Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Just wait”: Legal experts say pressure growing on jailed Allen Weisselberg to flip on Trump

Catherine Christian, a former Manhattan special assistant district attorney, predicted that former Trump Organization financial chief Allen Weisselberg could still play a major role in former President Donald Trump’s prosecution.

Weisselberg last month switched out his company-funded lawyer for another one. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Weisselberg will turn on Trump, she said, “but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.”

Weisselberg has been in Rikers Island Prison for the past four months after pleading guilty to a yearslong tax fraud scheme. Christian said that the investigation into the company’s business dealings, which began under former Manhattan D.A. Cy Vance and is continuing under D.A. Alvin Bragg, is still ongoing.

“People don’t believe that, but they should. So, people who were upset yesterday, and I’m not talking about people who are politically upset, who said that’s all there is — this is the entire case! I have said it’s not over yet. That the investigation is continuing,” she said in an appearance on MSNBC. 

“Just wait. Just wait. I think there will be another chapter. It’s an investigation, Clearly, the DA’s office is not going to talk about the pending investigation,” she added. “I think there will be more to come.”

New York Times reporter Suzanne Craig added that Weisselberg could still face additional charges related to insurance fraud.

“I think you can feel the heat in his cell right now in Rikers,” Craig said during the segment. “He is not gonna walk out of Rikers and just have this end. I think what prosecutors are looking to do, he’s got two more weeks left. He is potentially facing insurance fraud charges that could be brought against him. I think they’re using the pressure of that to get him to cooperate.”


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


Craig also explained that if Weisselberg agrees to cooperate, he could potentially be a witness in the hush-money case too.

“We don’t know right now where things are at, but the Trump Organization is paying his bills,” Craig said, referencing the fact that Weisselberg is still employed at the Trump Org. “He is 75 years old. I just don’t think anyone can really, except for him, understand the effect of — he would be doing — if the insurance case goes ahead against him — it’s theft over $1 million. It’s hard time. I think he’s got some decisions to make right now about what he’s going to do,” she explained.

Steve Bannon spent “months” recruiting anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. to run against Biden as “chaos agent”

Former chief Trump strategist Steve Bannon spent “months” encouraging anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run against President Joe Biden in the 2024 election, according to a report from CBS News. 

People familiar with the matter told the outlet that Bannon hoped Kennedy could serve as a “useful chaos agent” in the election while also spreading “anti-vaccine sentiment around the country,” according to CBS News’ Robert Costa.

Kennedy, a nephew of President John F. Kennedy and son of the murdered Robert F. Kennedy, filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday to run as a Democrat in the upcoming election. 

“Help me decide whether to run for President. If it looks like I can raise the money and mobilize enough people to win, I’ll jump in the race,” Kennedy tweeted in March. 

“If I run, my top priority will be to end the corrupt merger between state and corporate power that has ruined our economy, shattered the middle class, polluted our landscapes and waters, poisoned our children, and robbed us of our values and freedoms. Together we can restore America’s democracy,” he wrote.

Kennedy has been accused of playing a leading role in “spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccines” by the Center for Countering Digital Hate. He also issued an apology last year after saying that Americans hesitant to vaccines had it worse than Anne Frank, who lived through the Nazi occupation of Germany. 

Kennedy has long been involved in the anti-vaccine movement. His charity, Children’s Health Defense, flourished during the pandemic, with revenues more than doubling in 2020 to $6.8 million, according to filings made with charity regulators obtained by CBS.

He also released a book in 2021 titled “The Real Anthony Fauci,” in which he accused the country’s top infectious disease doctor of committing “a historic coup d’etat against Western democracy.”


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


Kennedy’s anti-vax beliefs have sometimes aligned him with far-right figures. A now-deleted Instagram photo obtained by CBS shows Kennedy backstage at a July 2021 Reawaken America event with former President Donald Trump’s ally Roger Stone, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and anti-vaccine profiteer Charlene Bollinger. 

He has also taken his vaccine conspiracy theories to Fox News, telling Tucker Carlson “we have to love our freedom more than we fear a germ.”

Kennedy also made an appearance at a rally against vaccine mandates in Washington, D.C., during which he said, “The minute they hand you that vaccine passport, every right that you have is transformed into a privilege contingent upon your obedience to arbitrary government dictates. It will make you a slave.”

His sister, Kerry Kennedy told the Associated Press in 2021 that her brother is “completely wrong on this issue [vaccines] and very dangerous.”

“If a petty HOA complaint were a person”: New Yorkers hit back at MTG for calling NYC “disgusting”

After spending just one day in New York City, during which she was heckled to leave her own rally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., trashed the city in a rant on Fox News.

Greene made an appearance in New York to protest former President Donald Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday but left after just a few minutes when a crowd of protestors told her she and her MAGA crew were not welcome in their city. 

During a Wednesday appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the congresswoman was prompted to rip apart the predominantly liberal city.

“Mayor [Eric] Adams described New York as ‘his home,'” Carlson said. “How did his home look? Pretty neat and tidy?”

“No, his home is disgusting. I compare it to what I call Gotham City,” Greene said, referring to the fictional crime-ridden city in the Batman comics. 

“The streets are filthy, they’re covered with people basically dying on drugs. They can’t even stand up; they’re falling over,” she continued. “There’s so much crime in the city, I can’t comprehend how people live there. It was repulsive, it smells bad. I think it’s a terrible place.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., slammed Greene over the comments.

“If a petty HOA (homeowners association) were a person,” the New York congresswoman tweeted.

“If anyone went on TV and talked about a rural area like this, it’d be gloves off – and deservedly so. This is no different,” Cortez added, pointing out Greene’s hypocrisy. “If she doesn’t like the greatest city in the United States, that’s her problem.”


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


“Marjorie Taylor Greene went through a war zone on her Escalade ride from her midtown five star hotel to the courthouse and then to JFK airport,” mocked journalist Emma Vigeland. 

“Guess which state Marjorie Taylor Greene describes as a crime-ridden hellscape?” tweeted Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, with an infographic of homicide rates in the 50 states. 

CBS News anchor Chris Wragge slammed the exchange between Greene and Carlson, writing “neither one welcome here.”

“Epic f**king media fail”: Jon Stewart excoriates Trump indictment coverage

Comedian Jon Stewart went after 24-hour cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC for their “jaded” coverage that simultaneously hyped up former President Donald Trump’s arraignment and claimed the indictment was a disappointment. 

“Oh, were you disappointed, were you depressed?” Stewart asked sarcastically in a clip from an upcoming episode of his Apple TV+ show “The Problem With Jon Stewart.”

“Here’s why: Because you treated this like the final confrontation with Thanos and then it actually just played out like what it was, a boring-as-shit legal procedure at the very beginning of what will be a long, drawn-out, laborious legal process,” he said. 

He then chastised the networks for being “let down by the expectations you motherf***ers created,” playing clips of commentators like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and CNN contributor Andrew McCabe who said Trump’s case is “unimpressive” and “not a slam dunk.”

“Only our media, those cloistered, short attention span, own-ass-spelunking defenders of democracy, find a president paying hush money to a Playboy model and an adult film star, and then cooking the books to help himself win an election, underwhelming and boring,” Stewart said.


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


Stewart then shared one last clip of MSNBC anchors talking about why “the silence of Mitch McConnell—fall or no fall—speaks volumes.”

The comedian ended his segment by declaring the situation an “epic f***ing media fail!”

Wisconsin GOP supermajority already looking to impeach newly elected liberal Supreme Court judge

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday, giving liberals control of the court for the first time in 15 years — but some Republican lawmakers are already eyeing a potential impeachment after winning a supermajority in the state Senate.

Wisconsin Republicans won in a separate race this week — the state Senate’s 8th District — giving them a supermajority in the chamber. That means that the GOP will have the ability to pursue removal proceedings of certain elected officials if the Assembly votes to impeach them, NBC News reports. 

Republican Assemblyman Dan Knodl, who won the 8th district, said in the final days of his campaign that he would consider impeaching Protasiewicz from her position as a judge if he was elected. 

In an interview with WISN-TV last week, Knodl said that the GOP’s supermajority in the state Senate would give them “more authority in the areas of oversight and accountability of elected officials and appointed officials.”

“If there are some that are out there that are corrupt, that are failing at their tasks, then we have the opportunity to hold them accountable … up to impeachment,” Knodl said. “Janet Protasiewicz is a Circuit Court judge right now in Milwaukee, and she has failed.”

When asked if he would support her impeachment, Knodl replied, “I certainly would consider it.” However, it is not clear whether he was only referring to her position on the Milwaukee Circuit Court, or if he would also consider impeaching her if she won the Supreme Court race.

Democrats are now concerned that Knodl’s remarks are a precursor to Republicans trying to impeach statewide elected officials, like Protasiewicz, with their new Senate supermajority.

“There’s going to be a supermajority in the state Senate that will allow the legislators in control of the state Senate to do what they were threatening back in November, which is to start impeachment proceedings,” said Jodi Habush Sinykin, who lost to Knodl, in an interview with WISN-TV before the election.

Knodl is one of the 15 Wisconsin state lawmakers who tried to get former Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the 2020 election results. He narrowly won the election on Tuesday after the seat was left vacant by Republican incumbent Alberta Darling, who retired in November. 

His win gave Republicans a two-thirds majority in the Senate, giving them the ability to override vetoes from the governor, and convict and remove officials in impeachment trials.

The Wisconsin Constitution outlines that the state Assembly can impeach with a simple majority “all civil officers of this state for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors,” and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has previously ruled that those officers include the governor, lieutenant governor and judges.

“A spokesperson for the Wisconsin Republican Party referred NBC News to recent comments from another GOP state senator who indicated that the Senate would not advance any prospective impeachment proceedings against Protasiewicz,” the outlet reported. 


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


Although the state Supreme Court should technically be nonpartisan, the race between Protasiewicz, a liberal, and Dan Kelly, her conservative opponent, became increasingly partisan. 

Protasiewicz made it clear throughout her campaign that her position, especially on abortion rights and gerrymandering, aligned with the Democratic Party. She was also endorsed by the Democratic abortion rights group Emily’s List, Hillary Clinton, and former Attorney General Eric Holder. 

She won with 55.5 percent of the vote, the New York Times reported, and the election was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history. 

Protasiewicz’s win is especially important because it gave liberals control of the Supreme Court just ahead of a challenge to Wisconsin’s abortion law. Abortion is currently banned in the state due to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, but a lawsuit challenging the issue is set to be heard in court next month, and will likely reach the Supreme Court. With Protasiewicz on the court, abortion rights are now expected to triumph. 

Knodl’s idea to impeach Protasiewicz garnered support from Republican state Senator Duey Stroebel, who said the plan is unlikely to succeed but “certainly not impossible.”

“If she truly acts in terms of ignoring our laws and applying her own personal beliefs, then maybe that’s something people will talk about,” Stroebel said last week. “If the rulings are contrary to what our state laws and Constitution say, I think there could be an issue.”

Wisconsin lawmakers have only impeached one judge in 1853, and the state Senate didn’t convict. Legal experts say the modern-day removal of a judge is highly unlikely due to minute details. 

Wisconsin Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu told WISN-TV on Wednesday that “we’re not going to use impeachments to overturn elections or anything like that.”

“To impeach someone they would need to do something very serious, so no, we are not looking to start the impeachment process as a regular occurring event in Wisconsin,” he explained.

State law defines misconduct worthy of impeachment as “willful violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics; willful or persistent failure to perform official duties; habitual intemperance, due to consumption of intoxicating beverages or use of dangerous drugs, which interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties; or conviction of a felony.”

That means Republicans will have to wait to see how Protasiewicz rules on cases and if she shows any bias before trying to remove her, Daniel Suhr, a lawyer who previously served in Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, told Wisconsin Watch

“Rather than saying her entire campaign approach was flawed to the point of impeachable, I think an alternative approach is to say, on this particular case, this particular topic, you cannot be impartial, or you certainly cannot appear impartial, which is the standard that the law sets,” Suhr explained.

“It’s absurd to suggest that Protasiewicz has engaged in ‘corrupt conduct in office’ when she hasn’t even taken office yet,” Chad Oldfather, a Marquette University Law School professor, told Wisconsin Watch. 

“‘Corrupt conduct,’ especially in the era when the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted, was mostly understood to be about people using public office for personal gain — not policy or legal disagreements, but self-dealing,” he said. “That’s consistent with the longstanding American norm that judges are not to be impeached simply because the authority with impeachment power doesn’t like the judges’ decisions.”

What if there were a dispute over the Legislature’s handling of an impeachment? Then the Wisconsin Supreme Court would decide, as it has in other states, said Miriam Seifter, a University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School professor.

“An impeachment that immediately follows a free and fair election is not a sign of a healthy democracy,” Miriam Seifter, a University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School professor, told the outlet. “Absent allegations of corruption or crime, impeaching a judge who just won a resounding electoral victory would show a troubling disregard for the will of the voters.”

Easter bunnies, cacao beans and pollinating bugs: A basket of 6 essential reads about chocolate

Tens of millions of chocolate bunnies get sold in the U.S. every Easter. Here are six articles about chocolate from The Conversation’s archive — great reading while you’re nibbling the ears off your own bunny (if you’re one of the three-quarters of Americans who start at the top).

1. Food scientist on cocoa chemistry

Chocolate bunnies don’t grow on trees — but cacao pods do. It takes a lot of processing to get from the raw agricultural input to the finished output.

Food scientist Sheryl Barringer from The Ohio State University wrote about various chemical reactions that are part of the transformation of beans into chocolate. One is the Maillard reaction, the same thing that gives the browned bits on roasted meats or a bread’s golden crust their flavor. Barringer also explains that weird white stuff — known as bloom — that might appear on your Easter chocolates if they hang around for a while. (Don’t worry, it’s still edible.)

2. Chocolate is a fermented food

Food science Ph.D. candidate Caitlin Clark from Colorado State University focuses her research on the microbes responsible for much of chocolate’s flavor. As a fermented food, chocolate depends on yeast and bacteria to help turn a raw ingredient into the treat you can recognize.

Clark described how the microorganisms that occur naturally in a given geographical location can give high-end chocolates their “terroir” — “the characteristic flair imparted by a place” you might be more used to thinking about with regard to wine.

3. Pollinators are important part of process

Cacao growers rely on another tiny ally to pollinate their crop. Entomologist DeWayne Shoemaker from the University of Tennessee described the mini flies — particularly biting midges and gall midges — that get the job done. “Pollinators must pick up pollen from the male parts of a flower of one tree and deposit it on the female parts of a flower on another tree,” Shoemaker wrote.

But up to 90% of cacao flowers don’t get pollinated at all. People can hand-pollinate the little flowers, but it remains a mystery which other insects might do the job in the wild.

4. Child labor is chocolate’s bitter secret

Harvesting and processing cacao is labor-intensive. To meet this need, some farmers turn to child labor. Cultural anthropologist Robert Ulin from the Rochester Institute of Technology described how the global chocolate industry is tied to inequality via exploitative labor practices.

“The largest chocolate companies signed a protocol in 2001 that condemned child labor and childhood slavery,” Ulin wrote. But he noted that consumers may want more information to make sure their purchase power supports “fair labor practices in the chocolate sector.”

5. Not safe for furry family members

Eating a ton of chocolate is probably not a healthy choice for anyone. But even a little bit of chocolate can be deadly for dogs and cats.

In an article about all kinds of holiday foods that are unsafe for pets, veterinarian and researcher Leticia Fanucchi from Oklahoma State University explained the chemicals in this human delicacy that can cause fatal “chocolate intoxication.” Don’t delay getting veterinary help if your pet does raid your Easter basket.

6. An enslaved chocolatier in colonial America

An enslaved cook named Caesar, born in 1732, was one of the first chocolatiers in the American colonies. Historical archaeologist Kelley Fanto Deetz from the University of California, Berkeley described how Caesar “would have had to roast the cocoa beans on the open hearth, shell them by hand, grind the nibs on a heated chocolate stone, and then scrape the raw cocoa, add milk or water, cinnamon, nutmeg or vanilla, and serve it piping hot.”

Cocoa was a hot commodity for Virginia’s white elite during this period, when it was a culinary component — along with pineapples, Madeira wine, port, champagne, coffee and sugar — of the Columbian Exchange.

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

Maggie Villiger, Senior Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

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

Calls for impeachment after report reveals GOP donor “subsidizing” Clarence Thomas’ luxury lifestyle

Progressives on Thursday urged congressional Democrats to immediately push for investigations and impeachment proceedings after bombshell reporting by ProPublica revealed that right-wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been taking luxury trips funded by a billionaire Republican megadonor for more than 20 years without formally disclosing them—a likely violation of federal law.

The investigative outlet reported Thursday that “for more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year” from Dallas-based real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

According to ProPublica, Thomas “has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.”

“These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures,” the outlet noted. “His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress, and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who is now with the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told ProPublica that the justice “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

The luxury trip revelation is just the latest scandal for Thomas, who has faced mounting scrutiny over the past year for alleged ethics violations, including his decision not to recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 presidential election despite his wife’s direct involvement in efforts to overturn the results of that contest.

“Democrats should force an impeachment vote of Justice Thomas on the House floor,” Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch argued Thursday in response to the ProPublica reporting. “It won’t pass, obviously, but put Republicans on the record supporting this level of corruption, and make the corrupt judiciary a campaign issue.”

It’s unclear how House Democrats would go about forcing an impeachment vote given GOP control of the chamber. Republicans have repeatedly defended Thomas as he’s faced backlash over his failure to recuse from election-related cases.

Brian Fallon, executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, said in a statement Thursday that the Senate—which is narrowly controlled by Democrats—”cannot let this extraordinary display of corruption and lawbreaking go unanswered.”

“Senate Democrats cannot force Thomas to resign or give him the impeachment trial he clearly deserves, but they can hold hearings to further expose Justice Thomas’ apparent lawbreaking and the Republican justices’ deep ties to far-right donors,” said Fallon. “As long as we are stuck with a Supreme Court made up of corrupt idealogues in the pocket of far-right donors, the American people deserve to know the truth.”

ProPublica stressed that “the extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Crow’s access to the justice extends to anyone the businessman chooses to invite along,” the outlet reported. “Thomas’ frequent vacations at Topridge have brought him into contact with corporate executives and political activists. During just one trip in July 2017, Thomas’ fellow guests included executives at Verizon and PricewaterhouseCoopers, major Republican donors, and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business conservative think tank.”

The outlet noted that a painting of Thomas at Topridge—Crow’s private lakeside resort in upstate New York—shows Thomas “in conversation with Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader regarded as an architect of the Supreme Court’s recent turn to the right.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., the chair of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee and a vocal advocate of ethics reform on the high court, wrote on Twitter that ProPublica’s reporting “cries out for the kind of independent investigation that the Supreme Court—and only the Supreme Court, across the entire government—refuses to perform.”

“It’s not just the undisclosed gifts of hospitality, it’s the undisclosed company of political operatives—particularly Leonard Leo, the operative who helped the billionaires capture the court,” Whitehouse continued. “Who were Thomas’ companions on these free undisclosed vacations, and what interests did those undisclosed companions have before the court? The question is obvious.”

“All of this needs robust investigation,” the senator added, “and it’s the chief justice’s job to make sure that occurs.”

“Betrayal”: Outrage as N.C. Dem switches parties to give GOP veto-proof majority

North Carolina State Rep. Tricia Cotham formally announced Wednesday that she is switching from the Democratic Party to the GOP, handing Republicans a veto-proof majority in the House and potentially imperiling Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s ability to block right-wing attacks on reproductive freedom and voting rights.

Cotham’s move, which was enthusiastically welcomed by the North Carolina GOP, led top Democrats in the state to call for her immediate resignation.

“This is deceit of the highest order,” North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton and Mecklenburg County Democratic Party Chair Jane Whitley said in a joint statement. “Rep. Cotham’s decision is a betrayal to the people of [House District 112] with repercussions not only for the people of her district, but for the entire state of North Carolina.”

“If she can no longer represent the values her constituents trusted her to champion,” Clayton and Whitley added, “she should resign immediately.”

North Carolina House Democratic Leader Robert Reives also demanded Cotham’s resignation, saying she is “not the person that was presented to the voters of House District 112.”

Cotham, who prior to her current term served in the North Carolina House as a Democrat for a decade, said during a Wednesday press conference at the state GOP’s headquarters that her decision to cross the aisle was spurred by what she characterized as mistreatment from Democratic lawmakers.

“They have pushed me out,” Cotham said. “They’ve made it very clear they do not want me.”

As The Washington Post noted Wednesday, Cotham was among several North Carolina Democrats who missed a vote last week on whether to override Cooper’s veto of a bill ending permit requirements for handguns.

The absences allowed the House to override the governor’s veto. The Senate, which already had a veto-proof majority, also voted in favor of the override.

“Cotham at the time said she was against the repeal but had to miss the vote for a medical appointment,” the Post reported. “Nonetheless, she drew blowback from fellow Democrats.”

During her press conference on Wednesday, Cotham was evasive when asked whether she will toe the GOP line on abortion and other key issues now that she has switched parties.

“I am still the same person, and I am going to do what I believe is right and follow my conscience,” Cotham said.

Cotham, who represents a district that President Joe Biden won by 20 points, has been a vocal supporter of abortion rights throughout her legislative career. In a 2015 speech on the floor of the North Carolina House, the then-Democrat spoke about her own abortion and slammed the GOP for “playing with women’s lives” by attacking reproductive rights.

In the 2022 election, Cotham ran on a left-leaning platform that included a $15-an-hour minimum wage, Medicaid expansion, affordable housing, and support for LBGTQ+ rights.

Heather Williams, interim president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), accused Cotham of “pulling a bait and switch on her constituents—who voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat to represent them in the House.”

“Handing Republicans the ability to override Governor Cooper’s veto will endanger abortion access, voting rights, and other fundamental freedoms in the state,” said Williams. “Voters in North Carolina did not elect a GOP House supermajority and Rep. Cotham is placing politics over their interests.”

Cooper, who won reelection in 2020 and has used his veto authority against Republican legislation dozens of times, said Wednesday that Cotham’s decision to switch parties is “disappointing.”

“Representative Cotham’s votes on women’s reproductive freedom, election laws, LGBTQ rights, and strong public schools will determine the direction of the state we love,” said Cooper. “It’s hard to believe she would abandon these long-held principles, and she should still vote the way she has always said she would vote when these issues arise, regardless of party affiliation.”

Donald Trump and the media: How the Waco siege spawned the MAGA cult

With a mighty voice he shouted: “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. — Revelation 18:2

Watching Donald Trump’s arraignment and his subsequent attacks on the justice system, as he predicted nuclear Armageddon and called the U.S. a Third World country might, on any other day, have seemed odd.

But after many years of his bombast, it seemed as old and tired as Trump himself looked and sounded Tuesday night when he spoke to his faithful followers at Mar-a-Lago, hours after making history by becoming the first president ever indicted for a felony. We heard his standard stump speech, his “Final Battle” war cry and his junkyard dog yelp about how badly he is victimized. He invoked fears of apocalyptic doom. “Our country is going to hell,” he claimed. Nuclear war? We’re “not too far away from it.”

Trump told us once again that he’d gotten the most votes of any sitting president in history during the 2020 election. Congratulations. Of all the losers in history, Trump comes in first. He’s the biggest loser.

Trump began his speech by saying, “I never thought anything like this could happen in America,” which was another way of saying “I thought my privilege protected me.”

It was a bittersweet moment: No one is above the law, which is as it should be. But we have a former president who is of such low character that he got indicted for paying off a porn star. (And a former Playboy model. And a Trump Tower doorman.)

The press? We gave Trump ample oxygen for his vile behavior — almost as much as Lesley Stahl gave Marjorie Taylor Greene on “60 Minutes” Sunday night. The press and Trump walk hand in hand in this fiasco. He loves the attention, the American people love to look at him either in awe or revulsion and the press happily feeds the fire.

We fall for Trump every time. He invoked the same fire and brimstone imagery at Mar-a-Lago after his indictment that he invoked in his Waco rally in late March. That is not a coincidence.

The press falls for Trump every time. We keep on giving him oxygen to feed his vileness, like Lesley Stahl just did with Marjorie Taylor Greene on “60 Minutes.”

This month we acknowledge the 30th anniversary of the Branch Davidian siege at Waco that helped spawn  the rise of militias, strengthened the NRA and gave birth to the fear of the “deep state.” Trump is celebrating it because he knows who his core supporters are — the same people who venerate the Branch Davidians.

The key to understanding Trump and the press lies in Trump’s affinity with Waco.

*  *  *

The 51-day standoff at the Mount Carmel compound outside Waco began on Feb. 28, 1993 and ended in an inferno on April 19, 1993. It claimed the lives of 80 people, including 26 children and four ATF agents. 

Humans are not very good people. 

Within an hour after the story broke, our executive producer at “America’s Most Wanted” assigned me to head to Waco. I got there about eight hours after the initial raid on the compound failed and was among the first non-local reporters on the scene. All we knew at first was that the ATF had tried to serve a warrant on a “heavily armed” cult and had been driven away after an extended firefight. The more we found out, the more horrified we became.

A two-man KWTX crew, including reporter John McLemore, risked their lives shooting video of the entire raid. They helped transport wounded ATF agents from the scene. They were first seen as heroes, but it wasn’t long before some in the government accused them of tipping off the Branch Davidians. Playing the victim isn’t unique to Donald Trump.

The Waco Tribune-Herald had been working on an investigative story about the Branch Davidians for eight months. Its reporters had uncovered allegations of stockpiling weapons as well as the abuse and sexual exploitation of children by David Koresh, the leader of the cult. 

The seven-part series published by the Tribune-Herald, “The Sinful Messiah,” was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1994 and was lauded for its efforts as a “high-water mark for investigative reporting.” It began with the words, “If you are a Branch Davidian Christ lives on a threadbare piece of land 10 miles east of Waco called Mt. Carmel.”

It was source material for every reporter covering the siege.

One night, a Sky News anchor who had read the series asked me in a live shot if all cults in the United States were as “heavily armed as this one.”  I had the sudden realization that to the rest of the world the U.S. was nothing more than a nation of insanely and obscenely armed hillbillies. I drew a blank.

“So, we understand there are a lot of cults in the United States, are they all as heavily armed as this one?” the anchor asked again.

“I certainly hope not,” I deadpanned into the camera.


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


The ATF got wind of the Davidians about the same time as the local newspaper. They successfully placed an undercover agent inside the cult and concentrated on its stockpile of illegally converted weapons. They knew Koresh loved guns. He was charged with attempted murder in 1987 when he and a cult rival got into a gun battle over control of the group (originally an offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventists). No one died, but Koresh placed a couple of bullets in non-lethal areas of his rival’s body. This scenario is known in Texas as “He didn’t get shot right.”

While you try to figure out what that means, I’ll tell you what some of the deputies I spoke with said during the Waco standoff. In 1987, the sheriff drove to Mount Carmel, knocked on the door and said, “Vernon, want you to come on out now. Give up your guns. You beat the rap, and you can keep the guns.” That would be Vernon Howell, who later changed his name to David Koresh. He did both — peacefully.

The ATF chose a different tactic six years later. 

They decided to rush the compound, a move that depended entirely on the element of surprise — which they learned from their undercover agent before the raid that they did not have.

So agents tried to execute a warrant facing a trained, committed opponent with home-court advantage, superior firepower and a well-fortified position. The arrogance and ignorance of the ATF proved lethal to its own people. 

It was stupid and senseless. At one of the first briefings I asked why the ATF hadn’t followed the local sheriff’s lead and just knocked on the door. I was told that might have gotten somebody shot. That answer made no sense then and even less now. The ATF also knew Koresh’s daily routine on and off Mount Carmel, and could have picked him up with little fanfare, as Koresh himself told negotiators during the siege. 

After the raid failed, the FBI (which took over the siege) added insult to injury and used psychological warfare techniques against the highly motivated apocalyptic cult.  

Hearing dial tones, babies crying and inane songs blasted at insane levels over loudspeakers at night may have worked on Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, but this was Texas. The FBI didn’t soften the Davidians’ commitment. They hardened it. On the upside, they did anger a lot of reporters who were unhappy to learn how well those annoying sounds carried through the rural Texas night air. 

At one point, FBI negotiators pulled off an improbable feat: Hardcore Davidian Kathy Schroeder surrendered so she could care for her infant son, who’d previously been released. The world, including Koresh and other cult members, got to see her almost immediately arrested and handcuffed. So much for being able to care for her toddler.

That was not the incentive the negotiators were hoping for. No one else surrendered after Schroeder left Mount Carmel.

After seven weeks of stalemate that the government helped cause, Justice Department officials complained that the operation was costing a million dollars a day. President Bill Clinton told Attorney General Janet Reno to do what she thought was best. Unfortunately, Reno relied upon the ATF and the FBI for advice.  So the FBI breached the compound with a tank, planted tear gas and tried to force the cultists out into the sunlight where they could be arrested.

That isn’t what happened.

Again, the government badly misjudged the commitment of the Branch Davidians. Koresh, a wannabe rock star and capable con man, had his guitar, a recording studio, all the food he needed and approximately 40 women he considered his wives in the compound with him. He and his followers thought he was the messiah. The Schroeder incident proved they couldn’t trust the government. After being wounded in the initial raid, Koresh was intent on being a martyr. 

Logic dictated that the Davidians weren’t coming out. The locals knew it and sold T-shirts that said “WACO — We Ain’t Comin’ Out!” Naturally they sold well. I probably still have one somewhere.

What the FBI and ATF did in Waco was not a high point on anyone’s résumé. When the flames died down and the charred remains of the children were found at Mount Carmel, law enforcement tried to blame the media. But the press did its job, none more so than the KWTX crew who put their lives at risk to cover the story and those, like Mark England and Darlene McCormick, who investigated Koresh for the local paper. 

Waco should have served as a national wake-up call. Instead, it only woke up the people who became hardcore Trump supporters.

Those local reporters led the way. And because of their efforts, all of us who followed knew the facts. Everyone understood the seriousness of the story and the need to get it right. I believe I was the first reporter to do a live shot from Waco for the fledgling Fox network. Afterwards, there was no propaganda video denying what we all knew had actually happened. We were better then.

Today, state governments in Florida and elsewhere want to introduce bills mandating “media responsibility” — which actually means media suppression. If only the government took as much care to fix its problems as it does trying to silence reporters who tell us about those problems, the world might be a better place. 

Waco was the tragedy that should have been a national wake-up call. It mostly woke up those who are now hardcore Trump supporters.

When President Clinton walked into the Rose Garden to announce the destruction of the compound and to tell us Koresh was both dead and insane (or maybe it was the other way around) I marveled at how he ignorantly, arrogantly and somehow piously accepted blame he hadn’t entirely earned while ruthlessly defending the bad decisions of the ATF and the FBI.

Two years later, on April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh, whom many of us reporters had met when he sold bumper stickers outside Waco, helped kill 168 people when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building  in Oklahoma City. He timed the date for the anniversary of the Waco tragedy.

*  *  *

Watching Donald Trump weave his doomsday warnings into his self-centered rant Tuesday night drove home just how much like Koresh he really is — and how blinded those who follow him are. His followers are worshippers. The men consider themselves messiahs, but are actually con men who exploit women and children, and ultimately pull the strings that led to their own demise.

What stays with me most these 30 years later is how gleefully ignorant we still are. Some of us still fall for the con. Some of us mindlessly support the stupidity and arrogance of government, political extremism, and religions or institutions that allow you to commit murder and mayhem without guilt or conscience.

Waco cannot be minimized. 

After decades of grifting, Donald Trump has finally found a group that will never leave his side — as long as he keeps playing the hits: Deep state, conspiracy, guns, apocalypse.

Thirty years later, we have Donald Trump. He has arrived at this “inflection point,” to quote Joe Biden, flying by the seat of his soiled pants. After years of grifting, he has finally found a group that would never leave his side. They’ll remain loyal as long as he plays their favorite hits: Deep state, conspiracy, guns and apocalypse. While he whines about his “victimization” he also tells them, like Koresh before him, that their cause is noble. They believe him.

This group is committed. They cannot be intimidated. They can’t be reasoned with and they won’t follow logic or facts. Like the Branch Davidians, they have invented their own reality.

Like Koresh, Trump paints himself as a messiah. It is just another of his endless false claims. Like Koresh, he is a continuing danger, a menace and a coward.

But as Trump faces many other potential criminal charges — all more serious than those he faces in Manhattan, — as well as civil lawsuits, don’t worry about him turning Mar-a-Lago into a second Mount Carmel. Trump is the Daffy Duck of cowards. He’s a craven, greedy little coward. He is the new David Koresh. But he won’t end with a bang. He’ll end with a whimper. 

As for his worshippers taking up violence, we already live in a violent country. With more than 130 mass shootings in our country already this year, at the rate of 1.5 every day, what more can Trump’s Davidian-like cultists do? 

I don’t worry about that. With Trump’s first indictment, I hope we’re finally waking up.

Monkeys without opposable thumbs aren’t fooled by magic tricks, study finds

If there ever were a science experiment that combined the power of artistic expression with the traditionally dry task of collecting data, it is the one conceived by Dr. Nicky Clayton and her PhD student, Elias Garcia Pellegrin. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Clayton is a dancer and Pellegrin has a background in performance theater. The scientists wanted to learn if monkeys could be fooled by sleight of hand magic tricks — specifically three species: common marmosets, Humboldt’s squirrel monkeys and yellow-breasted capuchin monkeys. The new study is published in the scientific journal Current Biology.

This trick required the scientists to put food in one hand, and present that hand to each individual monkey. 

Clayton (a professor of Comparative Cognition at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Royal Society) joined Pellegrin and other scientists in this Ig Nobel Prize–worthy experiment because they wanted to understand more about the nature of consciousness. They were not disappointed either: Of the three monkey species tested, only marmosets were not deceived. Intriguingly, marmosets are also the only tested monkeys that lack opposable thumbs. The scientists hypothesize that this detail is related to why the magic tricks did not work on them.

As Clayton, Pellegrin and co-authors Rachael Miller and Clive Wilkins explain in the study, sleight of hand magic requires observes to expect specific manual movements, and thus can be used to test the mind-body relationships in animals with hands similar to (but not exactly the same as) human beings. Hence, the authors chose the 24 monkeys for whom they would perform magic tricks, and selected a feat known as “the French drop effect.” This trick required the scientists to put food in one hand, and present that hand to each individual monkey. As the monkey reached out for the treat, the researcher’s other hand would reach over and appear to grab it. Since the palm of the second hand now faced inward, monkeys that possess opposable thumbs tended to assume the treat was being clutched in that second hand where they could no longer see it. When the second hand was opened to reveal that it was still empty, those monkeys then discovered to their surprise that the treat had never left the first hand.

Except for marmosets, of course: They do not have opposable thumbs, so their eyes never left the first hand.

Because monkeys are as unique as humans, the members of each species did not react synchronously. Even so, the patterns were unmistakable: Capuchin monkeys were fooled by the French drop 81% of the time and squirrel monkeys were fooled by the mealworms 93% of the time, while marmosets were only taken in 6% of the time.

In contrast, when the scientists used an adapted version of the trick (with a “power grip” that all three species can perform), all of the monkey species were fooled.

“It tells us something about how we think without work,” Clayton explained to Salon. “We know this because we know . . . there’s this massive power in this non-verbal communication. And then I think of seeing non-human animals respond in that way to these non-verbal stimuli. It creates all kinds of questions in your mind, doesn’t it? Why is it so soothing to us? What does it mean for the animals that watch it?”


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


“We used magic effects because most of the effects essentially are nonverbal.”

The scientists chose to use magic tricks because, of all the various art forms that could be utilized, magic entailed an ideal combination of interactivity and nonverbal communication.

“We used magic effects because most of the effects essentially are nonverbal,” Clayton said, noting that such tricks “reveal interesting things about blind spots in thinking.” She said that because the effects are non-verbal, you can use them on “non-verbal animals and pre-verbal children, and they might tell you something interesting about the thinking processes and the assumptions we make as human beings about the way in which your thinking processes work.”

In addition to demonstrating the complexity of primate brains, the new Current Biology paper also raises profound questions about how consciousness relates to our physical bodies. Clayton told Salon that one of the reasons she became involved in this project is because of her previous research on birds like crows and jays, noting that her “research led us to monkeys because we realized we needed to think about fingers and thumbs, more than just wings that might work like hands.” Clayton said the research suggests that “embodied knowledge” exists in animals, too.

“My background is, I’m both a dancer and a scientist,” Clayton told Salon. “My whole thing is embodied knowledge because that’s what dancers have to do. If you are taught complex choreographic sequences as a dancer, you have to embody them and put them within your own body in order to know how to move.” This sense of the body — and of others’ bodies — is what inspired Clayton, she says.

“Most people think your own interpretation of the world is how your brain thinks and remembers — which is totally correct — but obviously it’s also modulated by how your own body works, how your own experiences change the way you feel and shape the way you interpret that information.”

Legal experts: Clarence Thomas appears to have violated law with secret luxury trips from GOP donor

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

In late June 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Thomas did not respond to a detailed list of questions.

In a statement, Crow acknowledged that he’d extended “hospitality” to the Thomases “over the years,” but said that Thomas never asked for any of it and it was “no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

Through his largesse, Crow has gained a unique form of access, spending days in private with one of the most powerful people in the country. By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

ProPublica uncovered the details of Thomas’ travel by drawing from flight records, internal documents distributed to Crow’s employees and interviews with dozens of people ranging from his superyacht’s staff to members of the secretive Bohemian Club to an Indonesian scuba diving instructor.

Federal judges sit in a unique position of public trust. They have lifetime tenure, a privilege intended to insulate them from the pressures and potential corruption of politics. A code of conduct for federal judges below the Supreme Court requires them to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” Members of the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts has written, “consult” that code for guidance. The Supreme Court is left almost entirely to police itself.

There are few restrictions on what gifts justices can accept. That’s in contrast to the other branches of government. Members of Congress are generally prohibited from taking gifts worth $50 or more and would need pre-approval from an ethics committee to take many of the trips Thomas has accepted from Crow.

Thomas’ approach to ethics has already attracted public attention. Last year, Thomas didn’t recuse himself from cases that touched on the involvement of his wife, Ginni, in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. While his decision generated outcry, it could not be appealed.

Crow met Thomas after he became a justice. The pair have become genuine friends, according to people who know both men. Over the years, some details of Crow’s relationship with the Thomases have emerged. In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow’s generosity toward the justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 salary. But the full scale of Crow’s benefactions has never been revealed.

Long an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics, Crow has spent millions on ideological efforts to shape the law and the judiciary. Crow and his firm have not had a case before the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it, though the court periodically hears major cases that directly impact the real estate industry. The details of his discussions with Thomas over the years remain unknown, and it is unclear if Crow has had any influence on the justice’s views.

In his statement, Crow said that he and his wife have never discussed a pending or lower court case with Thomas. “We have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue,” he added.

In Thomas’ public appearances over the years, he has presented himself as an everyman with modest tastes.

“I don’t have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States,” Thomas said in a recent interview for a documentary about his life, which Crow helped finance.

“I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it,” Thomas said. “I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”

“You Don’t Need to Worry About This — It’s All Covered”

Crow’s private lakeside resort, Camp Topridge, sits in a remote corner of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Closed off from the public by ornate wooden gates, the 105-acre property, once the summer retreat of the same heiress who built Mar-a-Lago, features an artificial waterfall and a great hall where Crow’s guests are served meals prepared by private chefs. Inside, there’s clear evidence of Crow and Thomas’ relationship: a painting of the two men at the resort, sitting outdoors smoking cigars alongside conservative political operatives. A statue of a Native American man, arms outstretched, stands at the center of the image, which is photographic in its clarity.

The painting captures a scene from around five years ago, said Sharif Tarabay, the artist who was commissioned by Crow to paint it. Thomas has been vacationing at Topridge virtually every summer for more than two decades, according to interviews with more than a dozen visitors and former resort staff, as well as records obtained by ProPublica. He has fished with a guide hired by Crow and danced at concerts put on by musicians Crow brought in. Thomas has slept at perhaps the resort’s most elegant accommodation, an opulent lodge overhanging Upper St. Regis Lake.

The mountainous area draws billionaires from across the globe. Rooms at a nearby hotel built by the Rockefellers start at $2,250 a night. Crow’s invitation-only resort is even more exclusive. Guests stay for free, enjoying Topridge’s more than 25 fireplaces, three boathouses, clay tennis court and batting cage, along with more eccentric features: a lifesize replica of the Harry Potter character Hagrid’s hut, bronze statues of gnomes and a 1950s-style soda fountain where Crow’s staff fixes milkshakes.

Crow’s access to the justice extends to anyone the businessman chooses to invite along. Thomas’ frequent vacations at Topridge have brought him into contact with corporate executives and political activists.

During just one trip in July 2017, Thomas’ fellow guests included executives at Verizon and PricewaterhouseCoopers, major Republican donors and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business conservative think tank, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. The painting of Thomas at Topridge shows him in conversation with Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader regarded as an architect of the Supreme Court’s recent turn to the right.

In his statement to ProPublica, Crow said he is “unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that.”

“These are gatherings of friends,” Crow said.

Crow has deep connections in conservative politics. The heir to a real estate fortune, Crow oversees his family’s business empire and recently named Marxism as his greatest fear. He was an early patron of the powerful anti-tax group Club for Growth and has been on the board of AEI for over 25 years. He also sits on the board of the Hoover Institution, another conservative think tank.

A major Republican donor for decades, Crow has given more than $10 million in publicly disclosed political contributions. He’s also given to groups that keep their donors secret — how much of this so-called dark money he’s given and to whom are not fully known. “I don’t disclose what I’m not required to disclose,” Crow once told the Times.

Crow has long supported efforts to move the judiciary to the right. He has donated to the Federalist Society and given millions of dollars to groups dedicated to tort reform and conservative jurisprudence. AEI and the Hoover Institution publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories, and fellows at the think tanks occasionally file amicus briefs with the Supreme Court.

On the court since 1991, Thomas is a deeply conservative jurist known for his “originalism,” an approach that seeks to adhere to close readings of the text of the Constitution. While he has been resolute in this general approach, his views on specific matters have sometimes evolved. Recently, Thomas harshly criticized one of his own earlier opinions as he embraced a legal theory, newly popular on the right, that would limit government regulation. Small evolutions in a justice’s thinking or even select words used in an opinion can affect entire bodies of law, and shifts in Thomas’ views can be especially consequential. He’s taken unorthodox legal positions that have been adopted by the court’s majority years down the line.

Soon after Crow met Thomas three decades ago, he began lavishing the justice with gifts, including a $19,000 bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass, which Thomas disclosed. Recently, Crow gave Thomas a portrait of the justice and his wife, according to Tarabay, who painted it. Crow’s foundation also gave $105,000 to Yale Law School, Thomas’ alma mater, for the “Justice Thomas Portrait Fund,” tax filings show.

Crow said that he and his wife have funded a number of projects that celebrate Thomas. “We believe it is important to make sure as many people as possible learn about him, remember him and understand the ideals for which he stands,” he said.

To trace Thomas’ trips around the world on Crow’s superyacht, ProPublica spoke to more than 15 former yacht workers and tour guides and obtained records documenting the ship’s travels.

On the Indonesia trip in the summer of 2019, Thomas flew to the country on Crow’s jet, according to another passenger on the plane. Clarence and Ginni Thomas were traveling with Crow and his wife, Kathy. Crow’s yacht, the Michaela Rose, decked out with motorboats and a giant inflatable rubber duck, met the travelers at a fishing town on the island of Flores.

Touring the Lesser Sunda Islands, the group made stops at Komodo National Park, home of the eponymous reptiles; at the volcanic lakes of Mount Kelimutu; and at Pantai Meko, a spit of pristine beach accessible only by boat. Another guest was Mark Paoletta, a friend of the Thomases then serving as the general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget in the administration of President Donald Trump.

Paoletta was bound by executive branch ethics rules at the time and told ProPublica that he discussed the trip with an ethics lawyer at his agency before accepting the Crows’ invitation. “Based on that counsel’s advice, I reimbursed Harlan for the costs,” Paoletta said in an email. He did not respond to a question about how much he paid Crow.

(Paoletta has long been a pugnacious defender of Thomas and recently testified before Congress against strengthening judicial ethics rules. “There is nothing wrong with ethics or recusals at the Supreme Court,” he said, adding, “To support any reform legislation right now would be to validate these vicious political attacks on the Supreme Court,” referring to criticism of Thomas and his wife.)

The Indonesia vacation wasn’t Thomas’ first time on the Michaela Rose. He went on a river day trip around Savannah, Georgia, and an extended cruise in New Zealand roughly a decade ago.

As a token of his appreciation, he gave one yacht worker a copy of his memoir. Thomas signed the book: “Thank you so much for all your hard work on our New Zealand adventure.”

Crow’s policy was that guests didn’t pay, former Michaela Rose staff said. “You don’t need to worry about this — it’s all covered,” one recalled the guests being told.

There’s evidence Thomas has taken even more trips on the superyacht. Crow often gave his guests custom polo shirts commemorating their vacations, according to staff. ProPublica found photographs of Thomas wearing at least two of those shirts. In one, he wears a blue polo shirt embroidered with the Michaela Rose’s logo and the words “March 2007” and “Greek Islands.”

Thomas didn’t report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures. Ethics experts said the law clearly requires disclosure for private jet flights and Thomas appears to have violated it.

Justices are generally required to publicly report all gifts worth more than $415, defined as “anything of value” that isn’t fully reimbursed. There are exceptions: If someone hosts a justice at their own property, free food and lodging don’t have to be disclosed. That would exempt dinner at a friend’s house. The exemption never applied to transportation, such as private jet flights, experts said, a fact that was made explicit in recently updated filing instructions for the judiciary.

Two ethics law experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ yacht cruises, a form of transportation, also required disclosure.

“If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law,” said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the nonprofit government watchdog Campaign Legal Center. (Thomas himself once reported receiving a private jet trip from Crow, on his disclosure for 1997.)

The experts said Thomas’ stays at Topridge may have required disclosure too, in part because Crow owns it not personally but through a company. Until recently, the judiciary’s ethics guidance didn’t explicitly address the ownership issue. The recent update to the filing instructions clarifies that disclosure is required for such stays.

How many times Thomas failed to disclose trips remains unclear. Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow’s plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

ProPublica identified five such trips in addition to the Indonesia vacation.

On July 7 last year, Crow’s jet made a 40-minute stop at Dulles and then flew to a small airport near Topridge, returning to Dulles six days later. Thomas was at the resort that week for his regular summer visit, according to a person who was there. Twice in recent years, the jet has followed the pattern when Thomas appeared at Crow’s properties in Dallas — once for the Jan. 4, 2018, swearing-in of Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho at Crow’s private library and again for a conservative think tank conference Crow hosted last May.

Thomas has even used the plane for a three-hour trip. On Feb. 11, 2016, the plane flew from Dallas to Dulles to New Haven, Connecticut, before flying back later that afternoon. ProPublica confirmed that Thomas was on the jet through Supreme Court security records obtained by the nonprofit Fix the Court, private jet data, a New Haven plane spotter and another person at the airport. There are no reports of Thomas making a public appearance that day, and the purpose of the trip remains unclear.

Jet charter companies told ProPublica that renting an equivalent plane for the New Haven trip could cost around $70,000.

On the weekend of Oct. 16, 2021, Crow’s jet repeated the pattern. That weekend, Thomas and Crow traveled to a Catholic cemetery in a bucolic suburb of New York City. They were there for the unveiling of a bronze statue of the justice’s beloved eighth grade teacher, a nun, according to Catholic Cemetery magazine.

As Thomas spoke from a lectern, the monument towered over him, standing 7 feet tall and weighing 1,800 pounds, its granite base inscribed with words his teacher once told him. Thomas told the nuns assembled before him, “This extraordinary statue is dedicated to you sisters.”

He also thanked the donors who paid for the statue: Harlan and Kathy Crow.

Judge and family deluged with “dozens” of threats amid Trump’s “intimidation” campaign: report

The New York judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s prosecution has received dozens of threats since Tuesday’s arraignment, according to NBC News.

Judge Juan Merchan and his family have received multiple threats since Trump’s court appearance, two sources told the outlet. One official told NBC that “dozens” of threats had been directed at Merchan, but did not specify a time frame. Another source said that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and other top officials have also continued to receive threats through calls, emails and letters.

Bragg last month received a death threat and a suspicious white powder that police are still investigating.

“ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!” the message said, according to the report.

Police have ramped up security for the D.A.’s office and court officers are “boosting security for the judge and the court as a whole as a precaution,” according to the report.

The D.A’s office has recently even gone as far as removing online bios of employees in response to “troubling” social media posts, including on Trump’s Truth Social platform, a source told the outlet.

Trump and his allies have repeatedly targeted Merchan and his family. The former president ahead of his arrest attacked him as a “highly partisan judge” and claimed his family are “well known Trump haters.”

“HIS DAUGHTER WORKED FOR ‘KAMALA’ & NOW THE BIDEN-HARRIS CAMPAIGN,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. shared a Breitbart article that included a photo of Merchan’s daughter to claim that the judge was biased because of his daughter’s previous employment.

Merchan’s daughter was listed as the president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm then-candidate Kamala Harris’ campaign used for digital fundraising and advertising, according to NBC News. The firm identifies itself as a “digital agency progressives can trust to get the job done right.”

Campaign finance reports show that the firm also worked with Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

“There’s no available evidence to suggest that Merchan’s daughter has done any subsequent work for Biden and no evidence to suggest that she ‘now’ works for a Biden political operation,” according to NBC News.

The D.A.’s office on Tuesday asked Merchan to issue an order banning Trump from discussing facts in the case, citing the “significant concern about the potential danger this kind of rhetoric poses to our city, to potential jurors and witnesses, and to the judicial process.”

Merchan denied the request but asked “counsel on both sides” to speak to clients and witnesses to tone down the rhetoric.

“Please refrain from making comments or engaging in conduct that has the potential to incite violence, create civil unrest, or jeopardize the safety or well-being of any individuals,” he said. “Also, please do not engage in words or conduct which jeopardizes the rule of law, particularly as it applies to these proceedings in this courtroom.”

But Trump just hours later during a speech at Mar-a-Lago again targeted Merchan, Bragg and their families.

“I have a Trump-hating judge, with a Trump-hating wife and family, whose daughter worked for Kamala Harris and now receives money from the Biden-Harris campaign and a lot of it,” Trump said in the speech.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina denied that the comments were an attack on the judge.

“It is not an attack on the judge or certainly his family,” he told NBC News. “No one is suggesting anything should happen to the judge or his family.”

Trump spokesman Steve Cheung told NBC News on Wednesday: “The Constitution guarantees impartial process and free speech. President Trump is laying out all the facts. Facts matter.”


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


But Trump’s attacks have drawn warnings from legal experts that he could face a “gag order” in the case and condemnation from both sides of the aisle.

“We condemn any type of attacks on any judge,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday when asked about Trump’s attacks.

“Nothing says ‘innocent’ like threatening a judge’s family,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted after Don Jr. shared a photo of the judge’s daughter. “Let’s be very clear: intimidation and stochastic terror are the core tools of Trump and the fascist movements that support him. They rely on it to skirt consequence and silence others – and each time it works, they grow more brazen. One reason why accountability is so important.”

Even “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy pushed back on Trump’s rhetoric, warning that “it is a very bad look to attack the family.”

Legal experts warn the attacks could create more legal woes for the former president.

“Attacking the judge and attacking the prosecutor. None of that’s helpful. And anything he says now is fair game for the prosecutors to use at trial. So I’m sure his lawyers would prefer that he not say anything about this case,” Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and George Washington University Law professor, told NPR.

“But that’s not going to happen, right?” he added. “And we’ve seen that he is going to continue commenting on it. I mean, he’s done that for six-plus years. But now the consequences are potentially much more severe because now he’s not just under investigation. There are actual criminal charges pending. And if he continues, you know, talking about the charges in public, he’s almost certain to say something that’s going to end up hurting his case.”

Trump will be hit with more indictments “in pretty rapid succession”: MSNBC’s Glenn Kirschner

Some pundits have described the New York case that led to Donald Trump’s indictment as underwhelming. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, who is also a legal analyst on MSNBC, is having none of it. 

Kirschner told me on “Salon Talks” Tuesday that he was surprised that the charges against Trump were all felonies, with no misdemeanors mixed in — and 34 felonies at that. “Trump is facing 34 felony counts, which for those scoring at home is a sentence potentially of 136 years in prison,” Kirschner said. “Trump will be eligible for parole by the time he’s 148.”

Kirschner, the former head of the homicide unit in the Washington, D.C., U.S. attorney’s office, certainly doesn’t expect Trump to get a long prison sentence, even if he’s convicted on all counts. But he noted that the first indictment against Trump has now happened and that “barrier has been broken.” He expects Trump to be indicted by the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney and by the Department of Justice as well. Prosecutors “are a competitive bunch,” he said. 

Kirschner didn’t hold back in criticizing the DOJ for not moving more quickly in charging Trump for crimes related to the Jan. 6 insurrection. “Merrick Garland has fallen down on the job,” he said, in declining to prosecute Trump more than two years after he left office.

Watch the “Salon Talks” episode with Glenn Kirschner here, or read a transcript of our conversation below to hear more about what he thinks justice looks like for the former president and why Trump’s continued insults against government officials could lead him on “the road to contempt” or “pretrial detention.”

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

The indictment of Donald Trump was finally unsealed this week. What was your takeaway?

I was surprised to see 34 felony counts brought against Donald Trump. There was a lot of speculation that there may be some misdemeanor charges; there may be some felonies attached to those misdemeanor charges to bump them up. I don’t know that anybody was expecting 34 felony counts, which for those of us scoring at home, carries a sentence, potentially, of up to 136 years in prison. Donald Trump would be eligible for parole when he was about 148, by my calculations. Of course he’s not going to get time like that.

The other thing I found remarkable about the indictment was that it was accompanied by a statement of facts. Ordinarily, all that stuff gets dumped into one document, the indictment, and it’s a speaking indictment. New York has its own ways of charging, but I found it remarkable that it looks like not only Michael Cohen is a marquee witness against Donald Trump — we knew that all along; he’s a co-conspirator, so of course he’s an important witness against Donald Trump — but David Pecker and Alan Weisselberg provided sharply incriminating evidence against Donald Trump. 

“In pretty rapid succession we’ll probably see one or more additional indictments of Trump.”

Now, that doesn’t mean they will be testifying witnesses at a future Trump trial, but they may well be. Quoting the words of David Pecker, he said, “I will be your eyes and ears. I will keep a lookout for negative damaging information. I will catch it and I will kill it, and at the same time, Donald, I will find negative things to print about your opponent.” It doesn’t name Hillary Clinton, but I think we can fill in the blank. This was a conspiracy that included at a minimum Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, David Pecker, Alan Weisselberg and perhaps others. One of the open questions is who among them, other than Michael Cohen, will be testifying against Donald Trump come trial time?

We’ve talked in the past about the potential of other charges beyond the hush money payments. There are three different stories in the statement of facts that Donald Trump did not want disclosed to the public. One involved a doorman who was paid $30,000 not to say that Trump had a child out of wedlock, and two others had to do with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. But there was nothing in there about financial crimes, despite the fact his corporation was found guilty in a New York court in December. Were you surprised about that?

I would say I was mildly surprised, but this is just the opening act. There could very well be either other separate indictments brought by New York. It seems like there is a criminal scheme to defraud in the first degree case ready for the making against Donald Trump personally, because that case has already been made against his chief financial officer and his organization. Perhaps we will see another indictment some months down the road, or we could even see a superseding indictment where all these charges are put into a more fulsome, more complete indictment, or maybe we see no other charges out of the Manhattan district attorney’s office. We just don’t know at this point. 

What I’m hopeful of is that this will not be the first indictment. Whether the next one comes in Georgia or from the feds is an open question. I’m pretty sure, just as we have been talking all along, that Donald Trump will still be on the receiving end of more indictments.

You’re a former prosecutor. Does it matter that District Attorney Alvin Bragg has become the first prosecutor, through his grand jury, to indict Donald Trump?

“There you have it, direct evidence out of the mouth of the orange horse himself about his motive for the classified documents crimes.”

The reason it matters is atmospheric, not legal. I have maintained all along that no prosecutor was enthusiastic about being the first one to criminally indict a former president of the United States because it had never been done before. Well, now the maiden legal voyage is underway; that barrier has been broken. I can tell you, prosecutors may not be monolithic, but we are a competitive bunch. Now there are other prosecutors out there who know that Donald Trump committed crimes in their jurisdictional backyard, whether it’s Georgia, federally or elsewhere. Now there is this sense that, “OK, I have to hold him accountable for the crimes he committed in my jurisdiction, if only because I’m going to be running for re-election and I need to take on the tough case, the challenging politically charged case, so I can successfully campaign for re-election in the federal government.”

Look, federal prosecutors are hired, we’re not elected. But we are responsible to the people of the United States. I think the feds will feel like, “OK, it may finally be time for us to step up our game and bring the charges that are so fully supported by the evidence.” Yeah, I think in pretty rapid succession we’ll probably see one or more additional indictments of Donald Trump.

We should expect more arraignment parties at Mar-a-Lago in the future. Is that what you’re saying?

Yeah. Boy, that was quite a party last night. It was a bit of a downer, wasn’t it? I couldn’t help but think, Donald Trump gets arraigned on 34 felony counts in New York yesterday, he then retreats to Mar-a-Lago and gives a presidential campaign speech. What is he obsessed about? He’s obsessed about talking about his fictitious defenses to all his crimes, his criminal cases, his criminal investigations. 

I’m not a political pundit. I’ve never come up with a presidential slogan in my life, but I thought back to Herbert Hoover’s “A chicken in every pot.” That was his campaign slogan to signal that prosperity is coming. We’ve gone from a chicken in every pot to Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, which is apparently, “A defense in every court.” That’s what he’s going to have. He’s going to sell that message to the American people as a reason to vote for him.

If you were Donald Trump’s lawyer and you were watching your client go out there, would you be holding your breath every time he speaks to the public?

I think they know the client they took on. They made their decision with their eyes open, and I can only believe it’s for the notoriety they hope it brings them, because it’s not going to bring them any wealth. We know Donald Trump will end up stiffing them all at the end of the day. 

I was never a defense lawyer, not one day in my life. That wasn’t the role I wanted to play in the system, although I honor and respect my brother and sister criminal defense lawyers across the bar, because they have a really hard job to do. Not only do they have to zealously represent the rights of their client, of the defendant, they also act as a check on government overreach and abuse and misconduct. Be it the police, prosecutors, the courts, they’re doing double duty and in a very real sense they’re doing God’s work, not in the religious connotation of that. 

“Donald Trump is so over the top in his dangerous conduct.”

I always felt like as a prosecutor, sometimes I had it easier because I just had to try to seek justice. I didn’t have to try to hold the whole government accountable for potential abuse and overreach. That is a mammoth undertaking for defense attorneys.

Now, all that being said, these guys and gals knew what they were getting into when they took Donald Trump on as a client. Yet I have to believe — when they watched that Hannity interview, and he not only admitted to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents crimes, but expressly gave up the motive. As a prosecutor, I never had a defendant spout out of his own mouth why he committed the crimes.

Hannity was trying to throw him a lifeline and give him an out: “I can’t imagine, Mr. President, you would have said, ‘Bring me the boxes. I want to see what’s in there.'” He said, “I have a right to do that. Of course I would do that. Do you know Richard Nixon basically sold documents back to the government for $18 million?” There you have it: Direct evidence out of the mouth of the orange horse himself about his motive for the classified documents crimes, and it is as simple and as base as money.

Legal pundits on TV are debating the strength of the case against Trump in Manhattan. What’s your take?

First of all, at its core, as Alvin Bragg made clear, as his prosecution team made clear in the statement of facts, at its core he committed 36 crimes, three dozen crimes, falsifying business records to try to gain unfair advantage in a presidential election. In a very real sense, these crimes are about Donald Trump and his co-conspirators trying to rob us, the American voters, of the full value of our vote. People might say, “Well, you’re just kind of bumping up misdemeanor crimes with these ghosts of other crimes.” I love when people say, “Well, you can’t use a federal crime to bump up a falsifying business records crime in New York because you don’t have jurisdiction over federal crimes.” 

“You put it in the hands of those 12 citizens in a jury box and you let them decide. There’s no shame in losing, but there’s nothing but shame in refusing to bring a case for fear of losing.”

Let me use a couple of examples. First of all, as Alvin Bragg made clear, they committed multiple crimes. They committed violations of New York election law, violation of federal election law, false records being generated in other organizations like AMI. There are some tax implications here. There are lots of other crimes and, importantly, those crimes do not need to be specifically set out yet. It may very well be that the defense will file what’s called a bill of particulars, and that will be an effort to force the prosecutors to show more of their cards about which precise other crimes you’re using as predicate offenses. 

Here’s an example I used when I was on air this morning. Let’s assume, Dean, you and I are sitting at 30 Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and we enter into a conspiracy to commit a robbery in New Jersey, and then one of us takes what’s called an overt act. We do something. I go out and buy a gun to use in the robbery. New York could charge us with conspiring to rob somebody in New Jersey. They can’t charge us with crimes we commit in New Jersey. But that New Jersey crime that you and I agreed to commit could become a predicate offense to support the conspiracy charge. The legal theory is no different when it comes to using a federal crime or a state crime in another jurisdiction to bump up your falsifying records crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. If we’re engaged in falsifying business records to try to get away with crimes in New Jersey, it is still an appropriate predicate offense to bump up the charge.

In the weeks leading up to this indictment, Donald Trump was attacking Bragg online, calling him an animal, racist, degenerate. He posted a menacing picture of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg’s head. At what point does that become a crime?

Oh, it already is a crime, I believe. I think it’s called interfering with the due administration of government in New York. I want to say 195.05 is the New York penal code section that it violates. If you attempt to influence or interfere in the duties of an official government employee, and you do it by virtue of threats or intimidation, that’s what we have in that picture. Again, a novice prosecutor could prove that to a jury in his or her sleep. Maybe it will be charged in the future. I certainly hope it is.

“The message that has been sent is if you are an aspiring dictator who wants to overthrow the will of the American voters and unlawfully retain the power of the presidency, after you do it, you’re going to have a full two years to plot your next move.”

That then presents some thorny issues of recusal, because once the Manhattan district attorney is a named victim of a threat, there is an argument that the entire office is recused from prosecuting Donald Trump. This may be one of the motivators for Donald Trump to try to go after a judge and doxx the judge’s daughter, go after the district attorney and call out the district attorney’s wife. It may be he’s trying to build a recusal issue such that he thinks he can get rid of Judge Merchan, who hates him, according to Donald Trump, or get rid of Alvin Bragg as his prosecutor. I don’t think it’ll work, but there are some thorny legal issues involved.

What I was disappointed to see yesterday was that the prosecutors raised the issue of Donald Trump’s incendiary speech that is likely to incite violence, but they did not specifically ask Judge Merchan to impose or consider a gag order or a limited restriction on Trump’s speech or his posts. I wish they had gone that extra step, though based on the reporting, Judge Merchan admonished both parties, and that’s what judges do when they only want to admonish one party, but they want to be perceived as fair and even-handed. He admonished both parties to tamp down the rhetoric. It’s like, well, wait a minute. I haven’t seen the district attorney’s office threatening witnesses, but OK, judge, you’ve been fair and even-handed, you’ve admonished both parties.

That was the first step on the road to a gag order. Donald Trump retreated to Mar-a-Lago and made the same threats in inflammatory statements on Tuesday night. I hope the prosecutors will seek to have him brought back into court, maybe on a show cause order, and have the judge force Trump and his legal team to show cause why a gag order should not be imposed. All of this is on the road to contempt or on the road to pretrial detention because you refused to abide by the conditions of pretrial release. I wish the prosecutors had been a little bit more forward-leaning, trying to take on Donald Trump’s dangerous speech.

It seems like Trump is relying on his typical playbook, but not understanding that this game is different. He’s never been charged with crimes before. Do you think this could lead to problems he doesn’t expect? 

It is a new game, but like you say, he’s playing by the old playbook. I heard some commentators say, “Even mafia bosses, when we go after them, don’t expressly threaten the prosecutor’s wife or the judge’s daughter.” Donald Trump is so over the top in his dangerous conduct. The part that will forever trouble me is that the criminal justice system, whether state or federal, is not rising to the challenge. They’re not meeting this dangerous moment because they’re playing by these antiquated rules of gentility from decades ago, before presidents of the United States tried to overthrow the government, unlawfully retain the power of the presidency and threaten witnesses. For whatever reason, the system is using its old playbook, the gentle playbook, to deal with an imminent threat to the safety of witnesses and to our democracy. I don’t quite know why they’re so reluctant to meet the urgency of the moment.

Is the Justice Department late to the game? Should they have been the first to file indictments regarding not just Mar-a-Lago, but the Jan. 6related crimes, the attempted coup and the attack itself?

Yeah, because the message that has been sent is: If you are an aspiring dictator who wants to overthrow the will of the American voters and unlawfully retain the power of the presidency, after you do it, you’re going to have a full two years, two and a half years, to plot your next move. You will not be held accountable in a timely manner. There is no deterrence. The next president, Ron DeSantis, God help us, or somebody else if they get into office, they can do it all over again because DOJ has put its stamp of approval on at least a two-year waiting period before perhaps accountability is prodded into wakefulness. I don’t understand it.

“DOJ was my professional home for nearly a quarter of a century … but they have fallen down on the job.”

I posted something critical of DOJ this morning and everybody jumped on me. I’m either being criticized for not being hard enough on DOJ or being too hard on DOJ, but I will always call it the way I see it. DOJ was my professional home for nearly a quarter of a century, and I love many of my friends and former colleagues who are still there, but they have fallen down on the job. At least Merrick Garland has. 

Go back and look at the press release from Michael Cohen pleading guilty to being half of the conspiracy. Everything is there in black-and-white in the press release and the court paperwork pursuant to Cohen’s plea, Donald Trump is the other co-conspirator. Yet even two and a half years after he left office, Merrick Garland‘s Department of Justice hasn’t lifted a finger to charge Donald Trump for those easily provable crimes. That’s an abdication of your law enforcement responsibility.

That’s different from Jack Smith and his team. They’re going gangbusters and I couldn’t be more proud of the job they’re doing, but you have to call out the bad and you have to congratulate them for the good. Every agency has both good and bad in it, but I wish they would step up and meet the challenge of the moment.

To you, what is justice when it comes to Donald Trump?

It looks like him being charged — indicted for all the crimes he committed federally, in Georgia and in New York, putting it into the hands of 12 representatives from the community in each of those jurisdictions and letting them decide. I’ve maintained for a long time that the only thing standing between Donald Trump and a criminal conviction is an indictment. The indictment is the easy part. Why so few prosecutors have been willing to do that easy thing has been disappointing. I’m glad Alvin Bragg has finally stepped up. It is a case that is not without some legal and factual challenges, but it was the right thing to bring the case.

I always had 30 federal homicide prosecutors that I supervised at any given time. We had lots of attrition and lots of movement through my homicide section, so I got to supervise lots of federal prosecutors and I was supervised by lots of federal prosecutors. I always told them during the processing, “It’s more important to bring cases than it is to win cases.” If you bring the righteous case, the case that is supported by the evidence but is not a sure thing, you’re doing the right thing by the victim, by the community, by society, by the American people, because you’re in the arena fighting the good fight. You put it in the hands of those 12 citizens in a jury box and you let them decide. There’s no shame in losing, but there’s nothing but shame in refusing to bring a case for fear of losing. Unfortunately, that is what often drives federal prosecutors, the fear of losing. Right now they have to get over that.

Not just Trump’s indictment: The MAGA movement is having its worst week ever

Of the many ways Donald Trump has degraded American politics, one of the more underrated shifts is how he’s created permission for Republican politicians to act like childish brats. They used to feel obliged to fake maturity in public appearances, but now the typical Republican leader displays the emotional regulation of the drunkest person left at the bar at 3AM. The most recent example comes courtesy of Dan Kelly, the election denying anti-abortion fanatic who just received a walloping at the polls in Tuesday’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race. 

“I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent,” whined after he lost to Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz in the hotly contested race. He went on to claim Protasiewicz “demeaned the judiciary” by supposedly running a “deeply deceitful, dishonorable and despicable.” He then called her “a serial liar.” 


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


As usual with the MAGA crowd, Kelly’s accusations should be read as confessions. The only person lying is Kelly, from his claims to “wish” he could concede (ha!) to his characterizations of the race. As anyone who has followed this election can attest, the real story is how honest Protasiewicz’s campaign was. She avoided the usual weaselly rhetoric that pervades judicial campaigns to make a straightforward and appealing pitch to voters: She will protect both abortion rights and democracy. Her opponent, on the other hand, opposes both, even as he would dodge questions from reporters on this front. 

Kelly wasn’t just a GOP operative. He was heavily involved in Donald Trump’s attempted coup.

As Scott Bauer of the Associated Press reports, the January 6 committee collected evidence that “Kelly was working as a ‘special counsel’ and had ‘pretty extensive conservations'” to Trump’s scheme to throw out Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential election results and simply force the state to declare Trump the winner instead of President Joe Biden. It was this despicable behavior that did Kelly in with the voters, it turns out — his own despicable behavior. 

Kelly’s speech was so petulant that it managed to break through into mainstream press coverage in a week otherwise dominated by Trump’s indictment in Manhattan on business fraud allegations related to his efforts to cheat in the 2016 election. Then again, the two stories bled into each other for reasons other than the self-pity of the two men involved. Both stories were also huge victories for the forces of democracy and rule of law against the MAGA efforts to destroy both. 

MAGA is nothing if not dogged.

It’s impossible to overstate how crucial the Wisconsin race was in the efforts to keep Trump from mounting a successful coup in 2024. If Kelly had won the race, Trump would be nearly certain to win any lawsuit demanding, no matter how facetious the grounds, that a Biden victory be thrown out and illegitimate Trump electors be appointed to anoint him in 2024 instead. Now Trump will lose this bid. Indeed, this was such a devastating blow to the insurrectionist cause that one of the architects of January 6, Ali Alexander, was griping on Twitter that this means Republicans may have to — gasp! — consider running candidates that could win a fair election. 


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


Trump can give all the bombastic speeches he wants and his sons can post AI-generated fantasies pretending their dad is popular, but in the real world, there are definite signs that the MAGA movement is feeling demoralized. Trump’s escalating calls for “PROTEST” were also unsubtle calls for violence against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, or anyone involved in holding Trump accountable. In both cases, however, his followers mostly took a pass.

When the redhats didn’t show up at the courthouse the first time Trump demanded it — on Tuesday, March 21— it could be written off as a “short notice” thing. After all, Trump only posted “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!” on the Saturday before, giving his followers only 3 short days to book travel from the red state hinterlands to the Big Apple. 

Still, there should be no doubt that this week put MAGA on the back foot.

But then the arrest date was announced and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., agreed to lead the charge, giving MAGA plenty of time and notice about where to be and when. But still, barely any Trump supporters showed up. The few that did were drastically outnumbered by reporters and anti-Trump demonstrators. As Aymann Ismail of Slate reported, the journalists on the ground were so bereft of bona fide pro-Trump people to interview that they literally lined up to interview one of the few that did bother to show. When Greene finally appeared, the whole situation was so pathetic even she had to peace out after 10 sad minutes of being drowned out by hecklers. The only other Republican member of Congress to show their face was Rep. George Santos of New York, who is clearly just trying to squeeze the rubes for every penny he can get until his embarrassed constituents have a chance to throw him out of office. 

Despite sending his team to feed every mainstream political reporter stories about how stoked Trump was to be arrested, once Tuesday actually came around, the bombastic ex-president just seemed anxious and tired. And that’s after clearly going through the extensive hair and make-up prep he goes through for public appearances, no less. 

There’s so much to unpack in these images, one from inside the courtroom and one from Trump entering it to hear the charges. The people around Trump don’t look at the cameras, busy as they are with the task at hand. But Trump himself can’t look away from the lens. He glowers and glares, but one also senses that he’s well aware that he looks pitiful. Trump tried to counter this feeble display later, giving a Mar-a-Lago speech backgrounded by glitter and flags. It didn’t work. The overcompensation only compounded the pathos of the imagery from his arraignment. The networks realized Trump was downright boring and, about 20 minutes into the speech, turned the cameras off

To be certain, MAGA is nothing if not dogged. It’s an authoritarian movement of angry white reactionaries who believe this is a now-or-never moment for the grip on power they believe is their due. They believe themselves people with nothing left to lose. It’s why they embrace personally dangerous strategies like vaccine refusal, just in the hope it will give them a political edge.  Defenders of democracy should not start counting any chickens. This fight is far from over. 

Still, there should be no doubt that this week put MAGA on the back foot, and not just because their leader finally got the smallest taste of the legal accountability he deserves. The Wisconsin election was a blow to Trumpism not just in a practical sense, but for the movement’s morale. It was a sign that the pro-democracy majority has not grown complacent and won’t be rolling over to let the fascists win. There’s a dawning sense that it may actually be a whole lot harder to topple the world’s oldest democracy than the Trumpists thought. They still haven’t generated a Plan B if this whole Trump campaign fails to get people excited. Whether Trump goes to jail or not, this week may end up, when historians look back on these troubled times, as the beginning of the end for MAGA. 

AI company harvested billions of Facebook photos for a facial recognition database it sold to police

Artificial intelligence is having a cultural moment. AI-powered chatbots like ChatGPT — and their visual image-creating counterparts like DALL-E — have been in the news lately for fear that they could replace human jobs. Such AI tools work by scraping the data from millions of texts and pictures, refashioning new works by remixing existing ones in intelligent ways that make them seem almost human. 

Yet another, albeit lesser-known AI-driven database is scraping images from millions and millions of people — and for less scrupulous means. Meet Clearview AI, a tech company that specializes in facial recognition services. Clearview AI markets its facial recognition database to law enforcement “to investigate crimes, enhance public safety, and provide justice to victims,” according to their website.

Yet revelations as to how the company obtains images for their database of nearly 30 billion photos have caused an uproar. Last week, CEO Hoan Ton-That said in an interview with BBC that the company obtained its photos without users’ knowledge, scraped from social media platforms like Facebook and provided them to U.S. law enforcement. The CEO also said that the database has been used by American law police nearly a million times since 2017.

In a statement to Insider, Ton-That said that the database of images was “lawfully collected, just like any other search engine like Google.” Notably, “lawful” does not, in this context, imply that the users whose photos were scraped gave consent.  

“Clearview AI’s database is used for after-the-crime investigations by law enforcement, and is not available to the general public,” the CEO told Insider. “Every photo in the dataset is a potential clue that could save a life, provide justice to an innocent victim, prevent a wrongful identification, or exonerate an innocent person.”

As reported by the BBC, Clearview AI has faced millions of dollars in fines for breaches of privacy in Europe and Australia. In the BBC interview, Miami Police confirmed that it uses this software and treats it as a tip for investigations for all crimes, and that it helped solve some murders.

Following a settlement, Clearview has been banned from making its faceprint database available to private entities and most businesses in the United States.

“We don’t make an arrest because an algorithm tells us to,” said Assistant Chief of Police Armando Aguilar. “We either put that name in a photographic line-up or we go about solving the case through traditional means.”


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


Clearview is no stranger to lawsuits over potential violations of privacy law. In May 2020, the The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Clearview alleging that the company violated Illinois residents’ privacy rights under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). According to the ACLU, following a settlement, Clearview has been banned from making its faceprint database available to private entities and most businesses in the United States.

While Clearview claims its technology is highly accurate, there are stories that suggest otherwise. For example, the New York Times recently reported on a wrongful arrest of a man, claiming that he used stolen credit cards to buy designer purses. The police department had a contract with Clearview, according to the report, and it was used in the investigation to identify him.

In response to the report, Ton-That was apologetic, saying “one false arrest is one too many.”

“Even if Clearview AI came up with the initial result, that is the beginning of the investigation by law enforcement to determine, based on other factors, whether the correct person has been identified,” he told the Times. “More than one million searches have been conducted using Clearview AI.”

Police have also used the technology to arrest a protester who was accused of throwing rocks at a police officer in Miami.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has described facial recognition technology as “a growing menace to racial justice, privacy, free speech, and information security.” In 2022, the organization praised the multiple lawsuits it faced.

“One of the worst offenders is Clearview AI, which extracts faceprints from billions of people without their consent and uses these faceprints to help police identify suspects,” the EFF stated. “For example, police in Miami worked with Clearview to identify participants in a Black-led protest against police violence.”

Meta, owners of Facebook told Insider recently that the scraping by Clearview invades “people’s privacy. Meta said that they “banned their founder from our services and sent them a legal demand to stop accessing any data, photos, or videos from our services.”

Matthew Guariglia, a senior policy analyst for the international digital rights non-profit, told Insider that it is not merely Facebook is a cause for concern — it’s the web in general.

“I think that’s one of the nefarious things about it,” Guariglia told Insider. “Because you might be very aware of what Clearview does, and so prevent any of your social media profiles from being crawled by Google, to make sure that the picture you post isn’t publicly accessible on the open web, and you think ‘this might keep me safe.’ But the thing about Clearview is it recognizes pictures of you anywhere on the web.”

Don Lemon’s colleagues weigh in on the CNN anchor’s history of problematic behavior

In a Variety feature released on Wednesday, several of Don Lemon’s colleagues reveal details of troubling incidents — many towards women — from throughout his career as a CNN anchor.

According to the report, Lemon has built a reputation as someone who would pepper workdays with “diva-like” behavior, fits of malicious destruction and misogynistic comments about women’s appearances — in once instance, calling a producer fat right to her face. 

Soledad O’Brien, who landed the hosting gig for CNN’s “Black in America” docuseries in 2008, is included in Variety’s coverage as someone who experienced first-hand abuse from Lemon. Described as being “upset that O’Brien landed the gig,” he “suggested O’Brien isn’t Black” during an editorial call with roughly 30 other network employees.

O’Brien, who wasn’t on the call herself, spoke of the incident to Variety saying “Don has long had a habit of saying idiotic and inaccurate things, so it sounds pretty on brand for him.” 

Later on Wednesday, after a Twitter user pointed out that O’Brien re-tweeted the article containing her quote about Lemon, she doubled-down on the sentiment in a reply saying “It’s a solid quote.”

In reference to the above incident, a spokesperson for CNN said “Don, Soledad and others have in the past correctly referred to her Afro-Cuban heritage as it is a unique part of her personal story. But Don denies making any related remark in a derogatory way.” 

Other Lemon-isms highlighted in the feature include one in which the anchor texted “Now you’ve crossed the line, and you’re going to pay for it” to co-anchor Kyra Phillips while jealous she’d been given an assignment in Iraq that he wanted for himself. In addition to the threatening message, he also tore up photos Phillips kept in her desk in a fit of rage.

“Don says the alleged incident never occurred and that he was never notified of any investigation. CNN cannot corroborate the alleged events from 15 years ago,” a correspondent for the network said in a quote to Variety regarding the above. Phillips herself gave no further comment.


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


Back in February, Salon’s Melanie McFarland reported on an incident with Lemon in which he referenced Nikki Haley as being “past her prime” at 51-years-old.”

“Don Lemon was always going to say something like this because he always has and likely always will,” McFarland writes. “That means he doesn’t belong on morning television, where the audience traditionally skews female. Guess how many of those viewers Lemon would consider to be in or out of their ‘prime,'”

Cementing all of this to Variety, Goldie Taylor, “a former CNN consultant who appeared frequently as a guest on Lemon’s weekend show” caps it in a quote saying, “I’m never surprised when Don gets in trouble. It makes me neither happy nor sad to see him undermine his own success. There was a time when it appeared that Black people were most often the subject of his ire. Now, it seems to me that when he says something offensive, there’s almost always a woman on the other side.”  

God save the king: Here are 6 things we learned from King Charles’ coronation invitation

Buckingham Palace is gearing up for King Charles III’s and his wife Camilla’s coronation next month.

On Tuesday, the palace released a colorful, hand-painted invitation for the grand event which is set to take place at Westminster Abbey on May 6. Designed by Andrew Jamieson, a heraldic artist and manuscript illustrator, the invite’s gouache design will be printed and distributed on recycled cards to more than 2,000 guests. A full guest list has not been released yet, nor has the lineup of performers for Charles’ Coronation Concert.

The historic weekend will take place almost 70 years after the late Queen Elizabeth II was anointed in June 1953. Additional festivities in Charles’ coronation will include a Coronation Big Lunch, which promises both food and fun, followed by a volunteering event called the Big Help Out. An image of the invitation, along with Queen Elizabeth II’s invitation and illustratedd designs for the previous coronation tickets can be seen in the royal family’s Instagram account below.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CqpbVFds_LG/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5e5b9233-4d21-4a7f-beca-c8303bb4d2b1

While the invitation is certainly a colorful piece of artwork, its contents include a wealth of information if you look closely. Not only is it filled with significant titles and language, but the images contain symbols with rich significance. All that from a mere invitation!

From Camilla’s updated royal to the slated guest list, here’s everything we learned surrounding the king’s coronation invitation:

01
Camilla gets her title

Camilla, who was previously addressed as “Queen Consort” shortly after Queen Elizabeth II’s death, has been named Queen Camilla for the very first time.

 

“The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla,” the letter reads. “By command of the King the Earl Marshal is directed to invite [name] to be present at the Abbey Church of Westminster on the 6th day of May 2023.”

 

The grand title underscores Camila’s bombshell transformation from hated “homewrecker” and “Charles’ wife” to her various consort designations and finally Queen. Charles and Camilla’s relationship garnered significant media attention during the former’s tumultuous marriage to Princess Diana. In an interview with the BBC in 1995, Diana referred to her husband’s affair, saying, “Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.”   

 

Charles and Camilla eventually tied the knot in 2005. As Prince Harry noted in his memoir “Spare,” he and brother William wanted their father happy, as long as Charles didn’t actually marry Camilla. They weren’t alone. At the time, just 7% of Britons believed Camilla should become queen. That changed in 2022, when the late Queen said she wanted Camilla to be known as queen consort when Charles became monarch. “It is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service,” Elizabeth wrote.

 

Since then, Camilla’s popularity amongst the British public has steadily increased. A poll from the Daily Mail found that 55% of Britons supported the Queen’s decision while 28% were opposed.

 

Camilla will be crowned alongside Charles at the coronation.

02
Prince George gets tapped for duty
Prince George attends Wimbledon in London (Karwai Tang/WireImage)

George, the eldest son of the Prince and Princess of Wales and the eldest grandchild of Charles, will be part of the procession down the nave of Westminster Abbey during the coronation. George will accompany three other pages of honor for his grandfather: Lord Oliver Cholmondeley, Nicholas Barclay and Ralph Tollemache.

 

Camilla will also be accompanied by four pages of honor: her grandsons, Gus and Louis Lopes and Freddy Parker Bowles, as well as her great-nephew, Arthur Elliot.

 

George’s inclusion in the event signifies his growing role in the royal family as the grandchildren of British monarchs typically don’t take on official roles in coronations. George is second in line to the throne behind his father, Prince William.

03
The hidden floral significance

At first glance, the intricate illustrations on the invite may be dismissed as merely spring-themed decorations. But a closer look reveals that they actually carry royal meaning.

 

Take for example the Green Man, which appears at the bottom center of the invite. Coined by Julia Somerset, Lady Raglan in 1939, the Green Man is “an ancient figure from British folklore, symbolic of spring and rebirth, to celebrate the new reign,” per Buckingham Palace. “The shape of the Green Man, crowned in natural foliage, is formed of leaves of oak, ivy and hawthorn, and the emblematic flowers of the United Kingdom.”

 

The border of the invite includes a British wildflower meadow with six flowers that have royal significance. There are the Lilies of the Valley, Queen Elizabeth’s favorite flower, which represent the return of happiness. There are the cornflowers, which represent love and hope; wild strawberries, which represent the royal dessert of strawberries and cream; dog roses, which represent pleasure and beauty; bluebells, which represent gratitude and a sprig of rosemary, which represent remembrance.

 

The four national flowers of the U.K. are also included. There’s the thistle, the national flower of Scotland; clovers, a symbol of Northern Ireland; yellow daffodils, the national flower of Wales; and the Tudor Rose, the national flower of England.

 

Most of the flowers appear in groups of three, which Buckingham Palace says signifies “the King becoming the third monarch of his name.”

 

There’s also acorns at the bottom of the invite, which Town & Country Magazine notes could represent the acorns featured on Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales’ coat of arms.

04
The wildlife symbolism and coat of arms imagery

A bee, butterfly, ladybird, wren and robin all appear on the invite’s border to symbolize the beginning of spring and Charles’s dedication to sustainability.

 

Several animals that appear on the royal coat of arms also appear on the invite. There’s a lion, which symbolizes courage and strength; a unicorn, the national animal of Scotland; and a boar, which is from Camilla’s coat of arms and the crest of her father, Major Bruce Shand.

 

At the top left of the invite is King Charles’ coat of arms. His arms includes the three Lions for England, a Lion rampant for Scotland and a stringed Argent for Ireland. At the top right is Camilla’s coat of arms, which include the royal lion, boar and the Garter, which was added following her appointment as a Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter in June 2022. At the bottom right corner is the Earl Marshal’s coat of arms. The current Earl Marshal, Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk, is responsible for organizing major ceremonial state occasions, including the king’s coronation.

05
Harry and Meghan could be unwelcome
Meghan and Prince Harry at 2022 Ripple of Hope Gala (Mike Coppola/Getty Images)

While the the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be invited, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wanted. A source close to the royal family toldEntertainment Tonight (ET) that Harry and Meghan’s attendance “could overshadow the coronation.”

 

“No one wants to see the focus taken away from King Charles with the press focused on Harry and Meghan and past family squabbles,” the unnamed source said. “The fear is — if they do come — more private matters could be made public, so efforts are being made to prevent that.”

 

Last month, a source close to the royal family told ET that Charles “very much wants Prince Harry and his grandchildren at his coronation.” This came after a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan told ET that the pair was invited via email:

 

“The duke has recently received email correspondence from His Majesty’s office regarding the coronation. An immediate decision on whether the duke and duchess will attend will not be disclosed by us at this time,” the rep said.

06
Jill Biden will attend, but what about Joe?
President Joe Biden and Jill Biden at 2022 Kennedy Center Honors (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The First Lady will travel to London next month to represent the United States at Charles’ coronation, per CNN

 

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden spoke with Charles over the phone to congratulate him and inform him of his wife’s attendance.

 

“The President congratulated the King on his upcoming Coronation and informed him that First Lady Jill Biden looks forward to attending on behalf of the United States,” a White House readout of the call said.

 

At this time, President Biden will not attend the coronation, even though dozens of world leaders are slated to be in attendance. The news upset several critics, including brash English broadcaster Piers Morgan.

 

“Not impressed that President Biden @POTUS has reportedly turned down his invitation to King Charles’ coronation,” Morgan tweeted on Saturday. “Huge moment in British history, and whatever you think of him, I’m certain Donald Trump would have gone if he were still President.”

 

Biden made it clear in his Tuesday call that he plans to meet with Charles in the future. Both Biden and his wife traveled to London in September to attend the late queen’s funeral.

Trump indictment: Legal historian explains why this is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind

Much has been made of the unprecedented nature of the April 4, 2023 arraignment on criminal charges of former President Donald Trump following an indictment brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. But a closer look at American history shows that the indictment of a former president was not unforeseen.

What the Constitution says about prosecuting a president

The Constitution’s authors contemplated the arrest of a current or former president. At several points since the nation’s founding, our leaders have been called before the bar of justice.

Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution says that when a federal government official is impeached and removed from office, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

In his defense of this constitutional provision, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton noted that, unlike the British king, for whom “there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected,” a president once removed from office would “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Trump has been impeached twice, but not removed from office.

As a scholar with expertise in legal history and criminal law, I believe the punishment our Founding Fathers envisioned for high officeholders removed from office would also apply to those who left office in other ways.

Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress from 1788–89, echoed Hamilton. He explained that while the Constitution’s speech and debate clause permanently immunized members of Congress from liability for anything they might do or say as part of their official duties, the president “is not so much protected as that of a member of the House of Representatives; for he may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law.”

In Coxe’s view, even a sitting president could be arrested, tried and punished for violating the law. And, though Coxe didn’t say it explicitly, I’d argue that it follows that if a president can be charged with a crime while in office, once out of office, he could be held responsible like anyone else.

The indictment of Aaron Burr

Hamilton’s and Coxe’s positions were put to an early test soon after the Constitution was ratified. The test came when jurors in New Jersey indicted Vice President Aaron Burr for killing Hamilton in a duel in that state.

Black-and-white illustration showing Aaron Burr, in black top hat and coat, shooting Alexander Hamilton in a wooded area. Two eyewitnesses stand in the background.

An artist’s depiction of the Burr–Hamilton duel on July 11, 1804. Hamilton was mortally wounded, and Burr was indicted for his death. Ivan-96/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

The indictment charged that “Aaron Burr late of the Township of Bergen in the County of Bergen esquire not having the fear of God before his eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil … feloniously willfully and of his malice aforethought did make an assault upon Alexander Hamilton … [who] of the said Mortal wounds died.”

While Burr’s powerful friends subsequently interceded and persuaded state officials to drop the charges, their success had nothing to do with any immunity that Burr enjoyed as an executive officer of the United States.

Indeed, Burr’s legal troubles were not over. In February 1807, after his term as vice president ended, he was arrested and charged with treason for plotting to create a new and independent nation separate from the U.S. This time, he stood trial and was acquitted.

The Strange case of Ulysses S. Grant

Fast forward to 1872, when the incumbent president, Ulysses S. Grant, was arrested in Washington, D.C., for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage.

The arresting officer told Grant, “I am very sorry, Mr. President, to have to do it, for you are the chief of the nation, and I am nothing but a policeman, but duty is duty, sir, and I will have to place you under arrest.”

As The New York Post recently recounted the story, Grant “was ordered to put up 20 bucks as collateral.” But he never stood trial.

20th and 21st century precedents

A little over a century later, Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew had a more serious brush with the law when he was accused by the Department of Justice of a pattern of political corruption starting when he was a county executive in Maryland and continuing through his tenure as vice president.

On Oct. 10, 1973, Agnew agreed to a plea bargain. He resigned his office and pleaded no contest to a charge of federal income tax evasion in exchange for the federal government dropping charges of political corruption. He was fined US$10,000 and sentenced to three years’ probation.

Surrounded by Secret Service agents, Spiro Agnew speaks to reporters outside a federal courthouse.

Spiro Agnew leaves a Baltimore federal courthouse on Oct. 10, 1973, after pleading no contest to tax evasion charges and resigning as vice president. Bettmann via Getty Images

Richard Nixon, the president with whom Agnew served, narrowly escaped being indicted for his role in the Watergate burglary and its cover-up. In 2018, the National Archives released documents, labeled the Watergate Road Map, that showed just how close Nixon had come to being charged.

The documents reveal that “a grand jury planned to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation.” But an indictment was never handed down because, by that time, Hamilton’s and Coxe’s views had been displaced by a belief that a sitting president should not be indicted.

Nixon was later saved from criminal charges after he left office when his successor, President Gerald Ford, granted him a full and complete pardon.

Another occasion on which a president came close to being charged with a crime occurred in January 2001, when, as an article in The Atlantic notes, independent prosecutor Robert Ray considered indicting former President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Ultimately, Ray decided that if Clinton publicly admitted to “having been misleading and evasive under oath … he didn’t need to see him indicted.”

And in February 2021, after President Trump had left office, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged that the former president, who had escaped being removed from office twice after being impeached, would still be legally “liable for everything he did while he was in office … We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

What history teaches about Trump’s indictment

This brings us to the present moment.

For any prosecutor, including Alvin Bragg, the indictment and arrest of a former president is a genuinely momentous act. As Henry Ruth, one of the prosecutors who was involved in the Nixon case, explained in 1974, “Signing one’s name to the indictment of an ex-president is an act that one wishes devolved upon another but one’s self. This is true even where such an act, in institutional and justice terms, appears absolutely necessary.”

For the rest of us, this nation’s history is a reminder that ours is not the first generation of Americans who have been called to deal with alleged wrongdoing by our leaders and former leaders.

 

Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

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

Legal experts: “Surprise accusation” in Bragg indictment could make it easier to convict Trump

The indictment of Donald Trump unsealed in Manhattan on Tuesday included a new allegation that could aid District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against the former president.

The indictment featured a “surprise accusation,” The New York Times’ Charlie Savage noted, laying out prosecutors’ claim that Trump falsified tax records in part to deceive tax authorities. 

“Pundits have been speculating that Trump would be charged with lying about the hush money payments to illegally affect an election, and that theory rests on controversial legal issues and could be hard to prove,” Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor and former state prosecutor, told the outlet. “It turns out the indictment also includes a claim that Trump falsified records to commit a state tax crime. That’s a much simpler charge that avoids the potential pitfalls.”

Bragg in a statement of facts that accompanied the indictment laid out how Trump and other participants allegedly “took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.” 

While bookkeeping fraud is normally a misdemeanor, it can be elevated to a felony if it was part of an attempt to cover up another crime. 

In this case, Bragg alleges that Trump used his business records to conceal hush-money payments, which amounts to conspiracy, tax fraud and violations of state campaign finance laws.

“Under New York State law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and an intent to conceal another crime,” Bragg said at a press conference after Trump’s arraignment. “That is exactly what this case is about.”

Now, the Manhattan DA must convince the jury that all of the criminal record-keeping was done in order to cover up some larger crime. When someone intentionally makes a fraudulent entry in business records in order to conceal another crime, that is a Class E felony. 

“Lying to affect an election would be extraordinarily difficult to prove,” John Kaley, a former assistant U.S. attorney from the Southern District of New York, told Salon. “Every politician and every statement would come under scrutiny. It would become a war among the political parties with few survivors. False documents are much easier. It’s either true or false.”

Catherine Ross, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, agreed and pointed out that Trump’s business even falsely noted the payments as a legal expense on its taxes even though Trump later wrote personal checks.

“The state tax violation is a more straightforward and easier case to make,” Ross said. “It is implied in the statement of facts – particularly re: the payments to Cohen reflecting a joint intent that he falsely report the reimbursement as income and providing him with funds to cover that cost. It should not matter that Cohen paid money in. He filed a false tax return.”

The charges that the former president is facing are connected to his $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple federal charges in 2018, including campaign finance violations related to the hush money payment — which he said Trump reimbursed him for. 

New York prosecutors alleged that Trump illegally falsely characterized the reimbursements related to the Daniels hush money payment as being legal services performed in 2017, leading to 34 false entries in New York business records. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges Tuesday and has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. 


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


The statement of facts also shed light on how Trump paid Cohen more than his lawyer had paid Daniels in order to compensate him for the taxes he would owe.

“He could not simply say that the payments were a reimbursement for Mr. Cohen’s payments to Stormy Daniels,” Bragg said. “To do so, to make that true statement, would have been to admit a crime. So instead, Mr. Trump said that he was paying Mr. Cohen for fictitious legal services in 2017 to cover up an actual crime committed the prior year.”

Prosecutor Christopher Conroy on Tuesday accused Trump of causing his company to create a series of false business records, adding that he “even mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payment,” The New York Times reported

“The reference to false tax filings,” New York University Law Professor Ryan Goodman told The Times, “may save the case from legal challenges that may arise if the felony charges are predicated only on federal and state election laws.”

The prominent environmental and labor issues within the world of tea

The United States, a country of coffee drinkers, is far less excited about tea. Where 44% of us drink two to three cups of coffee per day, only 25% of us consume two daily cups of tea, according to Solidaridad Asia, a civil society group pushing for sustainability in food supply chains. Still, some researchers have noticed a rising interest in tea’s purported health benefits; in 2021, 98,000 metric tons of black tea and almost 17,000 metric tons of green tea, were imported into the U.S.

Unlike with coffee, though, we don’t hear much about how tea production rates from labor and environmental standpoints. “The U.S represents [almost six] percent of total consumption, so it’s not a huge market in terms of volume,” says Steffany Bermúdez, a policy analyst at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) by way of partial explanation as to why American consumers may take less of an interest in the origins of tea. Additionally, because most tea is aggregated to be sold at auction, “There isn’t actually a place where someone can go and check, where did this product come from?” says Chaumtoli Huq, a law professor at CUNY who studies the tea industry in Bangladesh.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t organizations seeking to address tea worker treatment and environmental concerns or that there aren’t certifications you can seek out to know you’re buying a product that was produced with these issues in mind — Fairtrade International,  Rainforest Alliance and USDA Organic among them. But there’s a gap between what these certifications promise and what they are actually able to deliver.

Tea Basics

Tea comes from Camellia sinensis, a woody evergreen shrub that grows in tropical and sub-tropical places. There are two varieties: Camellia sinensis sinensis, which is native to China and whose leaves and buds are used mostly to make green teas; and Camellia sinensis assamica, native to the Assam region of India and mostly used to make black teas.

It’s the differences in processing that distinguish them. Green tea leaves may be briefly “withered” by exposure to air after plucking, to remove some moisture; they’re then dried to prevent oxidation. After tea leaves for black tea are plucked, they’re withered, rolled, oxidized for varying amounts of time, then dried.

There are also three other officially recognized types of tea: oolong, which is partially oxidized; un-oxidized white tea, which comes from young, unopened tea buds; and pu-erh, which, after it is dried, is fermented then compressed into bricks. The matcha used in matcha lattes and other beverages is simply powdered green tea. Herbal “teas” (like chamomile or mint) are technically tisanes, infusions made with non-Camellia sinensis leaves, bark, berries, seeds and so-forth.

Pesticide and Labor Issues

Tea is now grown in countries throughout Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America. India, China, Sri Lanka and Kenya are the biggest global producers and the vast majority of tea for home brewing (versus for brewing ready-to-drink beverages like Snapple iced tea) comes into the U.S. comes from these countries. Industrial-scale monoculture tea-growing proliferates, although it’s not the only farming method out there by a long shot.

China and Taiwan’s large farms may use plenty of chemical inputs in order to stave off pests and disease, which “ends up having consequences for water as well as human health,” says Anna Canning, director of communications for the Worker-driven Social Responsibility Network. But these countries also have small-scale tea cultivators, some of them centuries old, that may not rely on chemical inputs.

India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kenya are countries where the British “set up massive tea plantations for the explicit purpose of getting tea . . . to fuel their national consumption,” Canning continues. Here, “You still have very much that sort of colonial plantation model where workers are brought in from someplace else or are in some way marginalized within their societies — they’re lower class or from different ethnic groups” and although there have been some efforts to improve conditions for workers, they continue to be poor and powerless.

Chemical use can be an issue in these countries, too. Even though the UN Food and Agriculture Organization provides guidance on the use of pesticides by legacy British tea companies like Finlays, “Pesticides are regularly used on tea plantations,” says Huq. In Bangladesh, she’s witnessed workers — who are most at risk of health hazards from pesticides — spraying chemicals without benefit of protective gear.

In South Asia, Kenya and Malawi, says Huq, “Tea workers are oftentimes the lowest paid of all categories of workers, particularly the women,” who work the processing side of tea, plucking leaves for a low weighted rate; men work on the production side, which is (marginally) better paid. “You have women working from early morning with no protection in terms of bugs and the natural elements” like heat, Huq says. In this system, whole families live and work on a plantation, often with poor access to clean water, food rations that leave them undernourished, and nowhere to go if a family member loses their job and is obliged to move off-plantation. Huq refers to this system as a “modern form of slavery.”

Any tea that’s grown to be sold under the USDA Organic label (or organic labels in the EU and elsewhere), almost entirely eschew chemical fertilizers and pesticides, making them a good choice when it comes to environmental concerns at least. But since demand for organic is lower than supply, tea farmers who grow for domestic markets rather than export — about 70% of tea globally, according to Bermúdez — may not seek certification because it’s not as valued in their home countries, although that’s beginning to change. A further wrinkle, points out Bermúdez, is that a large company can source sustainably produced tea for the U.S. market, but unsustainably produced tea for others, meaning that your dollars may well be supporting a company with a foothold in both.

“Depending on the market, [a company] can commercialize a tea line with more sustainable properties (certified tea) and in other regions, a line of conventional and cheaper tea that has been bought in auctions and blended (which makes traceability more difficult or almost impossible),” Bermúdez wrote in an email.

What Tea Certifications Tell Us

USDA Organic certification largely addresses ecological issues in tea growing methods, while Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade International labeling have standards that focus both on labor and environmental issues. For example, Fairtrade International prohibits the use of some ag chemicals and compels farmers to work towards improving soil and water quality; it also has specifications related to housing and sanitation standards for workers. Rainforest Alliance certification tackles living wages, climate smart agriculture and the conservation of biodiversity, among other practices; it also seeks to prevent and otherwise tackle forced labor in tea supply chains.

According to Bermúdez, Rainforest Alliance and USDA Certified Organic “allow farmers to differentiate themselves in the marketplace from conventional tea, in exchange for adopting more sustainable farming practices that build climate resilience or erosion control or lower pesticide use.” Farmers can label their products as meeting the standards of these certifications and charge a higher price for their tea. However, she notes that the cost of certification precludes many small-scale farmers from seeking certification.

Fairtrade International recently updated its standards to address what it admits were flaws in its original model. “[Their] own assessment of their standards in practice show little impact on wages or working conditions for workers,” wrote Canning in an email. Even the new standards “have not fundamentally changed the real power imbalances at the heart of the abuses.”

The organization’s certification is meant to guarantee minimum tea prices for farmers in exchange for their use of the label. But with the vast amount of Fairtrade International tea sold as conventional due to issues around demand, says Bermúdez, farmers don’t always get to take advantage of that price boost.

While Fairtrade International and Rainforest Alliance certifications may, in general, provide more benefits for farmers — such as making their operations more climate resilient due to the practices they’re obliged to adopt — they don’t tell the whole story of tea. Says Bermúdez, there are anecdotal reports that suggest “There are cases where these conditions or the standards have not been respected.” Additionally, many large companies may also work under their own sets of (opaque and voluntary) standards, without third-party verification or any real enforcement.

Canning believes Equal Exchange, with a commitment to purchasing organic-certified tea from small-scale farmers in India and Sri Lanka, does guarantee some environmental and worker benefit, with teabags that are readily available in supermarkets. However, consumers are becoming more aware of the use of the plastic that comprises nylon teabags and seals paper ones, which can leach into the environment and human bodies. Looseleaf tea is considered a more sustainable choice; Equal Exchange recently began selling that, too, making it a double win.

How to Do Your Own Research

Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, which Canning calls a “clearinghouse for human rights violation information,” doesn’t actively campaign for tea worker rights. But it does send tea companies self-evaluation forms, the responses to which it makes publicly available on its website.

Here you’ll find that Yogi Tea — which is a member of the international Ethical Tea Partnership that’s “increasingly focusing on gender equality projects and labor, such as training to enhance women’s nutrition,” wrote Bermúdez — doesn’t guarantee payment of living wages throughout its supply chain; that Twinings (another Ethical Tea Partnership member) does not work with unions; that Ahmed Tea doesn’t answer whether it supports a minimum wage, maternity leave or sick leave for its workers; and that Starbucks, which was implicated in purchasing tea from Kenyan tea farms where women workers were sexually abused, is Rainforest Alliance certified and has a Global Human Rights Statement, highlighting the limitations of certifications generally.

Rather than buying tea from big brands, you can purchase from buyers sourcing directly from farmers. Though this comprises less than 2% of the tea market, “Direct buyers are more transparent on prices, they are more transparent on tea origins, they are generally more transparent on sustainability programs or projects that they are supporting,” says Bermúdez.

You can ask your local tea shop owners if they purchase straight from farmers and what sorts of practices they use in production. Online, you’ll also find “a lot of small tea companies that are doing really interesting things,” says Canning. She calls out Young Mountain Tea, whose owner is working to develop a farmer-owned tea processing facility. Other options include In Pursuit of TeaRed Blossom Tea and Rishi.

There are many companies that work directly with small farms in order to forefront labor and environmental concerns: Eco-Cha and Everlasting Teas, which sell looseleaf tea sourced from Taiwan; Spirit Tea, sourcing from Nepal, Japan, Thailand, among others; and Verdant Tea, working with small-scale Chinese growers. There are also small-scale, local companies that are transparent in their growing methods and that produce tea right here in the U.S., from Hawai’i to South Carolina — even New Jersey. Until tea industry labeling becomes more transparent, some of these teas will see you through.

The power of Ben Affleck’s “Air” gotta be more than the shoes

Even though everyone knows Michael Jordan has been associated with Nike for nearly four decades, “Air,” nimbly recounts the origin story of how that business deal transpired. It is a good American underdog story, and director Ben Affleck tells it in a slick, enjoyable style. Nike, in Beaverton, Oregon, had a pitiful 17% share of a sneaker market dominated by Adidas and Converse — until it signed a game-changing contract with Jordan.

“Air” is not deep, nor is it demanding. Affleck spoon-feeds viewers what they need to know to understand the business, including some comic Nike lore, such as one rumored origin of the “Just Do It” slogan, and CEO Phil Knight’s (Affleck) comments about the company’s name and trademark swoosh

Affleck also uses popular culture to keep the story upbeat. An opening sequence features a montage of moments from 1984, the year the film takes place, set to Dire Straits‘ (1985) song, “Money for Nothing.” It is one of about two dozen on-the-nose needle drops Affleck uses throughout “Air.” (Cyndi Lauper‘s “Time After Time” is used during a waiting period; Springsteen‘s anthem, “Born in the U.S.A.,” is also featured on the soundtrack and in a speech one character gives.) But the wall-to-wall music keeps viewers engaged because the story is more talk than action. 

Sonny Vaccaro (Matt Damon) is a Nike basketball talent scout. He is supposed to help find a player to endorse Nike’s sneakers, but Phil has a limited budget, and the basketball division is on the chopping block. It needs a miracle. (Cue: Mike & The Mechanics’ “All I Need Is a Miracle,” another 1985 song.) Sonny believes that Miracle is Jordan, and he convinces himself watching both an Arthur Ashe commercial about a customized racquet as well as a game where Jordan displays his talents as an athlete. His analysis of Jordan’s ease on the court, and seeing something in his game that others miss, is masterful.

If any scene in the film provides goosebumps, it is this one.

Sonny tries to get Nike’s marketing manager Rob Strasser (Jason Bateman) to buy into his vision. Rob is skeptical, and like Phil, he doesn’t want to sink all the money into one player; they want three or four options. And even if Nike goes all in for Jordan, getting a meeting with the athlete — who is loyal to Adidas with Converse as a backup — is going to require Jordan’s agent, David Falk (Chris Messina) getting a commitment in writing, something Sonny can’t authorize.

The scenes between Sonny and David are witty and snappy with both men teasing and insulting the other with a patter that crackles. David rages hilariously in one scene, where he screams at Sonny, threatening to “eat his nuts,” and Messina is having a blast chewing the scenery. 

These exchanges provide some of the most amusing scenes in “Air,” but they bested only by the more thoughtful ones between Sonny and Deloris Jordan (Viola Davis), Michael’s mother. Sonny skirts around David by showing up at the Jordan’s home in Wilmington, NC, and lays out why he hopes to pitch Michael Nike. (The meeting is signposted early on when Sonny is told that if he wants to get to the son, go through the mom.) 

Matt Damon as Sonny Vaccaro and Viola Davis as Deloris Jordan in “Air” (Amazon Studios)

Watching Sonny and Deloris square off here is where the film’s real heart and tension are.

Affleck cannily shows the power dynamics between these two determined people – a nervy, desperate corporate exec and Jordan’s formidable mother – but he also brings out the real humanity in this moment. Sonny’s impassioned speech is his way of connecting with Deloris, and he is seen having this same kind of connection with only one other person in the film — a 7-Eleven Clerk (Asanté Deshon) who seems to love the game of basketball as much as Sonny does. Sonny’s colleagues at Nike are not as invested as he is, but viewers are, which is why “Air” engages.

In contrast, the scenes between Sonny and Phil are kind of leaden because they are meant to generate the film’s tension. Will Phil risk his company on MJ, who Sonny is betting his entire career on? (Of course, he will!) Whatever pleasure there is in seeing Ben and Matt spar verbally, it feels strained. Better are scenes featuring Peter Moore (Matthew Maher), the sneaker designer who comes up with the Air Jordans (and maybe even its name). If any scene in the film provides goosebumps, it is this one, where the sneaker is discussed, designed and revealed. 

“Air” features some other memorable moments, most notably Sonny’s speech during the Jordan family visit and meeting. Damon sells this scene to viewers just as he is selling this moment to the Jordans, and Alex Convery’s screenplay (his first) excels here, with Sonny foreseeing Jordan’s future as an athlete and superstar, who is going to be scrutinized throughout the ups and downs of his personal and professional life. Affleck slickly uses headlines and magazine covers as well as archival images to illustrate everything from a triumphant career on the basketball court to tragedies including his father’s murder. It may be manipulative, but it is also irresistible. He also cannily never shows Jordan’s face. (Damian Young, who plays the basketball legend.)


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


The film hums along — Big Country, Violent Femmes, Chaka Khan, and many others make appearances on the fabulous soundtrack — before it finally gets to its point, where Deloris offers Sonny and Nike the contract with an unexpected, and unprecedented condition. Watching Sonny and Deloris square off here is where the film’s real heart and tension are. More is said about corporate America, money and race in this scene than any other in “Air,” and it provides the film with some real power. Affleck does not quite bury the lede so much as build to a conclusion that leaves audiences feeling elated. 

“Air” opens in theatres nationwide April 5.

 

NPR sounds alarm after Musk’s Twitter contradicts own policy to label it “state-affiliated media”

Twitter added a “state-affiliated media” label to NPR’s account on Tuesday, implying that the Washington-based nonprofit news organization is either connected to or controlled by the federal government and has therefore compromised its editorial independence. 

This is the same label that the social media site uses for propaganda outlets such as the Russian-government-owned RT and the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily newspaper. However, Twitter has not used the designation for other media organizations that gain substantial funding from governments such as The Voice of America, the BBC and the U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes. 

While NPR does rely on some government funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, officials have asserted since its founding in 1970 that it is editorially independent of any government agency or funding source. They get the bulk of direct financial support from two sources: sponsorships and fees paid by hundreds of member stations, as their website states.

“NPR operates independently of the U.S. government. And while federal money is important to the overall public media system, NPR gets less than 1% of its annual budget, on average, from federal sources,” the outlet wrote in response on Wednesday. 

NPR requested Twitter remove the “state” designation label on Tuesday night when it first appeared. 

“We were disturbed to see last night that Twitter has labeled NPR as ‘state-affiliated media,'” president and chief executive John Lansing said in a statement on Wednesday. “NPR and our Member stations are supported by millions of listeners who depend on us for the independent, fact-based journalism we provide. NPR stands for freedom of speech and holding the powerful accountable. It is unacceptable for Twitter to label us this way. A vigorous, vibrant free press is essential to the health of our democracy.”

State-affiliated media organizations face different consequences on the site according to Twitter’s rules, which state they “will not recommend or amplify [such] accounts or their tweets.” This may have negative effects on NPR’s social reach and that of its advertisers. 

Twitter has yet to explain why the label was put on NPR’s account, but it seems to fall in line with CEO Elon Musk’s erratic and punitive decision-making surrounding news-media accounts since he took over the company last year. Musk last week had The New York Times’ blue verified badge removed after the outlet refused to pay for his new verification scheme.


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


The NPR designation is inconsistent with Twitter’s own rules, The Washington Post reported. The company’s published rules say that state-affiliated media are “outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.”

They clearly state that “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK and NPR in the US, for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.”

However, a new version of the rules published on Tuesday removed NPR from that sentence. “At least one page on the Twitter site still listed NPR as an exception as of late morning Wednesday,” the outlet reported.

NPR officials requested that Twitter remove the label, initially assuming it was a mistake, NPR spokesperson Isabel Lara said. “We were not warned. It happened quite suddenly last night,” she explained.

In response to NPR’s email requesting details about what led to the company’s decision, Twitter’s press account auto-replied with a poop emoji, “a message it has been sending to journalists for weeks.”

Musk acknowledged the new tag on Tuesday by responding to a tweet with a screenshot showing Twitter’s policy defining state-affiliated media. “Seems accurate,” wrote the CEO, who has a history of targeting news organizations and journalists. 

“Wow, way to make this label meaningless. NPR is absolutely not even comparable to propaganda outlets like RT & Sputnik, which have no editorial independence,” wrote Caroline Orr Bueno, a behavioral scientist who studies disinformation at the University of Maryland. 

“This is ridiculous and only helps actual propaganda outlets blend in with legitimate news outlets,” she added.

As of Wednesday morning, NPR wrote, Twitter has not applied the “state-affiliated” label to other outlets that directly or indirectly receive any public funds, such as PBS

21st century slavery: Remembering MLK in the age of infectious greed

This week marks the 55th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. King was in Memphis as an act of solidarity with Memphis Sanitation workers who had been out on strike since early February after sanitation workers Echol Cole and Robert Walker were crushed by their malfunctioning trash compactor.

Dr. King saw the union movement as essential to advancing the cause of America’s poor and low-wealth families of all colors.

In 1961 Dr. King addressed the AFL-CIO and said the “labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it.” He said that by “raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who today attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them.”

In the decades since, the percentage of Americans in a labor union has declined substantially as working families have lost ground. Meanwhile, wealth concentration has accelerated dramatically, and the racial wealth gap has only grown wider and wider. Multi-billion-dollar corporations like Amazon and Starbucks flagrantly violate federal labor law to defeat a substantial upsurge in organizing.  

Next month, President Biden is set to formally declare the end to the COVID-19 public health emergency that claimed over 1.1 million Americans including tens of thousands of healthcare workers, first responders and other essential workers. Yet, our for-profit healthcare system is still itself in a deepening crisis of affordability and basic access which organized labor is struggling to address.

There’s been reporting that big pharma will realize a considerable windfall as the Biden administration rolls out the ‘mission accomplished’ banner and the federal government leaves COVID testing and vaccines increasingly up to the predations of these corporations who have bought off the beltway.

There’s every indication that it was the nature of our for-profit healthcare system that’s rooted in scarcity that actually drove the pandemic’s body count. For years before the pandemic, the U.S. paid the MOST for healthcare of any wealthy nation in the world and yet had the poorest health outcomes with declining life expectancy to show for it.

COVID itself is ample evidence of the utter failure of our nation’s healthcare system we are programmed to believe is the best in the world. The U.S. is only four percent of the world’s population, yet we were 12 percent of the world’s COVID deaths and counting.

And while unions and their allies in the Democratic Party hail President’s Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act, it still left too many Americans out and we have the body count from the pandemic to prove it.

There’s a growing body of research which documents that America’s poorest communities of color where access to healthcare was most problematic were the most vulnerable to COVID. And of course, we all know these are the very same communities that millions of our essential workers live in.  

Last April, Rev. Dr. William Barber and Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs released a county-by-county analysis that looked at COVID mortality data sorted by poverty, income, race, and geography.

“Yet in the pandemic, we will hear that there have been two, three, four, five-times the deaths in poorer communities as in richer ones,” Barber told reporters at the time. “We encourage everyone here to walk through the data after this conference and take the time to see what has been so far unseen. The findings are so contrary to a nation that claims first and foremost to establish justice, and certainly contrary to the call of God to care for the least of these.”

Barber continued. “Remember, this unnecessary death happened while we gave corporations $2 trillion to keep them alive and the richest Americans saw their wealth soar. It’s a gross example of what Naomi Klein has called the “shock doctrine,” when the wealthy exploit tragedy to increase their own profits while poor people suffer. This report shows that a poverty-producing and sustaining system was also a death-dealing system. Within this analysis, we can see that it did not need to be this way, if only we were honest about poverty and systemic racism, and the systems of violence that allowed this tragedy.”

21st Century Slavery

As it turns out, the nation’s number one labor issue, whether the nation’s union leadership wants to recognize it or not, is this country’s predatory healthcare system. As long as we continue to link our healthcare to our jobs, working Americans will never get ahead. We need to see it for the 21st century slavery it is, imposed by a rigged system that’s based on healthcare NOT being a human right designed by a network of companies that make a profit by blocking access to care.  

So far, some unions have opted to get into bed with these for-profit healthcare insurers through strategic alliances with various Medicare Advantage providers that are currently the target of fraud investigations by the federal government that have been reported in the New York Times and Kaiser Health News.

Across the country, we know hundreds of thousands of families end up in bankruptcy every year due to medical expenses and that tens of thousands die each year because they lack healthcare insurance. According to research from Families USA, a non-profit advocacy group, for every 10 percent increase in the proportion of a county’s residents who lacked health insurance there was a 70 percent increase in COVID cases, and a 48 percent increase in COVID deaths.

In New York City’s five boroughs between Aug. 31, 2020 and Feb. 1, 2021, close to 7,500 of the COVID deaths recorded were linked to gaps in, or the lack of health care coverage for the patients (2,667 in Queens, 2,219 in Brooklyn, 1,572 in The Bronx and 274 in Richmond), according to Families USA.

If America’s top labor leaders have any doubt about the moral bankruptcy of the for-profit American health care system, they should sit down with the nurses’ unions who are taking it on directly by demanding proper nurse to patient ratios in states like New York and New Jersey, the very global epicenter of the COVID pandemic.

According to an investigation by the Guardian Newspapers and Kaiser Health News, 453 New York state healthcare workers died in the first wave of the COVID pandemic which came amidst a national shortage of N-95 masks. In New Jersey 268 perished. Nationally, over 3,600 healthcare workers perished in the first year of the pandemic. Close to two-thirds of them were people of color.

“As the ratio goes up between patients and nurses goes up infections go up, lower nurse to patient ratio drops infections. That has been proven with much research over the last decade,” said Debbie White, RN and president of Health Professionals and Allied Employees, New Jersey’s largest nurses’ union.

“Even before Covid-19 appeared, tens of thousands of patients died each year from preventable infections acquired during treatment,” Michael Millenson, a patient safety activist wrote in the journal Stat. “The contagious nature of the coronavirus has vastly increased the number of those at risk, with health care workers themselves now routinely endangered.”

Millenson continued, “Receiving care at a highly regarded facility won’t necessarily provide protection against health-care-associated infections. ProPublica examined five years of inspection reports from 55 major hospitals designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as in the ‘first tier’ of treatment centers able to handle an infectious disease crisis. Journalists found infection-control failures and other problems at more than half of the facilities.”

There’s a reason why Congress can’t bring itself to empower an independent 9/11 Commission-style review of the nation’s seriously flawed pandemic response. Chances are that our for-profit healthcare system works to undermine the control of infectious diseases like COVID and in the process puts our healthcare workforce, their families and by extension the entire community at greater risk.   

“It was never about protecting Melania”: Legal experts say DA’s evidence blows up Trump defense

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg released a 34-count felony indictment against former President Donald Trump on Tuesday, accusing him of falsifying business records. In a separate statement of facts, Bragg alleged that Trump’s alleged hush money payment was made to influence the election — not to save face in front of his family. 

Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina floated the “Melania defense” last month, arguing that the payment, which itself is not illegal, was intended to prevent “embarrassment” to Trump and his wife rather than to aid his campaign. 

According to Bragg’s statement of facts, Trump in 2015 met with David Pecker, the chairman of National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc., to ask the outlet to act as his “eyes and ears” and kill any negative stories that might threaten his presidential campaign. Bragg’s investigation found that AMI caught three stories, paying off two and handing over the third to Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen. Following the election, the document states, Trump hosted Pecker twice “to thank him for his help during the campaign.”

Bragg also found that Trump only agreed to pay porn star Stormy Daniels after his campaign was suffering from the fallout from the Access Hollywood tape in October 2016. However, Trump still tried to get out of paying her, the statement of facts states, with the former president telling Cohen, “if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public.”

Cohen and Pecker both testified in front of the grand jury that indicted Trump, and admitted that they participated in an illegal hush money payment to influence the election in Trump’s favor, according to the D.A.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance wrote on her Substack that “Trump supporters who had suggested the ‘catch and kill’ scheme was about protecting Melania Trump saw that defense blow apart” on Tuesday.

Vance cited the three alleged payoffs in the case to Daniels, Playboy model Karen McDougal, and a Trump Tower doorman who received a $30,000 hush money payment after claiming Trump fathered a child out of wedlock who is hidden from the public, according to the D.A.

“Trump met with Pecker after the election and before the inauguration to thank him for his help with the election. They met again after the election and before the inauguration, where Trump ‘thanked the AMI CEO for handling the stories of the Doorman and Woman 1 [Karen McDougal], and invited the AMI CEO to the Inauguration,'” Vance wrote. “After Trump became President, he invited Pecker to a White House dinner in the summer of 2017 ‘to thank him for his help during the campaign.'”

“Pecker is cooperating,” she continued. “He was the final witness Bragg brought before the grand jury, and, presumably, we will hear this story in his own voice,” at trial.

“Here’s the chef’s kiss,” Vance added. “They structured at least one of the deals so they wouldn’t have to pay out funds if Trump lost the election. It was never about protecting Melania.”


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


Former FBI special agent and attorney Asha Rangappa agreed with Vance’s assessment, writing that if “Bragg can prove this” it would tank Trump’s “‘I just wanted to save Melania the embarrassment’ defense.'”

“What a cheapskate!” she added.

NYU Law professor Ryan Goodman agreed that the document includes “evidence this was election driven,” undercutting the “Melania defense.”

Melania Trump as well as Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka Trump were noticeably absent from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago speech on Tuesday after his criminal arraignment.