watch it swirl rapidly down the toilet. Buddying up with an alleged rapist who bragged openly about his violence against women is overtly misogynistic — and it’s also a pathetic plea for attention. 

Buddying up with an alleged rapist who bragged openly about his violence against women is misogynistic. It’s also a pathetic plea for attention. 

Neither Musk or Carlson will admit this is about glorifying a man who made videos saying things like, “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up, b**ch.” Championing vile people by pretending he’s “just asking questions” is a standard Carlson move, one he used regularly on Fox News to elevate the voices of anti-vaccine crusaders, Jan. 6 apologists and other assorted scum. He continues the game on Twitter by telling viewers to “make up your own mind.” If he actually wanted them to do that, he would tell them what Tate is alleged to have done and share the overwhelming evidence against him. Instead, Tate is just allowed to lie without any real pushback. 

This “just asking questions” gambit, which anti-disinformation activists have long called “JAQing off,” isn’t just a way to promote lies under the guise of free inquiry. It’s also, crucially, a trolling strategy to trick innocent people into wasting their time on go-nowhere debates. We can see how this works with Carlson’s Tate interview. A feminist — or even just a person who thinks rape is bad — will express disgust at Carlson’s behavior. Carlson’s fans will gaslight the anti-rape person, claiming they don’t know what they’re talking about because they didn’t sit through more than two painful hours of this interview, implying that greater context offers greater nuance. (It doesn’t.)

We see exactly this nonsense play out in the replies to Ben Collins of NBC News

Lots of right-wingers with blue checkmarks, trying to bait people with “debate me, bro” tactics:

“What’s sad about it?”

“How much of it did you watch?”

“Have you looked into this guy at all or are you just parroting msm?”

“I’m not a fan of Andrew Tate but I also think it’s good to hear his side of the story.”

This is known as “sealioning,” defined on Wikipedia as “a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.” If Collins had responded by pointing out the various ways Tate was lying, the debate bros would keep “asking questions,” refusing to acknowledge that those so-called questions have already been answered. 


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


This is all, and there’s no way to stress this enough, pure bad faith. These men — and they are almost always men — are not interested in “discussion” or “debate,” and neither is Carlson. We can know this for one simple reason: The stories of Tate’s many alleged victims are excluded. There is no “both sides” here. There are only Tate’s obvious lies, many of which have been thoroughly debunked by Rolling Stone.

For instance, Tate denies that he was pimping anyone and Carlson signs off on this view by scoffing, “How do you force someone to make TikTok videos?” As Nikki McCann Ramirez and Ej Dickson of Rolling Stone point out, Tate himself answered this question in a 2018 video: “My job was to meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, test if she’s quality, get her to fall in love with me to where she’d do anything I’d say, and then get her on webcam so we could become rich together.” This is a whitewashing spin on the “loverboy” method that prosecutors accuse Tate of using. 

Sadly, disingenuous trolling is often far too successful at suckering people into engagement. As tech journalist Kara Swisher often observes, “enragement equals engagement.” Many people just can’t help arguing with people who make bad or false claims online, as memorialized by the famous “Duty Calls” xkcd cartoon.

Carlson and Musk are, of course, sincere misogynists. They and their fanboys don’t hide their admiration for Donald Trump, who, like Tate, is a credibly accused sexual predator who is on record bragging about sexual assault. There can be little doubt that they find it politically pleasing to exalt a man who, before he was arrested for sex trafficking, created videos explaining how to bully women into sex work. But more than likely there’s also a monetary motive here, one that reeks of desperation.

As much as Musk tries to conceal it, Twitter is in bad shape. Earlier this month, he set a limit on how many tweets unverified users could see every day, in an apparent bid to get more people to pay for Twitter’s failing blue-check service. Sensing blood in the water, Meta released its Twitter competitor, Threads, snagging over 100 million users in just a few days. Combined with the rise of alternative microblogging services, this is dramatically impacting Twitter’s traffic, as the CEO of Cloudflare noted on Sunday. 

Linda Yaccarino, the CEO Musk hired to run Twitter, responded to these developments with a pathetic “clap harder” tweet. 

The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer noted, from his new perch at the Twitter competitor Bluesky, “They made it very clear Twitter was a nazi bar and now they’re terrified that people don’t want to hang out there anymore.”

That helps explain why this effort to leverage an accused rapist’s infamy to drive traffic to Twitter is likely to backfire on Musk and Carlson. “Enragement equals engagement” is a true enough, but only within limits. To keep people on a social media network, there has to be some balance between infuriating content and pleasing content. Most people don’t log on because they want to feel angry or afraid. They open the apps hoping for cat pictures and laughter, and may then get sucked in by outrage bait.

But nobody wants all outrage all the time. Most people will get exhausted by that and log off. If the stuff they encounter is simply too vile, they get grossed out and walk away entirely. The pre-Musk leaders at Twitter understood that it had to be a mix, and that most users had hard limits on what they could tolerate. This is why the various far-right alternatives to Twitter services have generally done poorly. You have to mix some good with the bad, or people leave. On “old” Twitter, there were at least some efforts to keep the very worst content out of people’s feeds, with the understanding that if someone saw seriously traumatizing material, like animal torture or rape, they were likely to log off and never return.

Elon Musk simply doesn’t understand these nuances of psychology. He and Carlson just want to rub everyone’s noses in the transparently false excuses of an alleged rapist. That’s well past “baiting people into argument” content. It’s just “ew, turn it off” stuff. 

There is, of course, one group of people that’s way into this laundry job for Andrew Tate: The pitiful man-children of the internet, whether “incel” or just incel-adjacent, who want to blame their own failures as human beings on women. Those dudes were certainly all over Musk and Carlson’s reply feed, stroking their chins about how “interesting” Tate is, an opinion that could only be sincerely held by someone who has never read a book or had a real conversation with another human. No doubt the number of man-children online is much too large, from a humanity-based perspective. But their numbers aren’t anywhere near large enough when it comes to Musk’s desire to monetize their dysfunction, at least not at the levels needed to make his $44 billion purchase of Twitter pay off.

Why Republicans are trying to rebrand white nationalism right now

In the 1970s and 1980s, overt white supremacists and their organizations were largely marginalized in American society. As a way of staying relevant and expanding their influence, the leaders of the white right decided to repackage themselves and the movement to become more “respectable,” which meant putting on suits and ties and modifying their message of hate and its presentation. Central to this campaign involved changing themselves from white supremacists, operating under various labels such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, into “white nationalists,” a term that would eventually evolve to include the “alt-right,” identitarians, so-called race realists, ethnonationalists, Western chauvinists and more. In reality, the supposed differences between “white supremacy” and “white nationalism” are largely pedantic, if not simply double talk, obfuscation and evasion.

So to be clear, white supremacists believe that “white people” are a “superior race” and that black and brown people, Jews, Muslims and other nonwhites are inferior be it because of biology or “culture.” White nationalism is the political project through which the goal of white dominance and total control over society is obtained and maintained. In such a society, nonwhites are to be subordinated and eventually removed. In the most “extreme” versions of the white supremacist project non-whites are to be enslaved or eliminated. The more “generous” versions of the white supremacist political project allows a role for a small number of “honorary whites” who believe in those values and idolize Whiteness and “Western culture.” 

In a 2020 report from the Center for American Progress, Simon Clark offers this context:  

There is little new in the ideas that underpin white nationalism, white supremacy, the alt-right, and fascism. At its core, white nationalism is little more than an attempt to cloak white supremacist ideas in the more respectable language of racial separatism, just as the alt-right has tried to repackage fascist thought in a more modern form. All these variants are built on common notions of a white identity and racial superiority. They promote hate and violence as valid political tools, rejecting values of equality, coexistence, and the rule of law in favor of raw power and ethnic division.

Derek Black, a former white nationalist leader who is now an academic who studies the origins of racist ideas, takes a cultural approach to understanding the movement by identifying its most significant symbols of identity. He defines a white nationalist as someone who interacts with information outlets primarily serving the white nationalist movement, is friends with other white nationalists, attends white nationalist events, and supports the cause financially and politically. Black explains that white nationalist ideas are totems that white nationalists use to show that they belong in the movement. Members spend a great deal of time defining and arguing about these terms as well as spreading them into mainstream society by trying to insert them into mass media.

Black is pointing to a central tactic in the political strategy of white nationalists and white supremacists. They understand that their cause is not widely popular and that they are losing the battles of ideas and demography. This reality pushes them to try to smuggle their ideas into mainstream dialogue by exploiting so-called fellow travelers and political opportunists. Recently, the movement has had notable success, particularly among American and European politicians who are exploiting fear for electoral ends.

In all, as shown by its policies, base of support, and vision for American society (a restoration of what is euphemistically and in Orwellian New Speak described as “traditional” and “patriotic” American values) today’s GOP is a white identity organization. In a 2018 conversation, anti-racism activist and author Tim Wise offered this powerful description of how racism and white supremacy are central to today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement:  

All that stuff is continuing, and it seems to me that we are barking up the wrong tree when we focus on the extremes and we ignore mainstream white nationalism, which, as you said, is essentially in control of one of the two major political parties.

It is not a fringe movement, it is the Republican Party. As you have long said about the Republican Party, it is a white identity organization. I would even go so far as to say the Republican Party is a white identity cult at this point, with just a few people hanging on, trying to steer the ship back in what they consider to be a less offensive direction. But I’ve got news for them: They’re going to get thrown overboard, their day is done. There is no future for a Republican Party that is not a white nationalist party at this point….

White identity politics, unlike its black or brown equivalent, is very much about attempting to hoard the advantages and the hegemonic dominance that whites, as a group, have generally had for 400 years in what we now call the United States.

In one of the most recent examples of how white supremacy has been mainstreamed and normalized by today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement, during an interview on Monday with Kaitlan Collins on CNN, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville refused to condemn “white nationalists” as being inherently racist. On Tuesday night, Tuberville made a tactical pivot in response to the criticism he received for his de facto defense of white supremacy, as CNN reports:

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama finally condemned White nationalists, telling reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that “White nationalists are racists,” after previously refusing to equate White nationalism with racism.

Tuberville had doubled down Monday when asked about his previous comments on White nationalism and said it was an “opinion” that White nationalists are racist.

In response to Tuberville’s comments and supposed change of mind about “white nationalists” and racism, the pro-democracy group The Lincoln Project warned on Twitter:

We cannot let this story fade and allow the Republican Party to normalize their abhorrent views. They proudly promote white nationalism, and it’s a prime example of the moral rot that’s taken over the GOP. We must defeat them or risk losing our country to their radicalism.

Tuberville’s refusal to condemn white nationalism as being synonymous with racism, and then his non-apology and insincere reconsideration, are an example of what sociologist Joe Feagin has described as “the white racial frame” and the related “logic” of evasion that many (white) Americans use when discussing so-called race relations in American society. In total, Tuberville’s verbal contortions about “white nationalism” is one of many examples of how white supremacist ideas and ideology have become mainstreamed and normalized in the Age of Trump. 


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


Trump described the white supremacists who rampaged in Charlottesville, injuring dozens of people and killing Heather Heyer, for example, as “very fine people.” His followers carried Confederate flags into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, wore Nazi and Ku Klux Klan and other hate regalia to his rallies, and assaulted black and brown police and other law enforcement with racial slurs. MAGA is an attempt to end multiracial pluralistic democracy.

Tuberville’s verbal contortions about “white nationalism” is one of many examples of how white supremacist ideas and ideology have become mainstreamed and normalized in the Age of Trump.

Political scientists and other experts have repeatedly shown that racist and white supremacist values and beliefs are heavily correlated with a given white person’s support for Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. In addition, racism and white supremacy are highly predictive of support for the Republican Party and its candidates and policies more generally. 

Predictably, the Republican Party and larger right-wing and conservative movement’s positions and public policies on a range of issues including immigration, guns, the economy, civil and voting rights, support for democracy, “law and order’ and crime, the social safety net and healthcare, wealth and income inequality, the size of the federal government are heavily influenced by racism and white supremacy. Historically and to the present, right-wing political entrepreneurs and other leaders have proven to be very skilled at using racism and white supremacy in a type of divide-and-conquer strategy to generate anger and rage and resentment among white Americans so that they will reject policies and initiatives that would actually benefit them.

Trump rose to power and political prominence, after all, through the racist birther conspiracy theory that claimed Barack Obama, the country’s first black president, was a usurper who was not eligible to be president. As has been extensively documented, Donald Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller played a critical role in shaping the ex-president’s regime to closely align it, literally, with the ideology and policies advocated for by overt white supremacists such as neo-Nazis and other racial authoritarians and hatemongers.

A majority of Republicans and Trump followers believe in the white supremacist conspiracy and paranoid delusion that “white people” are going to be made “extinct” and “forced out of their own countries” by non-white people including Muslims. Channeling the antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this “great replacement” is supposedly being orchestrated by “globalist elites”, “bankers” and “financiers such as George Soros” and the “Democratic Party”, i.e. Jewish people. The Great Replacement conspiracy theory was not too long ago a fringe belief, largely held by neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and other right-wing extremists and hate mongers, ideas and people that one had to seek out in obscure print magazines, newsletters, private mailing lists, and internet chat rooms. Now such beliefs and people are mainstreamed on Fox News, routinely bellowed and advocated for by Republican elected officials and other leaders, and sent out across the right-wing echo chamber disinformation propaganda machine.

There is a direct connection between how as the Republican Party and “conservative movement” have become more racist and more white supremacist they have also become more fascist, authoritarian, violent, anti-human, cruel, sexist, misogynistic, bigoted, hateful, anti-intellectual, and generally irresponsible and antagonistic towards democracy, human freedom, human rights, and the good society.  

America’s final epitaph will be long. But one theme will stand out: racism and white supremacy proved mortal to American democracy; birth defects at the nation’s inception that were never fixed and only became worse.

What everyone gets wrong about sunscreen, according to skin cancer experts

This summer, against the backdrop of record-shattering heatwaves and the typical desire to hit the beach, some people may be wondering if the lotion we slather on to protect against the Sun is just as dangerous as the skin cancer sunlight can generate.

Since the dawn of humanity, we’ve depended on the Sun to survive. Our solar system’s star drives weather on Earth, influences ocean currents, climate and makes plant life possible. But only relatively recently have humans developed mechanisms to protect ourselves from it as much as physically possible when exposed. Of course we’re talking about sunscreen. While there is evidence that Ancient Egyptians and Greeks used mixtures of plant extracts to prevent tanning (they likely didn’t know about the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation from the Sun), the first sunblock was developed less than a century ago.

Today, there are many to choose from and the importance of its use is emphasized in the mere fact that rates of melanoma have been rising rapidly over the past few decades.

However, sunscreen has a PR problem. One in which headlines often point out that some sunscreens have previously included carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Indeed, in July 2021, Johnson & Johnson recalled five aerosol sunscreen products because they had been contaminated with benzene, a known carcinogen. The presence of the chemical wasn’t intentional.

“The people who get skin cancer, they virtually all say ‘I wish I protected myself from the sun years ago.'”

In 2019, the FDA requested additional safety data on sunscreen components from manufacturers, heightening fears around safety and sunscreen. Consumer watchdogs like the Environmental Working Group often publish warnings about the potential health risks of sunscreen chemicals. And it’s not just the potential to harm human health, but also the environment. In 2018, Hawaii banned sunscreens that contain octinoxate and oxybenzone fearing that they could damage coral reefs. Concerns have also been raised about the use oxybenzone, a potential hormone disruptor, in sunscreen.

The seeming catch-22 of sunscreen has made it difficult for some people to choose the right sunscreen — or wear it at all. However, in the United States, skin cancer is the most common type of cancer. It’s estimated that one-fifth of Americans will develop some form of it in their lifetimes — a striking statistic to dermatologists given it’s also one of the most preventable cancers. While most cancers are caused by genetic mutations in DNA that trigger genes in normal cell growth to become oncogenes, skin cancer is caused by excessive sun exposure. And most Americans don’t wear sunscreen regularly.

“There are more skin cancers than all other cancers combined in the United States,” Dr. Darrell S. Rigel, a clinical professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine and former president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told Salon. “Melanoma, the most dangerous kind of skin cancer, is the most common cancer in women ages 25 to 29 and the second most common after breast cancer in women ages 30 to 34. It strikes younger, and we are seeing younger and younger people get it.”

Rigel said when weighing the risk of chemicals in sunscreen and getting skin cancer, what is really happening is that people are weighing an “unproven risk with a proven benefit.”

“It’s an unproven hypothetical risk that has actually been disproven in some studies, versus a proven risk,” Rigel said. “But I’m biased because I see all the people who get skin cancer, but the people who get skin cancer, they virtually all say ‘I wish I protected myself from the sun years ago.'”

“It’s an unproven hypothetical risk versus a proven risk.”

The sun gives off two kinds of damaging rays: UVA light, which causes wrinkles and UVB, which causes sunburn. Both contribute to the development of skin cancer. (There are also UVC rays, which are far more dangerous than UVA or UVB, but they luckily don’t reach the Earth’s surface.) Sunscreen works by blocking UV light via physical or chemical filters or both. Sunscreens that contain titanium dioxide and zinc oxide create a physical barrier between the skin and the Sun. These sunscreens physically reflect light off the skin. Then there are chemical sunscreens that are designed to absorb UV rays, acting as sponges that turn damaging rays harmless.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“There’s been some evidence that some of the chemical sunscreens are absorbed into the bloodstream after being applied to the skin, especially when they’re applied to a large surface area of the skin,” Dr. Bruce A. Brod, a clinical professor of dermatology at University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, told Salon. “But we don’t have any evidence to show that chemical sunscreens that are absorbed in the skin are harmful.”

Indeed, two separate FDA studies published in 2019 and 2020 found that ingredients commonly found in chemical sunscreens, including oxybenzone, can be absorbed in the skin and linger for days. However, what Brod and other dermatologists are quick to point out is that there is no evidence to suggest that it’s harmful and causes cancer. In both studies, the authors emphasized that their findings did not mean people should refrain from wearing sunscreen.

“We don’t have any evidence to show that chemical sunscreens that are absorbed in the skin are harmful.”

“The benzene issue was a one-off. There were some impurities in the production process, but it’s been fixed,” Rigel said, adding that a separate study found that exposure to benzene in a sunscreen — assuming you used it everyday for a year — was still less than the amount of benzene inhaled when filling up a tank at the gas station.

The tide is turning on research suggesting that sunscreen poses environmental risks, too. Aaron Boyd, a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, recently demonstrated how exposure to sunscreen may actually be a lower risk for small aquatic animals compared to some tests done on each individual chemical.

“Researchers overwhelmingly perform studies testing the toxicity of UVFs [ultraviolet filters] in isolation by exposing test organisms to one chemical at a time,” Boyd said in a media statement, describing an experiment on water fleas. “In fact, less than 3% of aquatic toxicology studies published to date have investigated whole sunscreen mixtures, leaving a massive knowledge gap to be addressed.”

When it comes to sunscreen, the FDA isn’t responsible for safety testing. Instead, it sets the standards that companies have a responsibility to follow. However, the FDA has proposed experiments to be done to better understand the effects of sunscreen.

“But those experiments are basically done every weekend in the summer when tens of millions of people are using sunscreen. And they’re not seeing any of those hypothetical risks,” Rigel said. “So the bottom line with that, is it’s not a major risk to wear sunscreen. The flip side is what’s the risk of not using sunscreen, right? That is a proven risk and the risk is skin cancer.”

Sharon Tate’s sister thinks Leslie Van Houten is “likely to kill again” now that she’s free

In response to the news that former Charles Manson follower, Leslie Van Houten, was released on Tuesday after being confined to a California prison for her involvement in the 1969 murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, Debra Tate — the sister of Manson cult victim Sharon Tate — says it’s “likely” that she’ll kill again.

In an interview with TMZ, Tate says the families of Manson’s victims are “absolutely terrified because there’s a fear she could resort to her killing ways again in a heartbeat.” Having petitioned for the denial of her parole for years, she says “she’s disappointed in the criminal justice system in the state, and especially the governor’s office … which she thinks really dropped the ball in not fighting harder against Van Houten’s release.”

Now 73-years-old, Van Houten was only 19 when she and fellow Manson follower Patricia Krenwinkel — aided by Tex Watson — stabbed Rosemary LaBianca to death in her own home. In variations of her testimony over the years, Van Houten claims to have primarily stabbed LaBianca after she was already dead. Now free, Van Houten “will seek employment that builds on the bachelor’s and master’s degrees in humanities that she earned while in prison,” according to her attorney via a quote obtained from CNN

 

 

Emmys Politics 101: Why HBO dominates, “Dragon” overpowers “Rings” and some actors make history

Industry politics loom large over every awards season, but the version hanging over the 75th Emmy Awards nominations announcement is singularly outsized. Along with the expected contenders, surprises and snubs, the nominees were revealed hours before the extended deadline for negotiations between SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP is set to expire. 

That means Hollywood is bracing for what is increasingly likely to be the first time SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America walk picket lines together since 1960, and the actors guild’s first film and TV walkout since 1980. (Salon’s unionized employees are represented by the WGA East.)

One might therefore consider the 27 nominations for the final season of “Succession,” the most ever for the show, to be thematically consistent with the times. “Succession” revolves around a ruthless media titan unwilling to cede an inch of his power, who cares nothing about the well-being of any of the working class “pygmies” he sucks dry for profit. To viewers, Brian Cox’s Logan Roy is a fascinating monster. To the creative workers walking the picket line, he represents the forces aligned against them.

Stepping away the labor part of the story, there’s a figurative example that illustrates the vanity side of awards campaign politics in the head-to-head match-up between Prime Video’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” and HBO’s “House of the Dragon.”

  Experiencing total satisfaction in the awards game is next to impossible.

Both fantasy shows ran their first seasons simultaneously, inviting direct comparisons and analysis of which was better. “Rings of Power” was vastly more expensive and looked it. On Emmy nominations morning almost a year later, “House of the Dragon” secured a spot in the best drama category while “Rings of Power” was shut out of major categories. (Both netted below-the-line nominations in creative arts categories including but not limited to makeup, title design and costume.)  

In the past fantasy fans might have grumbled about Television Academy voters’ aversion to genre content, but besides “Dragon” in the best drama race is the deserving Disney+ “Star Wars” drama “Andor,” part of an especially strong showing by the Disney empire overall. “Rings of Power” is the farthest thing from a “small” show by Peak TV standards, and in the same respect, Amazon isn’t by any stretch a scrappy upstart rebel entering the field. Its streaming service has scored its share of top Emmy wins over the past decade, a few courtesy of returning best comedy nominee “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” and its stars Rachel Brosnahan, Alex Borstein, repeat nominees for best comedy actress and supporting comedy actress respectively.

The Marvelous Mrs. MaiselRachel Brosnahan (Miriam ‘Midge’ Maisel) in “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” (Philippe Antonello/Prime Video)

But Prime Video lacks the brand shimmer of HBO, which has a long-established prestige status and is part of a legacy media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery. Hence HBO Max’s 127 total nominations, mainly spread between “Succession,” “The Last of Us” and “The White Lotus.” This is a fairly standard Emmy nominations spread for the premium network, along with Netflix’s second-place finish with 103 nominations overall.  That’s politics for you, Hollywood style.

Sometimes TV’s version of the little guys win, as seen in the nominations for Freevee’s “Jury Duty” and James Marsden‘s supporting comedy actor nod, and Natasha Lyonne’s best comedy actress nomination for “Poker Face” on Peacock. (We should point out that Freevee is owned by Amazon, and Peacock is NBC Universal’s streaming service you’re probably still not watching.)

These were bursts of confetti in a mostly unsurprising nomination pool dominated by shows making their final run at Emmys glory, including “Barry” and returning victors “Succession,” “Ted Lasso” and “Maisel.”

“Succession” stars Jeremy Strong, Kieran Culkin – a first for him – and Cox, who only appeared in two full episodes and around 10 minutes of a third received lead actor nominations, joined Sarah Snook in the lead drama acting race. Theirs is part of an individual nomination spree that includes 14 of their co-stars, including J. Smith-Cameron and James Cromwell, but it also makes Emmy history, marking the first time three leads from the same show were nominated in the drama actor field.

SuccessionJustine Lupe, Alan Ruck, Kieran Culkin, Jeremy Strong and Sarah Snook in “Succession” (Macall Polay/HBO)

Of course, there’s a strong chance that a split vote in the actor race will rob all of the male Roys of their last shot at the big prize. Wouldn’t that be a very Roy-appropriate Emmys outcome?

What’s worrying about the 2023 nominations is that the voting tendencies mimic the direction that made the 2023 Oscars such a mixed emotional bag in several ways.

That’s politics for you, Hollywood style.

The first is a lack of creative diversity in the top-tier nominations. The drama best supporting actor and actress categories are almost entirely divided between “Succession” and “The White Lotus”; nominations for Elizabeth Debicki and Rhea Seehorn sneak “The Crown” and AMC’s “Better Call Saul” into the supporting actress race.

Another HBO series joins the “Succession” leads in the best drama actor race with Pedro Pascal’s nomination for “The Last of Us,” with Jeff Bridges (FX’s “The Old Man”) and Bob Odenkirk (“Better Call Saul”) rounding out the category.

“Ted Lasso” scored 14 major nominations including in best comedy, best actor for Jason Sudeikis, and supporting nods for Phil Dunster, Brett Goldstein, Juno Temple and Hannah Waddingham.

Only “Abbott Elementary” and “Barry” came close to its strong showing in the top races, with both joining “Ted Lasso” in the best comedy contest, Bill Hader taking on Sudeikis and Henry Winkler and Anthony Carrigan facing off on the supporting actor. Quinta Brunson’s ABC comedy earned her a lead actress nomination and her co-stars Tyler James Williams, Janelle James and Sheryl Lee Ralph slots in supporting categories.

Abbott ElementaryAbbott Elementary (ABC/Scott Everett White)

Segueing into the issue of inclusion,  Emmys still has work to do. To some it may seem like there’s nothing Emmy can do to make some of us entirely happy on nominations day; my answer to that is that experiencing total satisfaction in the awards game is next to impossible.

There’s plenty worth celebrating in this batch, topmost among them being the nods for “Beef” and its stars Steven Yeun and Ali Wong and co-stars Joseph Lee and Young Mazino in their limited or anthology series races.

Between those acknowledgments and Dominique Fishback’s best actress nomination for her unsettling performance in the limited series “Swarm,” we have signs that Emmy voters are appreciating unconventional artistry. (And yet, no nods for Donald Glover’s other show “Atlanta” which, a few short years ago, earned voters the same praise.)

It’s also impossible to quibble with the supporting actress nomination for Niecy Nash-Betts for her work in the bewilderingly titled “Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story.” She was the best thing about it.

The supporting actress comedy category is dominated by four Black performers: James, Ralph, Ayo Edebiri from “The Bear” and Jessica Williams from “Shrinking.” Non-white performers also had a strong showing in the guest actress in a comedy race where Brunson is nominated again for her “Saturday Night Live” hosting stint, along with Taraji P. Henson for her “Abbott” guest turn and Sarah Niles for “Ted Lasso.” Sam Richardson’s guest turn on the Apple TV+ hit earned him a guest actor comedy nomination as well.

And the 75th Emmy nominations made more history: Thanks to their individual acting nominations, “Wednesday” star Jenna Ortega and Pascal are the first Latino actors to be nominated in both lead acting categories in 15 years. “The Last of Us” guest star Keivonn Montreal Woodard is the youngest nominee in the drama guest actor category, where he’s joined by co-star Lamar Johnson (along with Murray Bartlett and the category favorite, Nick Offerman).

The Last of UsNick Offerman in “The Last of Us” (Liane Hentscher/HBO)

In the same category, Arian Moayed claims a place, making him one of a few Middle Eastern nominees along with his fellow “Succession” co-star and drama guest actress nominee Hiam Abbass, who is up against her former co-workers Cherry Jones and Harriet Walter, and Kumail Nanjiani, tapped for his “Welcome to Chippendales” performance.

But this circles back to that observation about the relative lack of diversity apparent in these selections. The Emmys might lead a person who doesn’t watch much TV might  to believe that the majority of Black actors work for, like, four shows: “Abbott,” “The Bear,” “Ted Lasso” and “The Last of Us” – who along with the aforementioned actors also will see Storm Reid in the guest actress competition.


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


Even with the high visibility for Latino performers in top categories, shows like Hulu’s “This Fool” and fellow Freevee comedy underdog “Primo” get a lot less gas than the titles in which Pascal appears or the IP parade float that is “Wednesday.” 

They’re definitely not present on “The White Lotus” although, to that show’s credit, Will Sharpe and Aubrey Plaza are the only performers preventing the drama supporting actor categories from being entirely white. Neither the drama best actress nor the comedy best actor races include people of color.

And here’s the thing – these situations could have been avoided if voters had looked beyond the usual suspects. Mo Amer of Netflix’s “Mo” would have been a tremendous addition to the comedy actor race, along with D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai for “Reservation Dogs.” The absence of recognition for these actors, and Woon-A-Tai’s co-star Devery Jacobs, not to mention the lack of notice for “Reservation Dogs” or “Dark Winds” or Zahn McClarnon, is galling in a year of critically acclaimed Native storytelling.

Reservation DogsZahn McClarnon as Big in “Reservation Dogs” (Shane Brown/FX)

Then again, that places these snubs on actors and shows in fine company that includes Carol Burnett, passed over for her guest star appearance in “Better Call Saul”; and Harrison Ford, ignored for his work in both “Shrinking” and “1923,” where he co-starred with Helen Mirren, who also failed to score a nomination. “Only Murders in the Building” co-stars Steve Martin and Selena Gomez were both left out of the Emmys running, but Martin Short got a nice dip.

The nomination for “Obi-Wan Kenobi” could have gone to National Geographic’s miniseries “A Small Light,” but apparently voters prefer a Star War to a human story at the center of a real one.

Giancarlo Esposito was denied his flowers for his work on the final season of “Better Call Saul.” “Somebody Somewhere” is a star in our hearts, but Emmy didn’t extend it an invitation in this year’s nominations bonanza. Their work is stalwart, but their For Your Consideration marketing resources probably don’t come close to a “House of the Dragon” promotional hoard.

We may not find out who wins these races for some time. Although the 75th Emmy Awards are currently scheduled to air Monday, Sept. 18 on Fox, if the actors go on strike the ceremony could be pushed back as far as January 2024.

 

Misprint of Taylor Swift record containing “demonic music” freaks out fan

A UK woman received quite a shock after lowering the needle on her newly purchased copy of Taylor Swift’s “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version)” album and hearing an ominous voice saying, “I quit seeing people, I quit looking at the flakes of flesh and dancing organisms.”  

“At first I thought that maybe she’d put a secret message in the vinyl because it started talking and I was like, ‘OK, this is weird, but it’s not unlike Taylor,’ said Rachel in a quote obtained from Insider. In a now viral unboxing video of her $39 purchase posted to TikTok, she’s seen flipping the record and hearing a creepy man saying, “There are 70 billion people of earth. Where are they hiding?” 

Reaching the conclusion that what she had on her hands was not what commenters suggested was a “haunted” or “cursed” album, but a comical and likely valuable misprint of a ’90s electronic music compilation, she laughed it off. “I haven’t seen a single other person who this has happened to,” she told Insider. Although a representative for Universal Music offered to look into the flub if she sent the album back to them, she has no plans to give up her “creepy vinyl.” 

Why Brian Cox’s “Succession” Emmys nomination is receiving backlash

Succession” has swept the Emmy nominations — gasp shocker, I know. Everybody’s favorite despicably dark HBO satire has topped Emmy nominations with 27 nods including a history making three-way lead actor nomination for Brian Cox, Jeremy Strong and Kieran Culkin. But some have qualms about Cox’s nod because — spoiler alert — the fictional media demagogue, Logan Roy, was killed off in the third episode this past season.

Cox has been nominated for the role of the Roy patriarch three times now, losing to Strong in 2020 in the category. In previous seasons, Logan was in every episode; his domineering physical presence was an integral part of the show. But then in the fourth and final season, the untouchable media-maker that the audience and the Roy siblings never thought would die — did exactly that. He went to the big network in the sky (well, he was on a plane), which is when the show’s trajectory permanently shifted. The vacuum that Roy left in his death was a vacuum that Cox left as well. The actors that play Roy’s children were given the space to spread their metaphorical acting wings without Cox’s heavy presence.

So does Cox deserve to be nominated in a lead actor category when he’s only technically been a part of three episodes and made a cameo later in the season? It’s not uncommon for actors to win big for a limited amount of screen time. In 1999, Judi Dench won an Oscar for best supporting actress for her whopping eight minutes of screen time in “Shakespeare in Love.” In 2006, Ellen Burstyn garnered a supporting actress Emmy nod for only 14 seconds of screen time in “Mrs. Harris.”

While Cox has been in the final season longer than 14 seconds, it raises the question: Does screen time really matter when an actor’s character is so larger than life that it transcends how much dialogue or scenes they have?


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


And if we answer the question with a no — Logan’s impact is far more substantial than the amount of time Cox was in the final season — does that mean he’s deserving of a lead actor nomination especially in a year that had stunning performances by his fictional children, portrayed by Strong and Culkin? Moreso, Cox’s nomination is an accumulation of many different culture moments. It is a result of his stellar work playing Logan for four years, an award for Logan’s death in the final season, and an award for the popularity and impact that “Succession” has had in the zeitgeist as it ends. There’s an element of farewell and thank you to this nod.

But if nominations were solely dependent on the general public’s feelings about a specific actor or character, Cox’s likelihood to snag a nomination in a lead actor category would probably decrease. That said, Academy members do vote more emotionally than logically. Regardless, the fictional media titan’s death rippled through the HBO family drama like a bullet straight through flesh and while people may have qualms about the nomination, the impact of Logan Roy’s legacy continues to be felt – even without a hologram version of himself.

 

Elon Musk launches new company focused on artificial intelligence

Elon Musk announced his latest endeavor on Wednesday, an artificial intelligence company called xAI to rival ChatGPT in its efforts to better provide a “maximum truth-seeking AI.” Advised by Dan Hendrycks, who currently serves as the director of the Center for AI Safety, the goal of the new company “is to understand the true nature of the universe,” according to its website. 

Musk’s xAI team — alumni of DeepMind, OpenAI, Google Research, Microsoft Research, Twitter and Tesla — will provide greater detail on the company via a live Twitter Spaces chat on Friday, but as of what’s known now, it will work to combat Musk’s fear that “AI companies are prioritizing systems that are “politically correct.”  

Per CNN, “Musk was an early backer of ChatGPT-creator OpenAI, but later criticized the company for inputting safeguards that aim to prevent the viral chatbot from spewing biased or sexist responses.” In their coverage of the xAI announce, a tweet from Musk back in December in which he said, “The danger of training AI to be woke – in other words, lie – is deadly,” is used to highlight what he’s going for.  

 

“The Ashley Madison Affair” is another doc where the audience is an accessory to the true crime

The Ashley Madison Affair” contains the familiar ingredients of your standard true crime documentary. It has sympathetic victims agreeing to appear on camera, mainly women who discovered their husbands were cheating on them. One, however, is an average guy swinger parted from his cash by “fembots.”

It has a convenient scoundrel in the company’s former CEO Noel Biderman, an evangelist for adultery who styled himself as the face of Ashley Madison, index finger pressed to shushed lips.

It has unconventional assailants some may consider to be digital vigilantes for justice: a hacker group called the Impact Team. Its 2015 breach of the databases belonging to Ashley Madison’s parent company Avid Life Media (ALM­) leaked sensitive personal information associated with tens of millions of accounts onto the dark web, including thousands connected to the U.S. government and military email addresses.

That crime inspired the title and is an as-yet unsolved mystery – another viewer enticement – since the Impact Team remains at large.

The Ashley Madison Affair“The Ashley Madison Affair”: Stefany Phillips’ now ex-husband was an Ashley Madison user (ABC News Studios)

The four-part ABC News documentary series has something else working in its favor, in that it reinforces the media and consumers’ roles as accessories to its subject’s  messiness. Not in any criminal respect, but maybe in a moral sense. We watched as Ashley Madison’s tasteless commercials became a late-night TV staple only a few years after its 2002 founding. Eyebrows arched at its provocative billboards featuring politicians caught with their pants down with people other than their spouses. Those same ads would be featured on newscasts, granting the company additional exposure and cultural legitimacy. 

Many of us chortled when the 2015 hack exposed customer names and addresses, emails and more. Helping that along was Josh Duggar’s unmasking as the infidelity site’s poster boy; two months before it happened, the reality star was revealed to have molested five young girls as a teenager, including four of his sisters.

And that came before the world found out that Josh Duggar was also soliciting child pornography, a crime for which he was sentenced to 12 years in prison in December 2021. This is all familiar trivia to anyone who watched Prime Video’s “Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets.”

“The Ashley Madison Affair” reinforces the media and consumers’ roles as an accessories to its subject’s messiness.

Is there such a thing as passively participatory true crime entertainment, where viewers don’t play armchair detective but somehow and without meaning to abet the wrongdoing being examined?

The unspoken laws of media clusters flimsily dictate that three makes a trend, but the premieres of two thematically disparate but culturally related shows within weeks of each other make a person wonder. Neither “The Ashley Madison Affair” nor “Shiny Happy People” would be possible if we didn’t make the entities at the center of them famous.

TLC may have given the Duggars a platform with “19 Kids and Counting” and its spinoff “Counting On,” but viewers made the show a hit and its family a paragon of good values. Daytime talk shows like “The View” brought on Biderman to defend the service his company provides in front of booing studio audiences, and thereby increased sales with each appearance he made.

We need your help to stay independent

Some of this can’t help but come across as puritanical tsk-tsking since, as the people who were either interviewed or whose words are dramatized by actors point out, the hookups facilitated by Ashley Madison, and its ALM siblings Cougar Life and Established Men were and are consensual.

“We’re offering something that’s needed, wanted, and desired,” offers the company’s Chief Strategy Officer Paul Keable in the last episode.

But not always real, the series explains. Part of the Impact Team’s goal was to expose ALM’s prolific bot use to get their male users to spend money by pursuing potential assignations with manufactured profiles.

The Ashley Madison AffairPaul Keable, former CSO of Ashley Madison in “The Ashley Madison Affair” (ABC News Studios)

Similarly, nobody forced millions of people to watch “19 Kids and Counting” or made tabloid editorial departments cover the Duggars.

But how we felt or feel about the hearts of “The Ashley Madison Affair” and “Shiny Happy People” matters less than what these docuseries tell us about what their main subjects wrought, and the ways the media ecosystem made viewers complicit.

These series stand apart from, say, the usual multipart dives into a chilling homicide case or the mind of an erratic leader whose accompanying cults of personality enabled them to get away with wrongdoing on a grand scale.

Such shows cater to our dark fascination with monstrosity or theatrical shamelessness. The crimes and transgressions are actual, but the extremity allows us to turn everyone involved into unreal figures. We can observe at a remove the Carl Lentzes (“The Secrets of Hillsong“) and Joe Exotics (“Tiger King”) of the world as sideshow creatures who were somebody else’s problem.  

In contrast “The Ashley Madison Affair” and “Shiny Happy People” – and, to go further back in time, 2022’s “White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch” and TNT’s installment of its “Rich and Shameless” anthology “Girls Gone Wild Exposed” – subconsciously ask us to consider whatever part we may have played in the mainstreaming of something repugnant. The shock value, insofar as there is any, doesn’t rest in mere gruesomeness but mass indifference. If there weren’t a marketplace for that exclusionary clothing brand‘s intentionally cultivated image of thin whiteness or convicted “Girls Gone Wild” founder Joe Francis‘ filmed exploitation of drunk young women, those companies would not have been as lucrative as they were in their heydays.


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


Regarding Ashley Madison the repugnance refers to the fallout from the hack, not the site’s merchandising of adultery. The Impact Team’s info dump exposed millions of regular people to scam artists and blackmailers and created an entire related industry of sites devoted to determining whether a person had an account on Ashley Madison, leading to countless divorces and several suicides, one recounted by a Scandinavian journalist interviewed for the docuseries.  

The shock value, insofar as there is any, doesn’t rest in mere gruesomeness but mass indifference.

One of the men exposed as a cheater was Biderman himself, contradicting his widely broadcast claims of fidelity to his wife Amanda.

“Shiny Happy People” exposes the ways that TLC’s family values-branded superstars covered up abuse and carried the banner for a conservative Christian Organization, the Institute of Basic Life Principles (IBLP). Some IBLP adherents are now influential voices on the far-right political stage and hold public office. We may never know if it would have made such inroads into our political system if the Duggars and their message never became synonymous with “wholesome” family TV.

We do know that “The Ashley Madison Affair” concludes with a happy ending for the company that even makes ABC’s Sunny Hostin grimly chuckle. The site, which never stopped running through the hack, is now more popular than ever, boasting around 75 million members worldwide. They say cheaters never win, but a whole lot of them seem to accept that getting found out is better than never taking that chance with their private information. And if they’re OK with that, why shouldn’t we be?

“The Ashley Madison Affair” is currently streaming on Hulu. 

 

 

Trump rages on Truth Social at Chris Christie for mocking his “border wall” on Fox News

Former President Donald Trump went after Republican primary opponent Chris Christie online early Wednesday over comments the former New Jersey governor made during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday, the Daily Beast reports. Christie told Piers Morgan that he stopped supporting the former president in 2020 over election lies and that he was disappointed by Trump’s track record as president, citing Trump’s failure to repeal Obamacare and build the border wall. “He didn’t build the wall in Mexico,” Christie said. “He built 47 miles of wall and guess what—we paid for every nickel of it, we don’t have the first peso from Mexico.”

Trump attacked Christie on Truth Social, dubbing the Republican candidate “Sloppy Chris Christie” and asserting he actually built 463 miles of border wall. “This does not include many Miles that we fixed or renovated, or areas that I got Mexico to secure. BEST BORDER EVER!” Trump wrote in a post to Truth Social. “He also lied about Russia & many other subjects!”

“Sloppy Chris Christie is thrashing about, doing and saying anything to stay relevant. He desperately wanted to join the Trump Administration, but I said “NO!” In 2016, he spent most of his time away from New Jersey in order to campaign for President, much like Ron DeSanctimonious is doing now to Florida. Chris ended up getting run out of New Hampshire, where he had almost no vote or popularity. They knew him well – CHRIS CHRISTIE IS A TOTAL LOSER!” he added in another post

Climate change threatens to cause “synchronized harvest failures” across the globe

New research shows scientists have underestimated the climate risk to agriculture and global food production. Blind spots in climate models meant “high-impact but deeply-uncertain hazards” were ignored. But now that the threat of “synchronized harvest failures” has been revealed, we cannot ignore the prospect of global famine.

Climate change models for North America and Europe had previously suggested global warming would increase crop yields in the short term. Those regional increases were expected to buffer losses elsewhere in global food supply.

But new evidence suggests climate-related changes to fast flowing winds in the upper atmosphere (the jet stream) could trigger simultaneous extreme weather events in multiple locations, with serious implications for global food security.

I have been examining opportunities to manage agricultural risk for 25 years. Much of that work involves learning how agricultural systems can be made more resilient, not only to climate change but to all shocks. This involves understanding the latest science as well as working with farmers and decision-makers to make appropriate adjustments. As the evidence on climate risk mounts, it’s clear Australia must urgently adapt and rethink our approach to global trade and food security.

 

Building resilience to shocks

Unfortunately, the global food system is not resilient to shocks at the moment. Only a few countries such as Australia, the US, Canada, Russia and those in the European Union produce large food surpluses for international trade. Many other countries are dependent on imports for food security.

So, if production declines rapidly and simultaneously across big exporting countries, supply will decrease and prices will increase. Many more people will struggle to afford food.

The prospect of such synchronised harvest failures across major crop-producing regions emerges during northern hemisphere summers featuring “meandering” jet streams. When the path of these fast flowing winds in the upper atmosphere shifts in a certain way, the likelihood of extreme events such as droughts or floods increases.

The researchers studied five key crop regions that account for a large part of global maize and wheat production. They compared historical events and weather to modelling. Yield losses were mostly underestimated in standard climate models, exposing “high-impact blind spots”. They conclude that their research “manifests the urgency of rapid emission reductions, lest climate extremes and their complex interactions [. . .] become unmanageable”.

 

Free trade or food sovereignty

Australia has been a big advocate for free trade, reducing barriers to trade such as tariffs and quotas. But the new research revealing the climate risk to food security should trigger a change in policy.

We have already experienced the limitations of an over-reliance on trade to access food. The system has wobbled during the COVID pandemic and the global financial crisis of 2008, when millions of people were thrown back into food insecurity and poverty.

Encouraging free trade in agriculture has not significantly improved global food security. In 1995, the World Trade Organisation implemented the Agreement on Agriculture to liberalize agricultural trade. That agreement constrained the ability of national governments to protect their agricultural industries and many more people have become food insecure since its introduction.

Australia needs to reconsider its short-term focus on the advantages of selling goods internationally. Conceptualizing food more as a human right than a commodity might initiate such a shift.

The global poor do not have the buying power to influence market demand and increase food supply for their benefit. As they face hardship, many are becoming angry, sparking conflict and undermining food security further.

The long-term goal needs to be a global food system that will be resilient to shocks, including climate change. Trade policy may need to respond by allowing governments to prioritize sovereign food security in a world dominated by risk.

 

            The colourful Kathmandu food market in Nepal, 2010
Many people around the world are still dependent on local markets, such as this one in Kathmandu, for access to food. Douglas Bardsley, Author provided
           

       

Huge implications for Australia

Prior to the COVID pandemic, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics was spruiking the nation’s food security. But it isn’t that simple. Even though there has been a lot of food available across Australia since early 2020, access has declined. Local food insecurity increased as the pandemic disrupted supply chains, with rising poverty on one hand and inflation on the other.

Climate change risks are likely to dwarf the impacts of COVID on Australian food systems.

Australian agriculture is highly exposed to climate change because rainfall and temperatures are so strongly influenced by El Niño. The drying phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation is expected to strengthen with climate change.

As atmospheric circulation changes, global weather patterns are shifting towards the poles. This is partly why early modelling of climate change in the cold-constrained agricultural systems of North America projected production would increase with global warming. But not anymore.

In Australia, modelling has rarely suggested the country would benefit from climate change. The Murray-Darling Basin, the heart of the nation’s food bowl, is expected to suffer warming, drying, reduced streamflow and more extreme events.

Australian agriculture is also highly sensitive to climate shocks because it is mostly rainfed — literally dependent on water that falls from the sky. Projected increases in droughts, evaporation and reduced average rainfall are going to challenge production systems.

Recent floods have also had shown how extreme weather events can have widespread impacts on agriculture and food prices. La Niña “rain bombs” (flash flooding from short duration, heavy rainfall events) damaged oranges and mandarin crops in 2022, downgrading produce.

To reduce the risk we need to adapt. Until recently, it was only rising land prices that enabled many Australian agribusinesses to remain viable for long periods of poor terms of trade.

Australian agriculture’s ability to withstand shocks relies on a range of structural factors that need more recognition, including:

  • our research and development capacity, which has been eroding with stagnant public investment

  • the sustainable management of key resources, such as the waters of the Murray-Darling and high-quality agricultural land, both of which we have struggled to protect

  • the resilience of farming communities, even though many are lacking key services and support.

 

A lucky country facing turbulent times

Australia is fortunate to be one of the few countries that produces more food than it needs, but it has other responsibilities towards global food security. Policy will need to respond to the new understanding of how food security will be affected by climate change.

There are a number of ways Australia could respond to the new evidence. To drive that change, there needs to be a new level of awareness of the true extent of the risks to agriculture.

On a global scale, governments may need to rethink their strong advocacy for food trade liberalization.

Locally, Australia will need to invest in adaptation to ensure that agriculture and our food systems more broadly, are resilient to the gathering storm, because this one will be like nothing we have ever seen.

Douglas Bardsley, Associate professor, University of Adelaide

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

“This hearing has turned into absolute chaos”: Dems call out Jim Jordan over “bananas” FBI hearing

Democrats sparred with Republicans leading the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing Wednesday, with much of the ire targeted at Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and his claims about Hunter Biden and the alleged “weaponization” of the government. 

In his opening remarks, Jordan took aim at FBI Director Christopher Wray over the July 4 ruling on alleged suppression of free speech by the bureau, quoting a Trump-appointed judge’s statement that “the United States government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth,” and further admonishing the FBI for trying to discredit reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“When the court says the FBI misled, that’s a nice way of saying they lied. They lied, and as a result, important information was kept from ‘we the people,’ days before the most important election we have. The election of the President of the United States, election of the commander-in-chief,” Jordan said.

“American speech is censored, parents are called terrorists, Catholics are called radicals, and I haven’t even talked about the spying that took place on a presidential campaign or the raiding of a former president’s home,” he added.

Jordan teed up his line of attack during an appearance on Fox News Wednesday morning, according to Mediaite.

“Well, this all happened under his watch. He’s the guy who created the foreign influence task force. The foreign influence task force was cited in the federal courts of opinion involved in censoring American speech,” Jordan began when host Bill Hemmer asked if he thought Wray was the root of his problems with the bureau and noted that Wray is a Trump appointee.

“So, this is the guy who presided over when they raided President Trump’s home 91 days before a mid-term election. This is the guy who was presiding over the FBI when the Richmond field office put together this memorandum saying they were looking to put sources inside parishes, inside the Catholic Church to snitch on parishioners. You’ve got to be kidding me. So this all happened under his watch,” Jordan continued. “So I don’t think it matters who appointed him or not. What we want to know is we want to know about all those things that have taken place, and we want them to stop, and we want him to give Congress the answers.”

Jordan, a key ally of former President Donald Trump, proposed that Congress stop funding Justice Department investigations into political figures on the grounds that “politically sensitive” cases should fall under the jurisdiction of “non-partisan career staff.” The claim is a direct rebuttal to the FBI’s probe of Trump’s Russia dealings and Hunter Biden’s recent plea deal, which staunch conservatives, including Jordan, deemed evidence of a “two-tier justice system.” 

We need your help to stay independent

Wray defended the bureau against Jordan’s claims, saying that the work “the men and women of the FBI do to protect the American people goes way beyond the one or two investigations that seem to capture all the headlines.” 

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., during the hearing slammed Jordan for what he suggested was his ultra-focus on Hunter Biden’s laptop 

“Chairman, I’ve counted in this hearing — and we’re only about an hour and a half in — the use of the word laptop about 20 times. That is bananas to me. You all are bringing up FISA, every single question,” Swalwell told Jordan during Wednesday’s hearing, referring to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“You’re essentially saying to the American people that you’re guardians of personal security and privacy, but the 2020 election was determined because the FBI didn’t let more Americans see a private citizen’s nonconsensual nudes?” Swalwell continued, referencing conservatives’ outcry when Twitter removed naked images of the president’s son.

Jordan asked Swalwell to yield for a comment, but he refused.

“Like, you should be a party of ideas, not a party of nonconsensual nudes to help you win an election,” the Democratic lawmaker continued. “We should be talking about the mass shootings that occurred over the last ten days. This hearing has turned into absolute chaos.”  


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


The Trump-appointed FBI director also took the chance to fire back at Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., after the Trump ally assailed the bureau’s reputation during the hearing. After failing to get Wray to comment on potentially incriminating messages Hunter Biden sent years ago, Gaetz then launched an attack against the director’s leadership abilities at the agency.

“You preside over the FBI, it has the lowest level of trust in the FBI’s history,” Gaetz argued. “People trusted the FBI more when J. Edgar Hoover was running the place… the reason is because you don’t give straight answers.”

Wray quickly retorted by informing Gaetz about the volume of Americans — Floridians in particular — who apply for positions with the bureau.

“Respectfully, congressman, in your home state of Florida, the number of people applying to come work for us, to devote their lives working for us, is up over 100 percent,” Wray said.

“We’re deeply proud of them!” Gaetz replied. “But they deserve better than you!”

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., on Wednesday also came after Jordan, quickly shooting down Jordan’s allegation that the FBI is “weaponized” against conservatives. He accused the Ohio Republican of attacking the agency to cape for Trump, who was indicted last month over his retention of national security documents after leaving office.

“Today, House Republicans will attack the FBI for having had the audacity to treat Donald Trump like any other citizen,” Nadler said. “The FBI dared to hold Trump accountable, so Republicans must discredit the FBI at all costs. You will hear claims today that the FBI’s decision to investigate Donald Trump was somehow unfair. You will hear Republicans attack the indictment of former President Trump on 37 counts related to his gross mishandling of national security information, including information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries, United States nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies of military attack, and plans to possible retaliation in response to foreign attack.”

Nadler also homed in on and mocked the suggestion that an FBI headed by a Trump-appointed director was a leftist group conspiring to take down conservatives.

“You will hear the case that this was a political investigation from the start, orchestrated by a liberal-loving FBI, that would ensure Trump would be wrongfully vilified at every turn,” Nadler said. “These claims, of course, are completely untethered from evidence. Even if you believe, as Chairman Jordan claims, that President Trump has committed no crime, surely we can agree that it is dangerous, and profoundly irresponsible, to have taken these documents from the White House and left them unsecured in Mar-a-Lago.”