Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Elizabeth Holmes sentenced to 11+ years for Theranos fraud

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to 135 months on Friday afternoon after being found guilty of defrauding investors. In addition to the 11+ years sentence, which is set to begin on April 27, 2023, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California added on three years of supervised release. Representatives for Holmes have stated that she has already expressed interest in appealing the court’s ruling.

According to The New York Times, Holmes burst into tears during sentencing, and delivered a statement saying “I am devastated by my failings. I have felt deep pain for what people went through because I failed them.”

On March 14, 2018, The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a release stating that Holmes and former Theranos president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani  were being charged with massive fraud after it was found that they’d raised “$700 million from investors through an elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance.” 

“Investors are entitled to nothing less than complete truth and candor from companies and their executives,” said Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division in the 2018 release. “The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention.”

“The Theranos story is an important lesson for Silicon Valley,” Jina Choi, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office furthered in the SEC’s statement. “Innovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”


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


In a letter written to the court prior to sentencing, Christian Holmes asked for leniency for his daughter saying “Much has been written in the media and addressed in the trial about the company and its failure. Little has been said about the innovation Elizabeth strived for, sacrificed and accomplished in order to help the company continue.”

The fraud of Theranos, which was brought to the public’s attention in Hulu’s 2022 minseries “The Dropout,” starring Amanda Seyfried, centered on the invention of a machine that was said to have the capability to diagnose a variety of ailments from only a drop of blood. Knowing that the machines were faulty, causing dangerous misdiagnosis in several instances, Holmes mislead investors to the contrary in an effort to preserve funding. 

In July, Holmes’ partner Balwani was found guilty of 12 felony counts of fraud in a separate trial and awaits sentencing after being granted a delay in early November. 

“The Inspection” and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for a queer Black man: “Boot camp is brainwashing”

Writer/director Elegance Bratton’s “The Inspection,” an extraordinary, must-see drama about Ellis French (Jeremy Pope), a homeless young gay Black man who enlists in the Marines, is as brutal as boot camp. The film, set in 2005, is inspired by Bratton’s own experiences. Like Bratton, French has been kicked out of his house by his homophobic mother Inez (Gabrielle Union, who co-produced) and has been living on the streets since he was a teen. (Bratton’s previous film was the excellent 2019 documentary feature, “Pier Kids” about three queer homeless youths in New York).

“I am attempting not to be judgmental of the Marine Corps, but to some degree, what is happening in boot camp is brainwashing.”

Boot camp certainly challenges French, who reacts to being dehumanized by trying to bond with the other men in his squad. While the drill sergeant, Laws (Bokeem Woodbine) is hard as nails, the drill hat, Rosales (Raúl Castillo), is kinder, quietly helping Ellis get through some of the tougher situations he faces. That French is attracted to Rosales and has fantasies about him complicates things and sometimes gets him into trouble with his fellow recruits, especially Harvey (McCaul Lombardi), the squad leader.

“The Inspection” features some difficult scenes of violence and discrimination — the Middle Eastern recruit, Ismail (Eman Esfandi), feels as unwanted as French does at times — but there are some very tender moments, and some powerful scenes involving Ellis earning others’ respect. 

Bratton spoke with Salon about his bracing new film and what he learned revisiting this chapter in his life.

As you did in “Pier Kids,” you transport audiences into the skin of oppression and present a story in a matter-of-fact, non-judgmental way. Although “The Inspection” is highly realistic, it also contains flights of fantasy, homoerotic scenes of French dreaming about Rosales moments or scenes that have a surrealistic quality. What informed your film’s tone? The routine and episodes of dehumanization are often hypnotic.

The sense of repetition is really important for the sense of the hypnotic. I am attempting not to be judgmental of the Marine Corps, but to some degree, what is happening in boot camp is brainwashing. The idea of the chant and monotony and the prayer is a part of how the dogma is able to transfer. On a larger level, I see French is looking for a new religion. Part of that is masculinity and faith. From a score perspective, we are using a lot of chants and call and response to spread out the notion of shaping of the minds of these recruits.

In terms of the visual style, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell comes around in the 1990s, but queer servicemen were forced to serve in silence for almost 80 years cumulatively. My cinematographer and I were very interested in creating a visual language to address this. When we are in French’s point of view, it is very much a European art film, like [Claire Denis‘] “Beau Travail.” When we see French in the world, the camera is on sticks and it’s much more “An Officer and a Gentleman,” “Full Metal Jacket,” a military action film. What I am trying to say is the queer troop has stood on shaky ground the entire time they have been in the military. With that, there is the philosophy of the container within which French arrives. He is taken on a journey and dropped off as a Marine. I wanted to do that to the audience with this film. Through my editor, we were able to talk out and create the rhythm and tone.

It’s also funny. As a gay guy, I was chuckling because I’ve been in a lot of all-male spaces, gay bars, bathhouses. I was amused by how much overlap there was by this supposedly homosocial, sacred, straight male space and the gay space. What I found poignant, is that neither space is interested in addressing intimacy. That repetitive capsule they are in — boot camp is like prison, summer camp and a fraternity. What does that mean for male intimacy, and have a queer person at the center of that question?

You focus significant time on the routines and drills the recruits endure. What decision did you make about what and how much to show regarding boot camp? 

The transformation of French is a physical transformation that leads to an emotional transformation, and I find that concept to be compelling and exciting. Movies are often the opposite, showing the inner life of the character that is driving the arc and not the external forces. When we think about his intersectionality and his identity as a Black queer man, that is really what it is. He is beset with external forces.

When I was a young teenager leaving my mom’s house, trying to find a place in the world, I was met mostly with rejection and ostracism. To be honest, I got my ass kicked quite a bit. The process of becoming physically stronger was also part of the process of me becoming mentally stronger. The certainty that I could defend myself for once, and not be knocked around so much really gave me a certain level of relief from anxiety I was dealing with in addition to that, it is about the machination of man, and transferring a human being into a function of a systems and that transference comes through drilling.

Lastly, the idea of the inspection, the accuracy of each movement is a part of the impossible task of becoming a perfect Marine, and therefore, a perfect man, a real man. I hope people notice how these men start out of sync and by the end they are moving and thinking as one. It’s meant to be problematic. French is becoming a machine, and that’s acceptance. Is that progress?

Why is Rosales kind to French? There is a wink or these brief moments where they touch each other are suggestive, but you tease out the ambiguity.

“I was amused by how much overlap there was by this supposedly homosocial, sacred, straight male space and the gay space . . . Neither space is interested in addressing intimacy.”

In terms of this idea of the exploration of intimacy amongst men – French, like myself, when I came into the Marine Corps, I came in with a very transactional understanding of what love is, and what care is, what friendship is — that a man would not be interested in caring for me unless they were sexually interested in me. And French has this problem as well. One of the things he must understand is the line between admiration and attraction. This is his tragic flaw. Rosales complicates this flaw. Rosales is discovering that he is a nurturer. As an immigrant, he is an outsider too. He is an alien in a strange land, just like French is as an out queer Black person in a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Marine Corps. He sees this otherness as a bond. Neither of these men have a society that has created a possibility where becoming man including these traits.

Likewise, French develops a kinship with Ismail, and there are scenes of other recruits being supportive when there are injustices. What observations do you have about how these men bond and the camaraderie they share despite their difference? 

The military is one of the most progressive institutions in the history of the United States. It was the first place Black and white could serve without segregation. First place women and men get paid same for the same job. Right now, boot camp is inter-gendered, and trans and gay. It’s not perfect, but it is duty-bound to best uphold the ideals of society even if it mistreats people.

“My mother is the person who first loved me completely and first rejected me holistically.”

That being said, I am very much of the mindset that collaboration amongst people of color is not only required to save the planet but also integral to the rights that we’ve won. Black and brown collaboration has always been a part of the civil rights movement in this country, and I wanted to subtly make that a visual statement. You have a Mexican American sergeant, a Middle East recruit and this Black gay man, and they form a block of positivity and together they slowly turn the evil machine around. Dynamic relationships between individuals change institutions from the ground up. I don’t believe in top-down change. I had so many mentors in the Latin community when I was a Marine and so many Middle Eastern friends who got abused during 9/11 and the war on terror. Me noticing that made us friends and I wanted to honor those relationship by telling that aspect of the story. 

The InspectionGabrielle Union and Jeremy Pope in “The Inspection” (A24)

The relationship between French and his mother Inez is very potent. It’s appropriate that neither of them changes their attitudes, but they do have a kind of love and understanding. There are only a few scenes between them yet they may be the most powerful in the film. Can you talk about creating their relationship?

First, the autobiographical film is not simply about the recollection of what happened, but it is really about the essential emotional truth. In my life from the time I was 16 until the day my mother passed, we saw each other in person only a few times — maybe 10 or 15. It wasn’t a lot. In a way, she had already became a ghost to me. And growing up abused, whatever type it is — verbal, physical — you often repeat the things that have been said to you and they can hold you back from doing great things. 

My mother is the person who first loved me completely and first rejected me holistically. She was complicated and I wanted to honor that complication. I also thought that would be more powerful. I was just at a film festival with Jacqueline Bisset, who said, “Movies are supposed to be mirrors.” I think she heard that from Truffaut. The Inez character is a mirror for a homophobic world. Things have gotten better but there are people with HIV who can’t serve in military. I wanted the power of her to be a mirror. 

To be a Marine is to know thy self and seek self-importance. Given that this film is inspired by your own experiences, what did you learn looking back on this time in your life and how you processed it then and now, developing it into a narrative?

“With a name like Elegance, people assume you are gay even before you come into the room — and they were right.”

It’s tough because I grew up watching my mom work through pain, or around pain. I came of age knowing how to compartmentalize the things that I’ve been through to get to where I need to go. There’s a part of me that is very much removed from this. I have been dealing with this since I was 16 and I have gratitude for the art of filmmaking even when it is exploring my personal pain. When we were on set, filming the scenes between Inez and French, everything she said to him, my mother said to me. Directing that, I had to think what did I feel 20-30 years ago, and what did she mean by it or what does French think she means by it? I was a complete emotional mess. I was crying, screaming, and gnashing my teeth. At the end of the workday, the scene that was so traumatic becomes so triumphant at night. I’m not that teen anymore. I’m not that person who can be crushed by it, I’m actually empowered making the film, and that’s what I want people to get out of the film. Anyone who has been abandoned, or disregarded, or put down, hopefully they watch this film and are reminded that they are important, they matter, they are enough. It affects me. But I’m figuring it out. Life is pain and joy simultaneously. 

What thoughts do you have about French’s discipline and fortitude to survive? 

I think that for me, it was a real surprise that I was able to hack it at boot camp. I had drafts where he was not able to keep up. When I went to boot camp, I was one of the fastest ones. I was shocked by how strong I was. And with a name like Elegance, people assume you are gay even before you come into the room — and they were right. I was often excluded from things boys did where they got to understand their physical prowess. There is an elation to know I can hack it in this world. I’m not disposable. I have what it takes to be a success, I have just never been in the situation where I was trusted to rise to the level to be successful.


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


The other thing is that French comes from the streets. Radical and defiant empathy is his superpower. It is how he forms alliances, and community and finds a chosen family. Being homeless gave me the skill to connect with people for what I need when I need it. That ability at one point got me a couch to crash on and at another point, it got me into film school. It has helped me direct a movie. Radical and defiant empathy is a heroic trait, and I wanted Ellis French to be an example to people and dismantle this toxic notion that for men, forgiveness is a sign of weakness. French doesn’t judge people or give up on people, and that’s what makes him strong. The patriarchal worlds need to see that. I hope people see that and appreciate that and inspired by that and bring more of that type of masculinity into the world. 

“The Inspection” opens Nov. 18 in New York and Los Angeles, and expands nationwide on Dec. 2.

Election denier Kari Lake cries “voter disenfranchisement” as she meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago

Republican Kari Lake, who lost a tight Arizona gubernatorial race, visited former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Thursday as she prepared to contest her defeat.

Lake, who has yet to concede, posted a video on Twitter Thursday morning and informed her followers that she is consulting with her lawyers on how to resolve what she claims was “voter disenfranchisement” in Arizona during the 2022 midterm election. 

She said that she is gathering information on voters who had to wait in long lines and those who may have experienced ballot tabulator malfunctions.

While officials in Maricopa County have acknowledged a printing issue that caused some malfunctions at polling stations on Election day, they have confirmed that all legal ballots were being counted. 

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ chair and vice chair, who are both Republicans, issued a post-election statement explaining that 17,000 ballots were affected, but they had backup plans in place which meant all valid votes were counted in the following days. They have both defended the voting tabulation in their county. 

The Republican officials also stated that once they were aware of the tabulator malfunction, election officials told voters that there were several other methods to make sure their ballots were counted, including dropping them in a secure box in the voting location. 

All the valid ballots placed in the boxes would be taken to another location and counted, officials affirmed, and several batches of those ballots were indeed counted over the past week. 


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


After the Associated Press projected Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs as the winner of the election, people close to Lake shared that she didn’t know how to proceed. 

Two individuals close to Lake told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that some people were encouraging her to contest the results, while others advised her to move on and focus on a future campaign. 

Lake famously supported Trump’s claims of election fraud despite federal authorities stating there was no widespread fraud that would have changed the results of the presidential election. Trump’s claims, which were repeatedly rejected by courts, were a key part of Lake’s campaign for governor. She also vowed that she would only accept the results in the midterm election if she won. 

Many reporters have asked Lake to produce evidence of her claims that the 2020 election was “stolen,” but she has refused. She is now following the same pattern of behavior with the midterm elections. 

“How do you certify an election that is this botched?” Lake asked on Fox News earlier this week.

Lake has also retweeted supporters who have claimed that they don’t trust the voting process after waiting in line for hours, implying that they are victims of election fraud. However, Lake had no criticisms of the system when efforts to disenfranchise Black and other minority voters, such as the “proof of citizenship” bill, were carried out in several red states, including Arizona.

“The fox was guarding the henhouse,” Lake said, referring to her opponent Hobbs. “Because of that, voters have been disenfranchised.”

Lake also claimed that a voter who dropped his ballot in a secure box “felt it meant they would throw his vote in the trash.” She has cited long waiting times outside of polling sites, which is not unusual on election days, as proof that Republican voters were treated unfairly in Arizona.

“Last Week Tonight” slams the monarchy in a way that may change how we see “The Crown”

The Crown” is having a terrific season, in the meteorological definition of the term. By TV quality standards, maybe not. But since Queen Elizabeth II died in September, Netflix subscribers have kept the drama in its most-watched list leading up to its fifth season premiere a week ago.

Since then, it has held its place atop the streaming service’s ranking of popular shows, although that’s always been the case whenever a new season premieres.

Netflix is a global service, but viewers in the United States love some Windsor-related drama almost as much as we enjoy prestige flicks about any English royalty, especially when they’re portrayed by Cate Blanchett or Helen Mirren.

So when John Oliver refers to the British Monarchy as “the best thing to happen to white actors since literally everything else” on the Nov. 13 episode of “Last Week Tonight,” the proof was and is but a few clicks of the remote away.  

Between BBC America, PBS and premium cable channels, along with a few niche streamers you may have never heard of, the royal family is a constant fixture in worldwide popular culture by design. Coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral magnified that to an extraordinary degree, offering anglophiles the world over the opportunity to appreciate everything she did for the world.

Oliver has long been in the opposition’s camp, and “Last Week Tonight” viewers have long known that. The host’s jests at the British monarchy’s expense have ranged from the playfully benign, like describing Britain as “the country that’s been saying YAAAAAS QUEEN for centuries,” to a couple of swipes delivered days after the queen’s death considered too spicy for the show’s U.K. broadcaster Sky TV.

Among the jokes Sky dropped from its airing of the Sept. 11 episode was one that closed a segment in which Oliver eviscerated there-and-gone prime minister Liz Truss for, among other idiocies, voicing her opposition to taxes that would cut energy companies’ profits as U.K. citizens faced an energy crisis.

After describing Truss as “basically Margaret Thatcher if she were high on glue,” he cracked,  “You may not like this, but I’m going to say it because it’s true. The nicest thing the Queen of England ever did for anyone was die the week that woman became prime minister. Because for at least a week, she’s not going to be getting justifiably destroyed for answers like that.”

Considering that, Oliver’s restraint in waiting two months to deliver a precise and devastating barrage of body blows the monarchy is commendable, although it’s highly unlikely its drop date was randomly selected.

Oliver’s takedown of “The Monarchy” is primarily a cultural, historical, and political education for his viewers in the United States.

The level of monarchal fawning and genuflection in the United States and countries around the globe was astronomical in the weeks following the queen’s death and funeral, even as the knives came out to greet King Charles III’s ascension to the throne. Season 5 of “The Crown” is the “Charles and Diana” season, chronicling the end of their marriage and Diana’s emergence as the rebellious defector from a system bent on stifling her.

Unsurprisingly, the show’s creator Peter Morgan wrote then-Prince Charles more sympathetically than the public perceived him after Diana’s public accounts about his infidelity and the family’s reported careless attitude toward her mental health.

This handsome take on Charles, shall we say, is the least of the illusions Oliver’s episode brutally corrects – although he remarks that Charles “doesn’t have the inscrutability of his mother, or enjoy her level of public affection, and his ascent to the throne comes as the UK is facing a cost-of-living crisis.”

Aside from the quip about the actors, “The Crown” isn’t mentioned at all. But the connection is implied through Oliver’s likening of the Windsors to characters – Britain’s Mickey and Minnie Mouse, save for the fact that funding Disneyland’s denizens isn’t compulsory for American taxpayers.

Last Week Tonight starring John OliverLast Week Tonight starring John Oliver (Courtesy of HBO)

Oliver’s takedown of “The Monarchy” is primarily a cultural, historical and political education for his viewers in the United States. Many Americans don’t connect the image of Queen Elizabeth to the many inhumane cruelties committed by her ancestors, who built the family’s wealth on the slave trade, marking their captives by branding their skin.

In some ways, Oliver’s monarchy smackdown on “Last Week Tonight” isn’t unusual in its approach. Oliver’s coverage consists of economic arguments against the state supporting the royal family, alongside historic examples and the primo cringe of watching archival Charles bleat, “Ah, dig that crazy rhythm!” as he listens to the work of hip-hop DJs. All of that makes a pretty good case for the British monarchy being, as he says, equivalent to the human appendix. “We’ve long evolved passed needing them, and there’s a compelling case for their surgical removal.”

But really, it’s the moral case against them that is the most compelling. It reveals our global tendency to accede to their demands of respect as an extension of the unjustified worshipfulness we show to any undeserving people in upper echelons of social and political power. Those who might find it unseemly to liken 67% of the British public’s oak-solid support for the monarchy to the cultish zeal Elon Musk’s and Donald Trump’s faithful inspire in them may fail to fully consider the acts of torture and murder committed in the queen’s name in countries considered to be part of the British Commonwealth.

Musk’s and Trump’s wealth may have been earned by exploiting and discriminating against minorities, but while Queen Elizabeth was on the throne, the British military responded to a Kenyan farmers’ rebellion to reclaim the land the government stole by placing an estimated hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps.

The Kenya Human Rights Commission has said 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured, or maimed during the crackdown. In light of all that, the clip shown of Charles making a vague non-apology deploring this dark history to an audience during one of his tours of the continent and blithely saying, “I hope we weren’t too bad on you,” to an Indigenous man he met in Canada, a member of the British Commonwealth, is . . . not a good look. (Sorry Charles – the British were quite bad on that country’s Native peoples.)

This season of “The Crown” covers Elizabeth’s famous “annus horriblis,” taking us inside the devolvement of what was presented as a storybook marriage to reveal the lie devastatingly. News of the queen’s death moved Morgan to halt production on the show out of respect for the family, even though in the eighth episode, “Gunpowder,” BBC chairman and staunch royalist Duke Hussey (Richard Cordery) delivers what he believes to be a rousing speech about both the BBC and the monarchy being central to Britain’s identity.

It would seem that Oliver would side with BBC director-general John Birt (Nicholas Gleaves) in that conversation, part of the new guard who views it as an inessential vestige of the past – except for the fact that Oliver would probably tell them both to take a flying leap.

This episode of “Last Week Tonight” is merely the latest in a long line of episodes and segments questioning the West’s generous view of Britain as a bastion of civility, an image held in place by the outsized significance we assign to a monarchy whose duties are ceremonial.

Oliver points out that British taxpayers pay 100 million pounds each year for the royal family’s upkeep as part of the Sovereign Grant.  But that amount is eclipsed by the family’s private wealth, the extent of which is a closely guarded secret, and includes the property portfolio of the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall’s billion-dollar real estate portfolio, which now passes to Prince William.

The Monarchy is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax, although the family began paying tax voluntarily (and after a lot of public grousing) in 1993. It’s difficult to refrain from sneering at Hussey’s slavish declaration of gratitude for all the queen has done for Britain without also recalling the dueling voices of two British citizens in our time featured in news clips that Oliver plays.

One, a genteel-seeming white woman, can only explain the monarchy’s necessity by saying “It’s nice that we have it. It’s a British thing, isn’t it? And I think a lot of people would like what we have.”

Another, a young Black woman, explains her reaction to the queen’s death by saying, “It’s like, I care, but I don’t.” When asked to explain what she means, she says that she acknowledges the queen is “a person who died. Like sad, like . . . ” So why doesn’t she care? “She ain’t done nothing for us.”

There it is, captured in its brilliant simplicity – the pull between a view that reasons we keep institutions and practices we don’t need out of tradition, because it’s “nice that we have it,” and another that wonders what makes it worth it.


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


The West’s esteem for the British monarchy, Oliver shows us, is simply a fancier version of the wealth worship that leads many working people to vote and act against their own interests. And we can distance ourselves from that notion by absorbing it as fiction, and the family as characters in a living, never-ending performance.

Or we can sit with the point he makes at the episode’s end. “Far too often, they hide behind a convenient shield of politeness and manners, which frequently demands the silence of anyone who might criticize them or what they stand for. Will this segment even air on SkyTV in Britain? I honestly don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not.” (To its credit, Sky aired it.)

“But if they do cut it out for being disrespectful, they may want to seriously think about why,” Oliver continued. “Why they and everyone else are working so hard not to offend a family whose name was branded into people’s skin, and who sit atop a pile of stolen wealth wearing crowns adorned with other country’s treasures.”

Will conversations like the one Oliver has presented and many others are having impact how we view “The Crown” and other glowing portraits of modern royals? Maybe not. But at least we know the Netflix hit has an end date.

 

Jan. 6 committee reveals it quietly formed a new subcommittee to send criminal referrals to DOJ

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol has created a subcommittee to deal with “outstanding issues,” including potential criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, the panel’s chair confirmed Thursday.

Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told journalists at the Capitol that he established the subcommittee, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., “about a month ago.”

The subcommittee’s other members are Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the full panel’s vice chair. Thompson noted that “they’re all lawyers.”

Raskin explained that “we’re looking at potential referrals or criminal offenses and for civil offenses and for general lawlessness where it might not otherwise be obvious.”

“We’re looking at criminal and civil referrals for people who have broken the law and may have escaped scrutiny,” added Raskin, who previously served as the lead manager for former President Donald Trump’s historic second impeachment for inciting the Capitol attack with his “Big Lie” about the 2020 election.

Thompson said that “we need to have a decision as to what we do with the members who did not recognize the subpoenas. It’s cleaning up every unfinished piece of work for the committee. And that part of it just fit better in some subcommittee. Let them come back and report, and we’ll make a decision.”

According to Axios, “Thompson said the panel will also look at how to respond to the DOJ’s request for deposition transcripts and other information.”

Trump announced his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday, a day after he failed to comply with a subpoena from the select committee requiring him to appear for a deposition.

Thompson and Cheney said in a statement Monday that though the ex-president “initially suggested that he would testify before the committee, he has since filed a lawsuit asking the courts to protect him from giving testimony. His attorneys have made no attempt to negotiate an appearance of any sort, and his lawsuit parades out many of the same arguments that courts have rejected repeatedly over the last year.”

“The truth is that Donald Trump, like several of his closest allies, is hiding from the select committee’s investigation and refusing to do what more than a thousand other witnesses have done,” they added. “Donald Trump orchestrated a scheme to overturn a presidential election and block the transfer of power. He is obligated to provide answers to the American people. In the days ahead, the committee will evaluate next steps in the litigation and regarding the former president’s noncompliance.”

The committee members voted unanimously to subpoena Trump at the end of the panel’s last public hearing in October—an event that led New York University law professor Ryan Goodman to conclude, “I think they were trying to hand the Justice Department all the evidence on a silver platter.”

Goodman was among former federal prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other legal experts who on Thursday published a model prosecution memorandum laying out potential charges against Trump related to his handling of classified government documents since he left office.

Five congressional Republicans—Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Scott Perry (Penn.), and Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), likely the next speaker of the House after the GOP won a majority in last week’s midterms—have also ignored subpoenas from the select committee.

With Republicans set to take control of the House in January, the committee is on a tight deadline to conclude its work. Thompson told reporters Thursday that the panel is planning to release its final report next month.

“Our goal is to get it completed soon so we can get it to the printer,” he said. “We plan to have our product out sometime in December.”

“Cowardly”: Legal experts slam Garland for punting to special counsel after Trump announcement

Attorney General Merrick Garland is set to appoint a special counsel to determine whether to prosecute former President Donald Trump, according to multiple reports.

Garland is set to announce the special counsel on Friday, three days after Trump announced his presidential bid, The Wall Street Journal reported. Trump reportedly announced his run so early because he believed it would make it harder for the Justice Department to prosecute him without it seeming political.

Garland’s move reflects the sensitivity of the DOJ’s probes into the former president and appears to be an attempt to allay concerns that the investigation is political. The Justice Department is probing Trump’s retention of national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence as well as his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

DOJ rules for appointing a special counsel allow the attorney general to “name an outsider if he determines that the investigation or prosecution presents a conflict of interest for the department and recusals of certain officials wouldn’t be enough to overcome the concerns,” the Journal reported. But some former DOJ officials have said the appointment would not to much to diminish criticism from Trump and his supporters, particularly since Garland and other DOJ officials are still likely to be involved in decision-making related to the investigation.

Some legal experts knocked the decision to punt the Trump-related cases to a special counsel.

“It’s a waste of time and money, insults the prosecutors at DOJ and gains nothing,” tweeted former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks. “No Trump supporter will see anyone as independent or fair to Trump.”

National security attorney Bradley Moss also criticized the move, warning it “will now definitely delay any decisions until January at the earliest.”

“Ironically, by announcing a Special Counsel this late in the game Garland just made it more likely that any potential prosecution of Trump will bleed into the 2024 general election season,” he tweeted.

Slate legal analyst Jeremy Stahl said Garland’s announcement gave Trump “exactly what he hoped for by announcing so early.”

“It’s cowardly, and it could backfire spectacularly,” he wrote.


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


But some legal experts pushed back, arguing it was the right call and is unlikely to significantly delay the investigations.

“A special counsel offers some measure of independence and transparency, which is a good thing,” wrote former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “The investigation is far along, and the same FBI agents can work for the special counsel,” he added. “the appointment will slow things down by weeks, not months, if at all.”

It’s unclear who Garland will appoint and whether any prosecutor would be accepted by Trump’s supporters on the right. Still, wrote Cal-Berkeley Law Prof. Orin Kerr, “it will be Trump’s second stumbling his way into a special counsel appointment, which is something.”

Criticism of Garland’s handling of the cases has stretched all the way to the White House, including privately by President Joe Biden. Though the president has not expressed his frustrations to Garland, he has vented to his inner circle that Trump is a “threat to democracy and should be prosecuted,” The New York Times reported in April, and that he wanted Garland to “act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.”

“Not even the Trump administration did this”: Biden admin pushes immunity for MBS in Khashoggi case

The Biden administration said in a U.S. federal court filing on Thursday that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case brought by the fiancée of murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a stance that human rights advocates condemned as a betrayal of the president’s vow to hold the Saudi leader accountable.

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in the new filing that the White House “has determined that Defendant bin Salman, as the sitting head of a foreign government, enjoys head-of-state immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts as a result of that office and is entitled to immunity from the court’s jurisdiction of this suit while he holds that office.”

Hatice Cengiz, Khashoggi’s fiancée, tweeted in response to the Justice Department’s filing that “Jamal died again today.”

While the Biden administration’s intervention is non-binding, it will likely spell an end to the case, which sought “significant” monetary damages as well as “discovery from American law enforcement, intelligence, and administration officials to prove that the extrajudicial killing of Mr. Khashoggi was ordered from the top of the Saudi leadership hierarchy.”

Rights groups pointed out that while bin Salman, commonly known as MBS, has been the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia for years, his formal status as the country’s prime minister—a position traditionally held by the king—was enshrined less than two months ago in what observers called an apparent scheme to ensure his immunity from legal action.

“It’s impossible to read the Biden administration’s move today as anything more than a capitulation to Saudi pressure tactics, including slashing oil output to twist our arms to recognize MBS’ fake immunity ploy,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a group that Khashoggi founded.

“Rather than rewarding MBS with impunity for his merciless crimes, Biden should have stood up for American values and legal principles,” Whitson added. “Whether or not MBS succeeds in worming out of this lawsuit, we will extract in discovery against his co-defendants every last bit of evidence about his role in this murders. Try as he might, he will not succeed in burying his crime.”

A U.S. intelligence report released last year determined that MBS “approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill” Khashoggi, but the Biden administration has yet to take any steps to punish the crown prince directly despite U.S. President Joe Biden’s campaign promise to make Saudi leaders “pay the price” for Khashoggi’s murder.

Lina al-Hathloul, head of monitoring and communications for the advocacy group ALQST and the sister of Saudi women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul, warned that the Biden administration’s decision “will empower a regime that punishes its own citizens and U.S. citizens alike.”

“Granting immunity is not only morally deplorable, but will also put the world on notice that America does not back up its words with action,” al-Hathloul said.

In a letter accompanying the Justice Department’s Thursday filing, State Department legal adviser Richard Visek insisted that the administration’s position in the civil lawsuit against MBS and his co-conspirators has nothing to do with the “merits” of the legal challenge. Visek also reiterated the State Department’s “unequivocal condemnation of the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”

But the Biden administration was not required to express its view on whether MBS should be immune from legal action in U.S. courts. As DAWN noted in a press release, “Neither the Trump nor Biden administrations previously had agreed to Saudi government demands to suggest immunity for MBS in multiple lawsuits pending against him in the United States.”

“The Biden administration’s decision to suggest immunity for MBS in our lawsuit was an unnecessary, elective action that will serve only to undermine the most important action for accountability for Khashoggi’s heinous murder,” Whitson said. “It’s beyond ironic that President Biden has single-handedly assured MBS can escape accountability when it was President Biden who promised the American people he would do everything to hold him accountable. Not even the Trump administration did this.”

Khalid Aljabri, a U.S.-based doctor whose two siblings are currently political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, argued that “instead of siding with MBS and allowing him to manipulate the U.S. judicial system by title-washing his crimes, the Biden administration should have remained neutral and left it to the court to decide whether MBS deserves immunity or not.”

“After breaking its pledge to punish MBS for Khashoggi’s assassination,” Aljabri continued, “the Biden administration has not only shielded MBS from accountability in U.S. courts, but has effectively issued him a license to kill more detractors and declared that he will never be held accountable.”

Legal experts say DOJ must indict: “Trump’s conduct is indeed much worse than most prior cases”

A team of legal experts published a new model prosecution memorandum on Thursday that lays out the potential charges against former President Donald Trump and his mishandling of classified government documents after leaving the White House. 

Federal prosecutors, defense attorneys and other legal experts published the memo, which was based on publicly available information, at Just Security, an online forum for the rigorous analysis of national security and foreign policy. 

According to the legal experts, before issuing an indictment, prosecutors compiled a pros memo, which listed the possible charges and admissible evidence for the case. The document, they write, allowed “prosecutors and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Federal Principles of Prosecution, which permit prosecution only when there is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a prosecution.”

Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor and former Pentagon special counsel who was listed as a co-author of the new memo, said that their “exhaustive analysis” of the prior prosecutions brought under the same criminal statute which relates to Trump’s case makes it easy for the Justice Department to issue an indictment. 

“Trump’s conduct is indeed much worse than most of those prior cases and involves a host of aggravating factors that one seldom sees in cases brought under the Espionage Act’s retention clause,” Goodman wrote.

The Espionage Act is a contentious World War I-era law that allows the United States to prosecute dissidents, including whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

Based on this precedent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into whether Trump violated the espionage act, as they found classified documents in his Mar-a-Lago home that allegedly included information related to a foreign country’s nuclear weapons. 

The memo analyzes six federal crimes as they relate to Trump’s case, and argues that based on publicly available information “a powerful case exists for charging Trump under several of these federal criminal statutes”:

  • Retention of national defense information (18 USC § 793(e));
  • Concealing government records (18 USC § 2071);
  • Conversion of government property (18 USC § 641);
  • Obstruction of justice (18 USC § 1519);
  • Criminal contempt (18 USC § 402); and
  • False statements to federal investigators (18 USC § 1001)

The memo’s authors also looked into “every defense” they could imagine Trump invoking but their conclusion, according to Goodman, is that none of them would be effective. 


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


Co-authors of the memo, including Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, added that Trump should not be granted special treatment during the indictment process. 

“Trump’s status as a former president and as a current presidential candidate is and must be treated as irrelevant by Attorney General Merrick Garland in deciding whether to indict Trump,” Wertheimer said.

“Garland’s decision must be based on the facts, the law, and the standard of applying the law equally for all citizens, as detailed in our report,” he wrote. “The process also is far too advanced to now start over with a special counsel to lead the investigation.”

Using Garland’s own standards, the memo argues that the DOJ must uphold the rule of law, which means “applying the law evenly, without fear or favor.” The co-authors assert that Trump’s case must be prosecuted like any other, “without regard to the fact that the case is focused on the conduct of a former president of the United States.”

Brookings Institution senior fellow and memo co-author Norm Eisen explained that “if anyone else had handled even a single highly classified document in this way, they would be subject to investigation and likely prosecution.”

“Donald Trump mishandled a huge volume of them,” Eisen explained. “No wonder that prosecutors seem to be closing in.”

Ex-Rand Paul aide pardoned by Trump convicted of illegally funneling Russian cash to Trump campaign

A former senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and Sen. Rand Paul R-Ky., was convicted Thursday of illegally helping a Russian businessman contribute to former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Jesse Benton “was convicted of conspiring to solicit and cause an illegal campaign contribution by a foreign national, effecting a conduit contribution, and causing false records to be filed with the FEC”, per the Justice Department. He faces up to 20 years in prison. 

Elections “reflect the values and the priorities and the beliefs of American citizens,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Parikh said in her closing argument this week, The Washington Post reported. “Jesse Benton by his actions did damage to those principles.”

Benton, the husband of Paul’s niece, was pardoned by Trump in 2020 for a different campaign finance crime, which involved attempting to buy an endorsement for former Rep. Ron Paul’s, R-Texas, 2012 presidential bid.

This time, Benton bought a $25,000 ticket to a 2016 Republican National Committee event on behalf of a Russian naval officer Roman Vasilenko to help him get a picture with Trump, according to prosecutors.

Vasilenko wired $100,000 to Benton’s political consulting firm to make an illegal foreign contribution, which Benton used to donate $25,000 to the RNC by credit card to cover the ticket. He pocketed the remaining $75,000, according to the DOJ. 

He said that he followed the advice of his previous counsel, David Warrington, who testified that Benton contacted him to ask if he could give a political fundraiser ticket to a Russian citizen. 


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


Warrington said he told Benton “there is no prohibition on a Russian citizen receiving a ticket to an event” and that “you can give your ticket that you purchased to a fundraiser to anybody,” The Post reported. 

But Benton left out the detail that he was getting reimbursed by the Russian citizen for the donation, prosecutors said. Benton asked for the advice only “to cover his tracks,” Parikh said.

Benton claimed he earned the $100,000 for serving as Vasilenko’s tour guide in Washington and that the naval officer turned multilevel marketer’s interest was self-promotion and not politics, according to The Post. 

Vasilenko posted the photograph with Trump on Instagram with a banner that said “Two Presidents” and advertised his own company. 

“He wants to be an influencer,” defense attorney Brian Stolarz said. “This is just shameless self-promotion from a guy who can afford to take this picture.”

But prosecutors said that once the opportunity came, Vasilenko, who was running for parliament in Russia at the time, saw the value of being introduced to Trump. After Trump’s election, he was invited on Russian television, according to the Justice Department.

Benton was previously convicted in 2016, when a former Iowa state senator admitted to taking $73,000 in payments from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in exchange for switching his endorsement to Paul. He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $10,000 fine.

When the scandal broke in 2014, Benton was serving as campaign manager for McConnell’s 2014 re-election bid. He resigned after the illegal 2012 payments were reported and went on to serve as chief strategist for the pro-Trump Great America super PAC. He resigned once again in 2016 after he was charged. 

Trump issued a presidential pardon to Benton in December 2020 before leaving office at the urging of Rand Paul.

“The platform is not safe”: Twitter verges on collapse as workers revolt against “erratic” Elon Musk

Twitter workers reportedly quit by the hundreds Thursday after refusing to agree to billionaire CEO Elon Musk’s demand that they work longer hours as part of his self-described “extremely hardcore” plan to overhaul the social media platform.

As a result, the company that Musk purchased for $44 billion just weeks ago is in chaos as the mass exodus of employees and the billionaire’s earlier decision to fire roughly half of Twitter’s workforce are threatening basic, day-to-day operations at the platform used by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

“It’s no coincidence that a notorious union-buster and flagrant violator of labor law is effectively running one of the most viable tools we have for union organizing into the ground,” responded the AFL-CIO as news reports detailed the internal turmoil at the company as Musk and his advisers scrambled to stop key employees from quitting.

Citing people familiar with the rapidly deteriorating situation inside Twitter, The Washington Post reported that “the number of engineers tending to multiple critical systems had been reduced to two, one, or even zero.”

“In an early sign that the number of those declining to sign was greater than anticipated, Musk eased off a return-to-office mandate he had issued a week ago, telling employees Thursday they would be allowed to work remotely if their managers assert they are making ‘an excellent contribution,'” the Post added. “But it was too late to keep Twitter from a precarious position, several workers said.”

One worker told the newspaper that “there is no longer even a skeleton crew manning the system,” meaning the platform “will continue to coast until it runs into something, and then it will stop.”

Corporate advertisers have also been rushing toward the exits, pushed by Musk’s hasty revamp of the verification process—which enabled some embarrassing and revealing spoofs of large companies such as the pharma giant Eli Lilly and the weapons maker Lockheed Martin.

The apparently dire situation, brought on by Musk’s haphazard and dictatorial management decisions, sparked a cascade of “RIP Twitter” posts on the platform as users—including journalists, lawmakers, prominent public figures, and ordinary people—wondered about the platform’s immediate and long-term future.

“As a lot of freelancers have been saying, if Twitter goes down, our livelihoods suffer,” tweeted labor journalist Kim Kelly. “Twitter is where I share my work, promote my book, connect with editors, sources, other journalists, workers, activists, and organizers. We all know no corporate media outlet is gonna hire me.”

“One anti-worker, union-busting, sniveling, sack o’ shit billionaire is casually torpedoing the livelihoods of thousands of precarious media workers in the name of ‘free speech,'” Kelly wrote. “The media elite WILL BE FINE. Their platforms are safe. It’s the rest of us who’ll be hung out to dry.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who has 13.5 million Twitter followers, connected the possible collapse of the platform to sky-high income and wealth inequality and policymakers’ refusal to tackle it via higher taxes on billionaires like Musk.

“If only we had taxed the rich,” the New York Democrat wrote, “maybe none of this would have happened.”

Musk had given Twitter employees until 5:00 pm ET Thursday to accept his condition of longer work hours or leave the company and receive three months of severance pay. Hundreds of employees, including some in charge of important operations, appear to have chosen the latter.

“We are witnessing the real-time destruction of one of the world’s most powerful communication systems,” said Nicole Gill, co-founder and executive director of Accountable Tech, an advocacy group. “Elon Musk is an erratic billionaire who is dangerously unqualified to run this platform.”

“Unless and until Musk can robustly enforce Twitter’s existing community standards,” Gill continued, “the platform is not safe for users or advertisers. Elon’s ‘hellscape’ is already here.”

The New York Times reported late Thursday that Musk and his top advisers “held meetings with some Twitter workers whom they deemed ‘critical’ to stop them from leaving” and “sent out confusing messages about the company’s remote work policy, appearing to soften his stance on not allowing people to work from home before warning their managers.”

“Twitter later announced via email that it would close ‘our office buildings’ and disable employee badge access until Monday,” the Times noted.

Musk, meanwhile, has continued making bizarre and flippant posts on the platform.

Jessica González, CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, said in a statement Friday that “Musk has swiftly decimated Twitter’s ability to maintain the platform’s integrity, health, and safety.”

“His reckless actions, including sacking most of his staff and compelling others to leave, have caused an explosion of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and fraud on the site,” said González. “If there is one lesson that all social media platforms must take away from this debacle, it’s that without protecting users from hate and lies, you have no company at all. Invest in the health and integrity of your platforms or risk extinction.”

“Millions of people around the world rely on Twitter to challenge oppressive regimes, shed light on abuse and organize for justice,” González added. “Minority groups that traditional media gatekeepers have kept from mainstream audiences have used Twitter to organize for a better world. That’s why we’ll continue to fight for a better Twitter, even as we aspire toward a non-exploitative platform that puts the public good over the hate-and-lie-for-profit model that animates every major social-media company.”

Roasting a turkey is the worst part of Thanksgiving — so do this instead

Let’s be real here: Roasting a turkey is factually the worst part of preparing a Thanksgiving meal, especially if you are cooking for a crowd. Once I hit adulthood and absorbed the bulk of holiday cooking responsibilities — a natural byproduct of working in food, I think — every November, I found myself increasingly resentful of what was essentially a stupid 16-pound winged ice cube sitting in my freezer waiting to be thawed. 

Once it was thawed, I did all the right things. I brined, I rubbed, I basted. I’ve delicately massaged the wings with a mixture of salt and brown sugar, and I’ve looked like a lunatic blow-drying my bird in pursuit of golden-brown, crispy skin. All while wishing I was working on the sides and desserts, instead. 

Save for one memorable disaster (I forgot to remove the plastic bag of giblets from inside the turkey), my turkeys are rarely bad, but despite all the work that went into them, they were never exceptional — that is, until I began outsourcing the roasting. 

Something holiday hosts may not know is that there are places — butcher shops, barbecue joints and Chinese duck houses, primarily — that will roast your turkey for you. And it is absolutely worth it. 

Sun Wah BBQ, a Hong Kong-style barbecue restaurant in Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood, has been hosting an annual “BYO Turkey” roasting event for years. 

“Whether it’s your turkey or ours, Sun Wah BBQ will prepare and roast it in a manner similar to our Hong Kong Style Roast Duck with additional aromatics for the insides like our bean paste, house-blended 5-spice, cilantro, shallots and ginger,” they wrote in a recent blog post


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


According to a representative from the restaurant, Sun Wah’s cooks have the capacity to barbecue 100 turkeys in total, which they will do over the course of Thanksgiving day. Customers have the option to bring their own frozen store-bought or butcher-bought turkey to the restaurant on the Monday before Thanksgiving, as long as they are no larger than 18 pounds. There are also a limited number of turkeys sourced from the restaurant available. 

The cost for the BYO service will be $4.50 per pound of pre-cooking weight and customers will be assigned a pick-up slot on Thanksgiving Day

Many turkey farms also offer on-site turkey roasting. It’s not a particularly new service. New Jersey’s Hinck Turkey Farm has been in business since 1938 and  has been cooking up Thanksgiving turkeys for customers since. As a 1955 advertisement that ran in “The Coast Advertiser” said: It’s turkey time! Let us roast your turkey on our barbeque spits — They’re delicious! 

If you aren’t within convenient driving distance of a farm, look into area butcher shops that stock farm-fresh turkeys. The Chop Shop Butchery in Asheville, N.C., for instance, sells pasture-raised turkeys from Hickory Nut Gap Farm, which is located a mere 12 miles from the store. This year, The Chop Shop is offering those same turkeys, but fully-cooked. 

“We take a local, pasture-raised turkey, brine it, then smoke it until it is fully cooked and juicy with a nice smoky flavor,” the shop writes. “Just take it home and reheat!” 

The first year I contemplated outsourcing my turkey roasting to professionals, I’ll admit I felt a little guilty. Especially for women, there is a lot of cultural cachè associated with performing domesticity in a heightened setting like a Thanksgiving dinner. Since the turkey is the centerpiece, shouldn’t I at least try my hand at making it? But after picking up a gorgeous, smoked bird from my local butcher, I realized my misgivings were unwarranted. 

The main tenet of being a good host, at least in my mind, is creating an environment in which my guests feel cared for and comfortable; it’s much easier to cultivate that when I’m not stressed over pulling off cooking a gigantic turkey in my one-bedroom galley kitchen. Instead, count me in for a Thanksgiving where the main is taken care of and I can concentrate on my signature cornbread stuffing and replicating my mom’s delectable sweet potato casserole — all, ideally, with a bourbon in hand. 

Put another way, this Thanksgiving, the only turkey I want to prepare myself is a Wild Turkey cocktail. I hope you can enjoy the same. 

“Like a little elementary school child”: Trump dumped by spiritual adviser as evangelicals turn

Key evangelical figures who once backed former President Donald Trump withdrew their support after he announced his third White House bid on Tuesday.

One televangelist, who served as a spiritual adviser to the former president and once said he was “a supernatural answer to prayer,” changed his tune, telling supporters that Trump acts like a “little elementary schoolchild” and that his juvenile focus on minor issues was stopping him from achieving larger goals. 

“If Mr. Trump can’t stop his little petty issues, how does he expect people to stop major issues?” asked James Robison, president of the Christian group Life Outreach International, at a meeting of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL), a conservative political group that has advocated for antiabortion policies and outlawing gay marriage.

While giving his acceptance speech for an award Wednesday night, Robison brought up his relationship with Trump. As Robinson recounts, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson told Trump that Robinson would only give his endorsement if the two spoke for an hour. Trump, however, claimed he didn’t speak to anyone for more than 15 minutes. They ended up speaking for an hour and a half according to Robinson. 

“The man started calling me on his cellphone, and then he started asking me to call him,” Robison said, referring to Trump’s behavior after their initial phone call. For five years, Robinson says Trump “took every single call I made” but while “he heard, he didn’t always heed.”

As Robinson continued to criticize the former president, the crowd grew quiet. 

“Everything you wanted him to hear — every single thing you ever prayed for him to hear — came through these lips right straight into his face,” Robison declared. “And with the same force you’ve heard me talking to you, I spoke it to him.” 

At this point in the speech, Robinson was shouting while recounting a conversation he had with Trump. “‘Sir, you act like a little elementary schoolchild and you shoot yourself in the foot every morning you get up and open your mouth!'” Robinson said. “‘The more you keep your mouth closed, the more successful you’re gonna be!'” 

“It’s time for us to get together and pray and stop trying to destroy each other, and I make that loud and clearly heard to Mr. Trump!” Robinson preached to a hesitant crowd. “We’ve got to quit amputating each other, slicing each other, and come together in supernatural unity that Jesus Christ prayed for!”

While most presidents establish a diverse faith advisory board with public meetings, Trump formed an informal but fully evangelical group during his time in office. Members were constantly changing and the group would often meet with top policy officials and lead prayer sessions with the former president. 

Former evangelical advisory board member Mike Evans sent an essay to the Washington Post earlier this month, saying that he would not be voting for Trump again. Evans, a Christian Zionist from Texas, shared that he once left a Trump rally in tears because he saw “Bible believers glorifying Donald Trump like he was an idol.”


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


Evans said that while he was aware of the former president’s “character flaws,” they considered the relationship transactional and looked past it because he kept his promises to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, and supported the state of Israel. 

However, Evans claimed that Trump has harmed his Christian allies by using their religious views in a political platform. 

“Donald Trump can’t save America. He can’t even save himself,” Evans wrote. “He used us to win the White House. We had to close our mouths and eyes when he said things that horrified us. I cannot do that anymore.”

Robert Jeffress, the senior pastor of a 14,000-strong megachurch in Dallas and a former evangelical adviser for Trump, said that he does not plan to endorse him again in the primary.  

“The Republican Party is headed toward a civil war that I have no desire or need to be part of,” Jeffress told Newsweek. However, he added that he would “happily support him” if he wins the nomination as he considers him “a great friend and our greatest president since Reagan.” 

Conservative evangelical commentator Everett Piper also warned that Trump harmed the Republican Party in the midterms, and would do even more damage during the campaign season. 

“The take-home of this past week is simple: Donald Trump has to go,” Piper wrote in the Washington Times. “If he’s our nominee in 2024, we will get destroyed.”

“Very unfair!”: Trump melts down on Truth Social as Allen Weisselberg spills the beans in court

On Friday morning Donald Trump went on a multiple-post tirade on his struggling Truth Social platform complaining about how his Trump Organization is being persecuted in a Manhattan courtroom for using accounting scams to avoid paying taxes on income.

According to the Washington Post, longtime Trump financial executive Allen Weisselberg grew teary-eyed when describing the ways he illegally dodged taxes before his boss became president.

The report stated, “Weisselberg, testifying as a witness for the prosecution as part of a plea agreement, said on cross-examination that he was embarrassed by his conduct ‘more than you can imagine’ and that his actions betrayed the Trump family, for whom he had worked for a half-century. He is ‘practically’ family to the Trumps, he said,” before adding, “Weisselberg also testified that he was acting only for his own benefit — a position that could work against a conviction in the criminal tax fraud and conspiracy case against Donald Trump’s namesake company.”

With that obviously in mind, the former president raged against the Manhattan DA on Truth Social, where he set up shop after being banned by Twitter.

The D.A. case against two small Trump entities has fallen apart. Even the Media is saying so,” Trump asserted without providing any evidence. “There has never been a ‘Fringe Benefits’ case such as this brought before. Did a long time executive pay tax on the use of a company car, or a company apartment, or payments (not even taken by us as a tax deduction!) for the education of his grandchildren? For this, he gets handcuffs and jail? The highly paid accounting firm should have routinely picked these things up – we relied on them. VERY UNFAIR!”

In that vein, he continued, “Many people, perhaps most, don’t pay tax on the use of a company car or company apartment. Whether they know or not, that’s just the way it is. It’s called ‘standards and practices,’ referring, I presume, to the standards and practices of large numbers of people within the Country.”

He then added, “Out of fairness, it has a legal meaning. It should be a point in the Manhattan D.A. case. Did the former D.A. Pay tax on the use of his car? In the meantime, Violent Crime in New York has reached an ALL TIME HIGH!”

“Can we even break bread together?”: Enduring the American Dream in a Michigan family restaurant

The following contains spoilers from “American Horror Story: NYC” Episodes 9 and 10, the finale.

David Siev’s cogent, heartfelt documentary, “Bad Axe,” is an examination of his family during the pandemic that also addresses issues of racism and Asian hate in America’s heartland. 

The film, executive produced by Daniel Dae Kim, introduces David’s father, Chun, a survivor of the Cambodian Killing Fields, who came to America with his mother and siblings. David’s mother, Rachel, is Mexican American. They established a home and opened a donut shop in Bad Axe, Michigan. Now the establishment is a family restaurant, Rachel’s. David’s sister, Jaclyn, helps run the business, which struggles at the onset of the pandemic. Moreover, when Jaclyn and other family members attend a Black Lives Matter protest, they encounter some White Supremacists, who create a backlash, threatening the family and their restaurant.

“The idea of what the American experience is needs to expand.”

“Bad Axe” depicts the way Jaclyn stands up and speaks out as well as how the racism impacts her family; her father already suffers from PTSD. But other storylines show how one of Rachel’s employees, who was a Trump supporter, changed her mind when exposed to diversity. (The rural area is very conservative). 

Siev’s film is compelling as a year unfolds and changes — good and bad, personal and political — revealing the strength, resilience and close-knit nature of this family. 

Siev and Kim spoke with Salon about this moving documentary.

David, you made this film as a love letter to Bad Axe, a town that you love but does not always love you back. What do you love and hate about Bad Axe, and what would you change? It was a year of change that you record. 

David Siev: When I say the film is a love letter to Bad Axe, it was this knee-jerk reaction to my parents, specifically my dad, scolding me that what I was doing was going to have repercussions not only for the restaurant, but for our family. While I say it’s a love letter to Bad Axe, it’s so much more of a love letter to my family and everything we’ve been through and being thankful for that experience. It created this bond that made us so close. The love I have for my family is unconditional. They are imperfect people, just like I am, but at the end of the day, we still come together. And Bad Axe is this very imperfect place. I was grateful I was able to grow up in that community, but at the same time, it is a community that has a long way to go.

“The consequences we face as a Mexican-Cambodian family are not the same consequences that a white person would face.”

And there are so many other places in the Unites States that are like Bad Axe. How do we create dialogue and change in these communities so people can look at my family and see what it means to be American? People don’t think of my family when they think of a traditional American family, but the reality is that there are so many families like mine living in communities like Bad Axe, MI, and they are going through similar experiences that we did. That experience is part of their American experience. I wanted to open this dialogue of what that American experience is, and that does include my family. That’s where I would love to see the direction of Bad Axe change and accept the experiences that may be different from others. What I love about Bad Axe is that it has made our family who we are today. I’m grateful for that and the people who have supported our business and helped us when we needed it most. The idea of what the American experience is needs to expand. 

Bad AxeBad Axe (IFC Films)

David, what can you say about your family? There is a sense of sacrifice. There is love. There is fighting. There is diversity. There is willfulness. What forges your family’s bond and why do you think it is so strong?

Siev: What forges our family and makes us so strong is the fact that at the end of the day, as different as we are, and the different opinions we have, we just want what’s best with our family. It takes a lot of communication to get there together. We don’t shy away from having the tough conversations. In order to be the best that we can be, we need to go through those tough conversations together. Being so close and being able to have those conversations allows us to create that bond. We’re all so grateful to have that. All the adversity we had to overcome together, with the restaurant, there is this resilience that we are all aware of and still working on today.

Daniel, how did you identify with David’s family’s story? 

Daniel Dae Kim: There were two major ways. One is that I could understand the multigenerational story in the film. There is a very distinct and marked difference when it comes to the older generation of immigrants and the second generation, or 1.5 generation of immigrants. David’s father’s Chun’s perspective was on being American, was like my father’s, the idea we need to keep our heads down and work hard and we shouldn’t expect anything from our country; we should just work to contribute. And that contrasts with the way I feel about being an American, and David’s generation as well. It’s about a dialogue. We contribute to this country and deserve to be thought of as Americans with all the rights and privileges that come with being an American. 

The second part is this notion of being fully American, we have a voice that comes along with it. Our generation are much more vocal and how we find and use our voice as we contribute to the way our society is moving. It was their family finding their own voices and it was a microcosm of Asian Americans, and Mexicans, and people of color finding our voice in the kind of symphony of America.

Siev: So much of the through line in the film is the American Dream. My parents’ American Dream was so much of what Daniel was saying about his parents: It was: keep your head down, support your family, pay your mortgage and send your kids to college. That was their dream. Our generation absolutely includes all of that but then there is this other layer of being seen as an American and have voices, and opinions and thoughts that matter just as much as everyone else’s

“When Asian Americans or BIPOC people speak out there should be no expectation that they shouldn’t.”

Kim: The irony of all this is that they tell us that we’re doing all this to give you a better life. That you are not going to suffer in the way that we suffered. Living that “better life” comes with some unexpected costs and our exercise of our voice and our place in America often can lead to things that they never would have expected. 

What about the risks of standing up and speaking out? There is political awareness but there is also a backlash. The Black Lives Matter protest Jaclyn attends is a pivotal scene in the film. 

Siev: My siblings and I and my family respond to this call to activism but the consequences we face as a Mexican-Cambodian family are not the same consequences that a white person would face. You see that with the letter we receive and the death threats from Neo-Nazis and being told to go back to where you came from, which are so specific to the BIPOC experience. It was important to show that in the film because when we put the fundraising trailer out there, the comments were that Bad Axe doesn’t have a racism problem. When you see the film, people saw these experiences are real and telling these experiences are important.

Kim: I’m reminded of the Asian proverb, “The grass that grows the tallest gets cut down first.” That is the challenge that we as second or 1.5 generations is that we can have a voice and our blade of grass can grow tall. David is saying we do have a voice, and its legitimate, and we can contribute to the progress in culture. That mindset is something that not only traditional Asian Americans need to overcome but society at large needs to overcome. 

“It’s a generalized environment where hate has become normalized, and this is the thing we need to fight against.”

When Asian Americans or BIPOC people speak out there should be no expectation that they shouldn’t. It should not come as a surprise when BIPOC people have an opinion, or a movement like Black Lives Matter. We have a voice that is worthy and that is something that should be expected from both the perspective of people of color and those outside of it.

Can you both speak to the topic of Asian hate, racism, and discrimination, that is addressed in the film. How can the awareness of this topic foment change?

Siev: It’s all about being able to start a conversation about all of these issues the film raises, whether that is intergenerational trauma, racism or a call to action. My approach was humanizing these themes — putting a real family/human face behind these issues. Hopefully, when people see the film, they no longer look at us as being “the other side.” They see us as their fellow community members or fellow American. They see a real family going through these real issues, regardless of what side of the political spectrum I am on. Because we are so imperfect, I hope they can see a little bit of themselves through my dad, or Jaclyn and me. 

Do I think people are going to change the way they vote after seeing this film? Probably not. But have I witnessed people willing to take a step forward and have a conversation? Absolutely, and that’s what gives me hope. Change happens incredibly slow, but we need to look at each other as humans and have a conversation with one another.

Kim: That’s what makes it universal. The situation affecting African Americans and Asian Americans and Mexican and Latino Americans, but this is about hate in general in our society. It’s not just Asian Americans who have been the victims of being staggering increased violence and hate. Its Jewish Americans. It’s Muslim Americans. It’s a generalized environment where hate has become normalized, and this is the thing we need to fight against. This film might be about three different communities but it’s about all marginalized communities. One of the messages of “Bad Axe” is that we are all stronger together. If we can come together and embrace one another, including our differences, that is what is encapsulated in Bad Axe. The patrons of this restaurant are a microcosm of our society. Can we literally break bread together? Can we come together despite differences and sit down and share space and ideas and community? All of us suffered through that pandemic, a common mutual experience we all share, and it’s a prism where all these ideas are reflected. 

Daniel, what can you say about using your celebrity to champion films like “Bad Axe.” Do you have intentions of producing or participating in projects that have a more political focus?

Kim: I am very proud to be associated with this film. I’m proud of David and the message of this film is so important. It’s not a film I wanted to be a part of because it’s political, I wanted to be a part of this film because it speaks to our need for understanding and to humanize and be humanized. Whatever the side of the political aisle you are on, it asks us to look beyond that and look to human being that believes those things and find that level of understanding that brings us together. Because we can and should be able to all live together. 

Siev: We have done that in the past. It’s feels like it’s become a little more distant in recent years. Rachel’s wouldn’t be what it is today if we didn’t have that. There is hope for that.

Kim: Happy to champion projects that encourage unity and understanding in this time of polarization and tribalism.  


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


Can you discuss your intentions with your film to tell a larger story through the experiences of your own family?

Siev: When I first began editing, I felt like I lost my sense of direction about why I was making this film. The early cuts reflected my wanting to preach to the echo chambers that would turn off half the audience. It was to my family’s credit that they had a hard conversation with me and reminded me why I was making this film in the first place. It was because they wanted to share their story even before I picked up a camera. My family encapsulates so much of what the American Dream is. Through those conversations and thinking of the intention behind the film, it was to share our story and humanize these experiences and open up what an American family is. And the most effective way to do that was through the most personal lens. It had to come from the most personal level and allowed anyone to see a part of themselves in our family after going through a consequential year together and our family’s experience of living in Bad Axe in 2020. 

Daniel, did you get to eat at Rachel’s and what do you recommend?

Kim: No, I haven’t yet! I have not been able to go to the restaurant, so one of my missions is to get there. 

“Bad Axe” is available in theaters and on demand starting Nov. 18.

 

“Positively dystopian”: Judge cites Orwell to block censorship law backed by Ron DeSantis

In an order that begins by quoting the famous opening line of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, a federal judge on Thursday blocked key provisions of a Florida censorship law that aimed to restrict how state university professors teach race, gender, and U.S. history.

“‘It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,’ and the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of ‘freedom,'” Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, an Obama appointee, wrote in his scathing decision, which temporarily halts enforcement of parts of the law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis—a possible 2024 presidential candidate.

“To confront certain viewpoints that offend the powers that be, the state of Florida passed the so-called ‘Stop WOKE Act in 2022—redubbed (in line with the state’s doublespeak) the ‘Individual Freedom Act,'” Walker continued. “The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this act, professors enjoy ‘academic freedom’ so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian.”

The Thursday decision, which concludes that the GOP law violates the First Amendment rights of public university faculty and students, marks the second time Walker has ruled against the “Stop WOKE Act” in recent months. In August, the judge blocked the part of the law pertaining to private businesses.

Adriana Novoa, a University of South Florida history professor and a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that Walker’s Thursday ruling is a win “for the institutions of this country.”

“I hope that the courts will defend the existence of a public education that cannot be manipulated by politicians to push any ideology, now and in the future,” Novoa added.

Part of a recent wave of censorship laws advanced by Republicans in Florida and across the U.S., the “Stop WOKE Act” was billed as an attempt to “give businesses, employees, children, and families tools to fight back against woke indoctrination.”

But civil liberties groups and other critics of the law have argued it is both unjustifiable and exceedingly vague in its mandates, creating a chilling effect on educators as they attempt to teach their classes under the threat of state retaliation. 

Emily Anderson, an assistant professor of International Relations and Intercultural Education at Florida International University, told the Miami Herald in August that “these policies have really led to increased efforts to silence and surveil academic speech.”

“Academic speech matters, because it’s a fundamental freedom that is really how our university system is grounded,” said Anderson. “When we have policies that threaten speech, in my view, it shadows threats to all other protected rights.”

In his ruling, Walker points to the eight specific concepts outlawed that are under the measure, including the notion that “such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.”

“Despite [Florida officials’] insistence that the professor plaintiffs’ proposed viewpoints must serve as a mirror image for each prohibited viewpoint, the proposed speech needs only to arguably run afoul of the prohibition,” Walker wrote.

Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which sued Florida officials over the censorship law—said that “faculty members are hired to offer opinions from their academic expertise—not toe the party line.”

“Florida’s argument that faculty members have no First Amendment rights would have imperiled faculty members across the political spectrum,” said Steinbaugh.

Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement that Walker’s ruling “is a huge victory for everyone who values academic freedom and recognizes the value of inclusive education.”

“The First Amendment broadly protects our right to share information and ideas, and this includes educators’ and students’ right to learn, discuss, and debate systemic racism and sexism,” Sykes added.

Study: Extreme heat responsible for hundreds of deaths in Texas prisons

In the dozens of Texas prisons that don’t have air conditioning, new research shows that 13 percent of deaths during the six hottest months every year from 2001 through 2019 were likely due to extreme heat. The study, which was published last week in the academic journal JAMA Network Open, is the first epidemiological evidence that the lack of air conditioning in a large proportion of U.S. prisons is substantially increasing the risk of death for those incarcerated. It also suggests that over 250 Texans lost their lives over the past two decades because of the state’s failure to mitigate indoor heat.

In Texas, where two-thirds of the state’s nearly 100 prisons lack air conditioning, temperatures inside facilities have risen to as high as 149 degrees Fahrenheit. Climate change will only increase the number of dangerously hot days: Historically no Texas county typically saw more than 25 days annually where the heat index rose above 105 degrees F. By midcentury, however, more than a third of counties in the Lone Star State will likely be subject to more than 50 days with heat that high, according to data from the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

Nevertheless, Texas lawmakers have repeatedly failed to advance bills that would fund prison air conditioning, and prison officials have suggested that heat deaths are not a problem. At a July hearing before the Texas House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee, Texas Department of Criminal Justice executive director Bryan Collier claimed that that there have been zero heat-related deaths since 2012.

“Their numbers are wrong,” said Amite Dominick, one of the new report’s coauthors and the president and founder of Texas Prisons Community Advocates, an organization that is pushing Texas policymakers to fund prison air conditioning.

“I hope it adds further credence to what we’ve been saying all along — that these individuals are dying because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is refusing to put AC in prisons,”she added. “Our legislators aren’t getting the job done.”

The 271 deaths in facilities without air conditioning — an average of 14 per year — occurred on days that were unusually hot for the region, when the heat index rose above the 90th percentile for the location. On such days, the risk of death rose 15 percent. The study also found that each 1-degree increase in temperature over 85 degrees increased risk of death by 0.7 percent.

These deadly effects were not observed in air-conditioned facilities: The researchers, led by Brown University Ph.D. Julianne Skarha, found no correlation between heat and mortality in the latter. This is not surprising, given that heat-related death is uncommon among the general population — accounting for less than half a percent of U.S. deaths.

While Texas jails are required to maintain temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees F, state prisons have no such regulations. “There is life-saving potential if the Texas Department of Criminal Justice applies a similar temperature regulation policy to its prison facilities as it does to its jail facilities,” the researchers wrote.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice declined to comment on the report. “The agency takes numerous precautions to lessen the effects of hot temperatures for those incarcerated within our facilities. These efforts work,” Communications Director Amanda Hernandez said by email. “In 2022, there have been thirteen inmates who required medical care beyond first aid for heat related injuries and none were fatal.”

Skarha chose to focus her research in Texas in part because it has the highest state prison population in the U.S., incarcerating around 118,000 people. However, the JAMA study has implications far beyond the state.

“We know there are many states in the U.S., especially in the South, that don’t have AC in the majority of their prisons,” Skarha said. “There’s no reason to assume that it’s not a similar story there.”

Heat deaths are difficult to track, and the cause of a heat-induced death isn’t always listed as hyperthermia. Researchers have found that heat increases the risk of cardiovascular- and diabetes-related deaths as well as the risk of death for people over age 75. U.S. prison populations are aging, and prisoners are more likely to have both heart conditions and diabetes. People taking psychotropic medications, used to treat a range of mental health issues, are also particularly heat-sensitive and are also over-represented among those incarcerated.

Hernandez, the corrections department communications director, told Grist that prisoners have access to fans and ice water. Additionally, in 2018 a lawsuit forced Texas to implement a system for protecting prisoners in unairconditioned prisons on hot days, including by offering access to cooled respite areas and by moving heat-sensitive individuals to air-conditioned housing. Although the JAMA study period overlaps with the new measures, it provides minimal insights into the effectiveness of that program.

Separate survey results published this summer by Texas A&M University suggest the new measures have fallen short. Close to a third of incarcerated survey participants said they were aware of at least one heat-related death in prison. Many described near-death experiences or a fear that the heat would kill them. That research was also a collaboration between scholars and grassroots organizers with Texas Prisons Community Advocates.

To Dominick, it’s long past time for policymakers to act. “This problem has been happening for decades and they want reports and testimonies and articles,” said Dominick. “It is hot in Texas and they know it. They are choosing not to get this done quickly.”

Get ready for Shadow Speaker Marjorie Taylor Greene: She’s running the show

The first time Rep. Kevin McCarthy ran for speaker of the House was back in 2015, at the beginning of the fateful 2016 campaign. He was considered a shoo-in to replace former Speaker John Boehner who quit in disgust and skedaddled back to Ohio after the going-over he received from the newly empowered Freedom Caucus. McCarthy was a prodigious fundraiser who wore his ambition on his sleeve. He was on the cusp of achieving his dream when he put his foot in his mouth and admitted that the Republicans weren’t entirely on the up-and-up in their exaggerated concern about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and all the related investigations:

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.

The Republicans were at least briefly embarrassed and dumped McCarthy for former vice-presidential candidate and all around dreamboat Paul Ryan who, like Boehner before him, couldn’t wrangle his fractious caucus and quit the Congress just three years later.

Those seem like innocent times, don’t they? McCarthy is once again in line to be speaker of the House at the head of a modest and disorderly Republican majority, but if he were to make that comment today no one would even blink. Of course the Republicans will run investigations meant to drive down Joe Biden’s numbers. It’s payback time. Sen. Ted Cruz said it right out loud when he told his podcast audience that Democrats had used impeachment “for partisan purposes to go after Trump because they disagreed with him. And one of the real disadvantages of doing that … is the more you weaponize it and turn it into a partisan cudgel, you know, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” That rationale applies equally well to all forms of investigative “oversight.”

Greene has had as many press conference since the election as Kevin McCarthy has, and is covered in the press like a party leader. That’s because she is one — and probably the primary driver of the GOP agenda.

Trump henchman Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio was talked up as a potential rival to McCarthy but is now backing him, leading the California congressman to believe that he’s got the Freedom Caucus kooks under his control. McCarthy recently said that “probably my biggest advocate is Jim Jordan.” Maybe he’s right: Jordan is apparently happy to be the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, where he can grill Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray over their alleged bias against poor, long-suffering Donald Trump. Jordan will be kept plenty busy avenging his mentor, and if it happens to lead to the impeachment said mentor is demanding, well, he might just have no choice. The man just wants to follow the facts. Or to be more precise, “the facts.”

Likewise, there’s Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who has announced his intention to address the most pressing problem America faces: Hunter Biden. 

After McCarthy met privately with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — the biggest and most dangerous star in his caucus — he purportedly lured her into endorsing him by feeding Greene the spin that untrustworthy RINO members might defect to the Democrats and turn over the majority if he weren’t the leader. But we have reason to believe that’s not what really happened. Greene made that clear enough last month in an interview with the New York Times, speaking about her comrades on the party’s lunatic rightward fringe:

I think that to be the best speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway. And if he doesn’t, they’re going to be very unhappy about it. I think that’s the best way to read that. And that’s not in any way a threat at all. I just think that’s reality.

McCarthy is not exactly known for his fortitude in the face of a bully, so get ready for Shadow Speaker Marjorie Taylor Greene. She’s tanned, rested and aching for a fight.

Already this week, Greene held a press conference to announce that she’s backing McCarthy, saying that nothing matters more than Republicans maintaining subpoena power and declaring that if anyone threatens that, “I won’t let that happen.” She later appeared on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and threw down:

Politics is a blood sport. And because it is so difficult and you have to fight as hard as possible. And, Steve, you know what that’s like. We have to dig in sometimes and we have to do everything we can to stop our enemy. And the enemy is the Democrat Party. That’s the enemy of America because they are destroying our country and selling us out. And so this is why our conference has to unify.

With her vast experience in Congress since she was sworn in all the way back in 2021 — yes, she’s still in her first term —Greene says she knows the score and is ready to take on anyone who gets in her way:

And if Jake Sherman [of Punchbowl News] wants to call it the “MTG wing” of the party, so be it. But I’m also willing to step out. And I know the ground. I know how it works on the inside and the outside.

So what does Shadow Speaker Greene specifically plan to do, besides keep the hapless McCarthy on a short leash? Well, you may recall that just last year, in her first months in Congress, she was unceremoniously stripped of all her committee assignments after years’ worth of conspiracy theories and racist statements came to light. How times have changed.


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


Greene has demanded a seat on the Oversight Committee, which as Comer made clear is first and foremost planning to do a lot of investigations, starting with Hunter Biden and his infamous laptop before moving on to the origins of COVID (featuring conspiracy theories about Dr. Anthony Fauci), the Afghanistan withdrawal and whatever else. They have a new one to add to the list, as the New York Times reported on Thursday:

In a closed-door meeting of Republicans on Monday, right-wing lawmakers including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia extracted a promise that their leaders would investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Justice Department for their treatment of defendants jailed in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

If you were wondering whether Shadow Speaker Greene has any actual policy interests, yes in fact she does.

Which is likely to lead to yet another investigation:

Greene has had as many press conferences since the election as McCarthy has had and is covered in the press like a party leader. That’s because she is one — probably the most important one. Marjorie Taylor Greene will clearly be leader of the MAGA caucus in the 118th Congress and most likely the primary driver of the Republican agenda. If anyone thinks she’s going to allow the party to “moderate,” or to seek compromise on anything she cares about, they’d better think again.

If Kevin McCarthy flames out — which given his own history and his party’s, is more likely than not — look for Greene to make a major move into leadership. She’s feeling the power, and she loves it. 

Lauren Boebert declares herself the winner of too-close-to-call election as it heads to recount

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., on Thursday declared herself the winner of her congressional race even though the election is still too close to call.

Boebert has been locked in a surprisingly tight contest with Democratic challenger Adam Frisch, who led the race on election night. Boebert took a slim lead over the Democrat last week as votes continued to be counted but Frisch cut her lead from 1,122 votes to 551 votes on Thursday as more ballots were cured and counted.

The race remains too close to call, according to the Associated Press. Boebert’s slim lead is well within the 0.5% threshold to trigger an automatic recount under Colorado law and the AP is not expected to call the race until the recount is complete. Under state law, the mandatory recount must be completed no more than 35 days after the election, which is December 13.

But that did not stop Boebert, who went unusually quiet as she trailed in the race, from prematurely declaring victory.

“We won!” Boebert tweeted along with a video. “Come January, you can be certain of two things,” she said, “I will be sworn in for my second term as your congresswoman and Republicans can finally turn Pelosi’s house back into the People’s House.”

Colorado Sun editor Larry Rickman pointed out that not only is the race headed for a recount, “two counties have not yet sent their final vote tallies.”

Still, tweeted the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman, it would be “extremely rare for a lead of that size to be overturned in a recount.”

Frisch, a businessman and former Aspen city councilman, told the AP that he would not be surprised if he ended up winning but acknowledged he may lose.

“We obviously can’t be surprised if we lose. We’re not that wacko,” he told the outlet.

Frisch added that his unexpected support demonstrates how tired voters in the Republican-leaning district are of Boebert’s Trump-style extremism.

“I think 99% of the story is here,” he said.

Frisch on Thursday filed paperwork to run in the district again in 2024 with the Federal Election Commission, meaning that there may be a rematch even if Boebert’s lead holds up.

Frisch framed his entire campaign around opposition to his Republican opponent’s antics, describing himself as a “candidate to defeat Lauren Boebert.”

“Lauren Boebert is an anti-American, anti-Colorado show pony who can’t tell right from wrong,” his campaign website says. “I’ve spent my career as a successful businessman. Now I’m running for Congress to cut inflation and create local economic growth and jobs. I’ll put Colorado First and keep America Strong.”


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


Boebert, the gun-toting business owner whose Shooters Grill restaurant was recently shut down, has repeatedly drawn headlines as part of the so-called “MAGA Squad,” which also includes Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and outgoing Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., who lost his re-election bid in the GOP primary.

Boebert repeatedly pushed election conspiracy theories and was widely criticized for stoking Trump supporters ahead of the Capitol riot and later tweeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, D-Calif., location during the attack. She later insisted on bringing her gun to the Capitol despite clashing with Capitol Police.

She also came under scrutiny in Colorado after using campaign funds to pay for her rent and utility bills and for receiving an unusually high $22,259 in mileage reimbursements from her campaign.

While Boebert has no legislative accomplishments to show for her first term in office, she faced backlash from Democrats over Islamophobic comments she made about Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

“You know, we’re leaving the Capitol and we’re going back to my office and we get in an elevator and I see a Capitol Police officer running to the elevator,” Boebert told supporters at an event last year. “I see fret all over his face, and he’s reaching, and the door’s shutting, like I can’t open it, like what’s happening. I look to my left, and there she is. Ilhan Omar. And I said, ‘Well, she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine.'”

Boebert later apologized to “anyone in the Muslim community I offended” but not Omar.

She later heckled President Joe Biden during his state of the union address while he was talking about his son Beau, who died of cancer in 2015.

In the summer, Boebert appeared to embrace Christian nationalism during a religious service.

“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it,” she said in June. “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”

California stockpiles penalties from uninsured residents instead of lowering care costs

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Nearly three years after California started fining residents who don’t have health insurance, the state has not distributed any of the revenue it has collected, KHN has learned — money that was intended to help Californians struggling to pay for coverage.

And so far, the majority of Californians paying the tax penalty for not having insurance are low- and middle-income earners, according to state tax officials — just the people the money was intended to help.

“It’s concerning,” said Diana Douglas, a lobbyist with Health Access California, which advocated for the mandate. “The whole idea was if we’re going to collect money from people who can’t afford coverage, to use that revenue to help people afford it and actually get care. It’s not fair to people who can’t afford it.”

State finance officials have estimated that the revenue collected via the penalty in its first three years, from 2020 through 2022, will total about $1.3 billion. Gov. Gavin Newsom argues the state should hold on to the money in case Californians need help paying for health insurance in the future.

Newsom and Democratic lawmakers adopted the state health insurance requirement in 2019, nearly two years after the Republican-controlled Congress eliminated the federal penalty for not having health insurance that had been instituted under the Affordable Care Act. Then-President Donald Trump pushed to scrap it, arguing that the Obamacare provision was “very unfair.

Newsom argued, however, that a so-called individual mandate would help California achieve universal coverage by requiring everyone to have health insurance, and said the penalty money would be used to help residents purchase plans via Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act insurance marketplace.

The penalty revenue was supposed to help fund state-based subsidies for low- and middle-income Californians who purchase coverage through Covered California that Newsom and state lawmakers approved the same year. The state subsidies would supplement the existing federal financial assistance offered under Obamacare.

But covid-19 changed the equation.

To prevent people from losing insurance during the pandemic, the Biden administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress boosted federal subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Obamacare exchanges — and which were recently extended under the federal Inflation Reduction Act.

The Newsom administration argued the additional federal assistance was enough to help residents afford coverage, and California stopped providing the state subsidies in May 2021. They had been in place less than two years and had been financed by about $328 million in startup money from the state’s general fund.

But the state continued levying the tax penalty, and the Newsom administration is stockpiling some of the money given fiscal projections that show California is facing an uncertain economic outlook, according to H.D. Palmer, the spokesperson for the state Department of Finance. Tax revenues this year are billions below projections, he said, and the penalty money could be needed when the additional federal financial assistance expires at the end of 2025 — if it’s not extended in the meantime — or if Republicans take control of Congress or the White House and then scrap the enhanced subsidies.

“The recent downturn in state tax revenues highlights the importance of having those funds set aside,” Newsom spokesperson Alex Stack said.

In 2021, Newsom and state legislators transferred $333.4 million of the penalty money into a special fund “for future use for health affordability programs” in Covered California, though that was a one-time move and the money will not be spent anytime soon, Palmer said.

California is among several states that adopted health insurance requirements after the federal penalty was gutted. California assesses its penalty on uninsured residents when they file their annual state income taxes.

For the 2020 tax year, the first year the mandate was in place, California collected about $403 million from uninsured people, with the average per-person penalty amounting to $1,196, according to the state Franchise Tax Board.

Of the roughly 337,000 Californians penalized that year, about 225,400 had incomes at or below 400% of the federal poverty level, or $49,960 for a single person and $85,320 for a family of three. Some lowest-income earners are exempt from the penalty.

The Newsom administration projected that the revenue from the tax penalty would increase in both 2021 and 2022, including to $435 million this year.

Because tax collections take time to process, the exact total raised to date is unclear. But the administration estimates the state will collect about $1.3 billion over the first three years of the mandate. Most of that money will be deposited into the state general fund and can be used for anything the governor and lawmakers choose to spend it on. There is no requirement that any penalty money be spent on health care or financial assistance, Palmer confirmed.

Meanwhile, premiums are rising for many consumers purchasing coverage through Covered California, with an average increase of 5.6% for 2023, according to James Scullary, a spokesperson for the marketplace.

Deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs are also going up for some people, and consumer advocates fear that without greater financial assistance, more Californians will opt out of purchasing coverage — or forgo care altogether.

For instance, a mid-tier Covered California insurance plan for an individual will have a $4,750 medical deductible and an annual out-of-pocket maximum of $8,750 in 2023 — up from $3,700 and $8,200, respectively, this year.

“We already had concerns about reinstating the penalty on the uninsured because it hits poor people the hardest, and now we’re seeing lower-income people making tough choices about paying for health care or other basic necessities like gas, food, and rent,” said Linda Nguy, a lobbyist with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “Let’s spend the money we’re collecting to help make it more affordable or eliminate the mandate if we’re not spending it.”

Some Democratic lawmakers, backed by Heath Access and a broad coalition of health advocates, insurers, and small businesses, are pushing Newsom to use the penalty revenue to help uninsured and low-income Californians. They argue that even with the additional federal assistance, people still need help to lower their out-of-pocket costs.

“Small businesses and their employees are struggling to afford health care,” said Bianca Blomquist, California policy director for the Small Business Majority lobbying group. “When the individual mandate was established, the understanding was that even though the money is going to the general fund, it would be spent on affordability assistance in Covered California. That’s a big reason we supported it.”

A bill this year by state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), who is leaving office because of term limits, sought to funnel state penalty money into Covered California to reduce out-of-pocket costs for some consumers, including scrapping their deductibles. But Newsom vetoed the bill, arguing that the money could be needed in future years to reinstate the state-based subsidies.

Advocates vow to continue pushing next year.

“Having insurance doesn’t mean anything if you can’t afford the deductible, and that’s a huge barrier for people with chronic diseases who have very high health care costs,” Pan said. “People still can’t afford to go to the doctor.”

Republicans joined Democratic lawmakers in expressing frustration. Former state Sen. Jeff Stone, who was a staunch opponent of the state mandate and has since relocated to Nevada, blasted the penalty as “reverse Robin Hood” — taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy.

“Impoverished people are being forced to pay that penalty, and it’s being put right into the general fund for any purpose,” he said. “If the state isn’t spending it like the governor said it would, return it to taxpayers.”


This story can be republished for free (details).

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

How gravitational waves are opening up the hidden corners of the universe to human eyes

Did you feel it?

On May 21, 2019, the mass of eight suns disappeared. In a universe like ours, in which mass and energy are conserved, mass cannot disappear without consequences: and so it went that, as two distant black holes merged, the entire universe vibrated. A powerful gravitational shockwave expanded outwards from the merger, expanding out for billions of years before passing through Earth. On that day, every cell in your body stretched and compressed in four quick successions, as did the atoms of everything else on Earth and in our solar system.

You might not have noticed, but scientists did: three gravitational wave observatories strategically located around the planet — observatories which do not resemble traditional optical telescopes, but rather, long laser beams in dark rooms — saw their lasers jiggle just enough to detect this black hole merger.

That humans are able to measure such distant events in the universe with relative precision is one of the marvels of modern science. This particular merger happened some 16 billion light-years from us, or 17 percent the width of the known universe. Until recently, such phenomenally distant astronomical events were typically a mystery to astronomers. It is only because of the advent of gravitational wave astronomy, a very new field within observational astronomy, that our eye on the universe has expanded.

Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and time that are produced after two black holes collide with each other. Acclaimed physicist Albert Einstein first theorized about the existence of gravitational waves in 1916, and after being discovered a century later, astronomers have applied this knowledge to achieve the previously unthinkable, such as observing a black hole devouring a neutron star. Science news headlines regularly tout how gravitational waves are allowing scientists to do new things like peer inside neutron stars and discover the wobbliest black hole ever detected.

Yet what exactly are gravitational waves? Could humanity’s newfound ability to observe them really be as much of a game-changer as headlines suggest? And to what extent is the excitement over gravitational waves substantive, and to what extent is it mere hype?

To answer the first question — what are gravitational waves — it is useful to first understand gravity itself.

As Montana State University physics professor Dr. Neil Cornish explained to Salon, Einstein’s general theory of relativity was “fairly radical in its rewriting of gravity” because it replaced the idea of gravity as some kind of force with gravity as simply being space and time.

“There is no gravitational force in Einstein’s theory,” Cornish pointed out. “It’s just that we live in a space-time that’s curved and shaped by the matter and energy inside it.” Because black holes are the collapsed remnants of former stars, they are massive, and when they collide with each other they produce measurable gravitational waves.

“As they orbited, they were like mallets banging on a drum,” Levin recalled to Salon.

But gravitational waves were not detected definitively until 2015, at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) — two facilities located in Washington state and Louisiana which, together, can measure the direction and strength of gravitational waves passing through Earth. The two facilities were opened in 2002, and operated for years without finding any results; only in 2015 were engineers able to refine their precision enough to detect the tiny perturbations at an atomic level that define gravitational waves. 2015 marked the confirmation of what was predicted a century earlier by Albert Einstein. 

The confirmation of Einstein’s theory was a milestone in the history of modern science — and, according to Barnard College physics and astronomy Dr. Janna Levin, the big moment of discovery in 2015 was “very cinematic.”

“As they orbited, they were like mallets banging on a drum,” Levin recalled to Salon about the binary black hole merger that yielded the confirmed gravitational waves. “The drum is space-time, and they created ripples and sounds, technically sounds in the same way that an electric guitar plays sound or a drum plays sounds, but in the shape of space-time right before they coalesced, merged and quieted down.”

She added that “there are many impressive things about this phenomenon,” among them that it emitted the most energy detected by humans since the Big Bang itself. Yet for it to travel for all of those years at the speed of light, only to arrive at Earth at the perfect moment to be detected in 2015 “to be recorded by this instrument that had been devised over the span of a hundred years” was, to say the least, “fascinating.”


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


Cornish also used music to illustrate gravitational waves.

“When you’re producing sound waves with a guitar, a cello or a violin, the distance between the peaks on the sound waves is roughly the same size based on the object that produces it,” Cornish explained. “In the same way that you can tell just by listening, you know, is this a guitar or is this a drum or a tuba? The same goes for these collisions” between black holes and other cosmic objects, all of which produce different types of gravitational waves.

Yet how much can this really transform our knowledge of science?

“I like that kind of question. It’s punchy,” Dr. Rana X. Adhikari, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology, told Salon by email. Adhikari said that when it comes to assessing the utility of gravitational waves to future scientific endeavors, it is easier to describe quality than quantity.

“The kind of information you get from gravity is just very different from what you get with other kinds of astronomy.”

“I can tell you a little bit more qualitatively though,” Adhikari told Salon. “The kind of information you get from gravity is just very different from what you get with other kinds of astronomy.”

As an analogy, Adhikari compared it to the relationship between light and sound. While we can process different colors with our eyes, a person singing while wearing a yellow shirt will sound the same as a person singing while wearing a blue shirt. You need a different instrument to measure the singing. In that same sense, “gravity tell us about things that are obscured by light, like black holes. The same goes for neutron stars. Those are really interesting things, because we’ve never studied the inside of those. Gravity is probably our only probe that gets into the heart of a neutron star to tell us what is happening.”

Cornish also told Salon that our ability to detect gravitational waves will indeed be quite useful to current and future astronomers.

“We’re actually able to extract very detailed information because the movement of the mass is directly reflected in these oscillations that we pick up in these ripples of gravity,” Cornish explained. Instead of merely inferring, gravitational waves permit direct measurements. “That’s how we’re able to confidently say, ‘Okay, we’ve detected a black hole of this mass because the actual size of the black hole changes the wavelengths, and inversely the frequency of that wave.’ So a bigger black hole, just like a bigger instrument plays a lower tone, we’re able to extract a whole lot of information from these signals.”

Biden to federal contractors: Make plans to cut your greenhouse gas emissions

The Biden administration plans to require the largest federal contractors to set targets for slashing their greenhouse gas emissions in line with goals established under the Paris climate accord in 2015. The proposed rule, announced on Wednesday, could have wide repercussions throughout corporate America as the U.S. federal government is the world’s largest consumer of goods and services.    

The administration’s new proposal would also require that contractors make their emissions public as well as detail the risks climate change poses to their business. The list of the largest suppliers to the federal government includes aerospace giants like Boeing and Lockheed Martin as well as pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Moderna. 

The announcement comes as leaders from around the world met in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, at a United Nations climate summit, where the Biden administration is under pressure to help developing countries already shouldering the burden of rising temperatures, while cutting its own emissions. According to the Washington Post, which broke the news, Biden is expected to tout the new plan when he arrives at the meeting on Friday.

With more than $630 billion in purchases over the past fiscal year, the U.S. government is the world’s biggest buyer by a landslide. A fact sheet from the White House says that climate change poses significant financial risks to the government through disruptions to supply chains, such as when heat waves lead to power outages. 

At present, over half of the biggest federal contractors are voluntarily disclosing climate-related information, but a full picture of their emissions is missing. One of the main ways that greenhouse gas emissions are measured and assessed is by looking at them within three different “scopes”: Scope 1 emissions are controlled directly by the company; scope 2 are caused indirectly when the energy it purchases are produced; and scope 3 are those produced by the companies’ own suppliers. 

Under the new proposal, federal contractors receiving more than $50 million in annual contracts would be required to publicly disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions and climate-related financial risks. Businesses with less than $50 million in annual contracts but more than $7.5 million would be required to report Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Those with less than $7.5 million in annual contracts would be exempt. 

It’s part of Biden’s larger push to slash emissions throughout the federal government, including orders to have the government’s entire vehicle fleet run on electricity and have federal agencies get their power from carbon-free sources. The administration’s federal sustainability plan set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions for the federal procurement by 2050, with the latest proposal playing a crucial role, according to the White House. The new rule would apply to 85 percent of the emissions connected to federal contractors, estimated to be more than twice as large as the emissions from the government’s 300,000 buildings and 600,000 vehicles combined.

Thousands of experts hired to aid public health departments are losing their jobs

As covid-19 raged, roughly 4,000 highly skilled epidemiologists, communication specialists, and public health nurses were hired by a nonprofit tied to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to plug the holes at battered public health departments on the front lines.

But over the past few months, the majority of the CDC Foundation’s contracts for those public health workers at local and state departments have ended as the group has spent nearly all of its almost $289 million in covid relief funding. The CDC Foundation, an independent nonprofit that supports the CDC’s work, anticipates that no more than about 800 of its 4,000 hires will ultimately staff those jurisdictions, spokesperson Pierce Nelson said.

That has left many local and state health departments facing staffing shortages as the nation eyes a possible winter uptick in covid cases and grapples with the ongoing threat of monkeypox, exploding caseloads of sexually transmitted infections, and other public health issues.

The public health workforce in the U.S. has been underfunded for decades — just before the start of the pandemic, only 28% of local health departments had an epidemiologist or statistician, a 2020 Associated Press-KHN investigation found. Then, after the pandemic began, public health officials left in droves as they were lambasted for instituting covid rules, blamed for the economic downturn, and grappled with burnout.

And even if funding were available to retain all 4,000 foundation employees, that would not have met public health staffing needs, according to new research in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. The research says at least 80,000 new employees are required for state and local public health departments to implement the minimum package of public health services.

However, the funding for the foundation jobs was always time-limited because it was intended to help the emergency response to covid. And although the American public’s covid concerns have waned, public health experts warn this is yet another example of the failure to properly fund the public health sector with annual, guaranteed money — leaving the country unable to prevent and properly fight outbreaks.

“So the boom-and-the-bust cycle continues despite losing a million American lives to covid,” said Brian Castrucci, who co-authored the report and heads the de Beaumont Foundation, which advocates for increasing support for the nation’s public health. “How many American deaths is it going to take until we fix this problem?”

Unlike the thousands of inexperienced contact tracers hired to follow up with covid patients to stem the spread amid the surge, this CDC Foundation workforce typically had public health expertise that also could fill preexisting gaps. The foundation’s head, Dr. Judy Monroe, said local and state officials loved the foundation’s ability to cut through hiring red tape, telling her “it was like the cavalry showed up.”

In Chicago, CDC Foundation employees made up about as much as a tenth of the city’s public health workforce, said Dr. Allison Arwady, commissioner of the city’s public health department. Although she got 26 of those 66 employees extended into December, she said it’ll hurt to lose the rest. They’ve contributed to everything from public health nursing to communicating the latest guidance about the pandemic to Chicagoans.

Cayenne Levorse, a CDC Foundation leader who helped organize the foundation’s response in Ohio until her contract ended in October, said her 20 employees had to set down not only covid projects but also helping local health departments track cancer clusters, rural health disparities, and environmental health problems.

“Those jobs are just sitting there, all that work left unfinished,” she said.

Five people hired for CDC Foundation covid contracts told KHN they were under the impression their contracts would likely be extended or they would be hired by local or state governments receiving a flood of covid dollars. Only one of them had a contract as of Nov. 8.

Senior epidemiologist Katie Schenk, who has a doctorate in public health, did covid surveillance for the CDC Foundation at the Illinois and Washington, D.C., health departments. Both contracts ran out, and she was left without a job this summer.

“How do you explain that there is no funding for employment in our field when there is clearly so much work to be done?” she asked. “It’s to the detriment of the public health system, which is shedding staff like there’s no tomorrow.”

Sometime in November, state and local health officials are expecting $3 billion in covid relief money targeted at buttressing the public health workforce. But that funding is coming after most of the CDC Foundation contracts have expired and those employees have moved on with their lives.

Although that sum is substantial and will help close the 80,000-worker gap, many public health officials and experts stressed that the cash is short-term and slated to last five years — which can make positions harder to fill as candidates seek job stability. It also is divided among 50 states, U.S. territories, and multiple large health departments. And some state and local officials, such as those in Missouri and Michigan, have refused to spend covid dollars on public health departments amid the backlash against the pandemic response.

State and local governments sometimes have caps on hiring full-time employees even if federal money is available to do so, Monroe said. Some localities have pay freezes or are not willing to spend more on health officials than on other government employees, making highly skilled workers such as epidemiologists harder to hire, she said. And the CDC Foundation salaries and benefits were sometimes better than what is available at local and state-level jobs, Monroe said. Many of the foundation workers could face a pay cut if they wanted to stay on with the local departments.

“You certainly don’t go into public health to get rich,” said epidemiologist Susan Knoll, who took a private-sector job as a health consultant after working for the CDC Foundation in Ohio. “You get a grant-funded job. And then you’re always looking for another job.”

That’s “the reality of how we fund public health in this country,” said Chrissie Juliano, executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition.

“We ramp up, and we ramp down, and we don’t think about routine work,” she said. “We should not as a field be losing qualified people who are committed to working in public health. Those are the people who need to be saved.”

At least 38,000 public health jobs at the state and local level were lost from the 2008 recession through 2019. Then covid hit, and 1 in 5 Americans lost a local public health leader amid the political backlash of the first years of the pandemic, a 2021 APKHN investigation found.

Some of the remaining workforce is eyeing the door. The director of North Carolina’s Granville Vance Public Health department, Lisa Macon Harrison, said that even after instituting flexible benefits, she’s seeing 15% to 20% turnover, which she blames on burnout.

Levorse noted that epidemiologists and other staffers with advanced degrees have student loans to pay off and worry about losing health insurance each time a grant runs out.

The lack of a steady source of money from year to year is jeopardizing health department programs, Chicago’s Arwady said. She estimates the city will lose 86% of its current grant funding in two years, putting wastewater tracking, some of her department’s IT staff, and community-based outreach on the possible chopping block.

“We’re not going to be able to do half a dozen things that the city of Chicago clearly expects we should be able to do. Forget ‘Can I bring vaccine to your house?’ It’s ‘Can I even stand up, like, a vaccine clinic in your neighborhood?'” she said. “It’s that level of how far backwards I’m afraid we’re going to slide.”

Harrison said she’s seen this all before: A flood of funding for pandemic preparedness came after 9/11, and then the money for staffing went away, leaving departments flat-footed for covid.

Castrucci, of the de Beaumont Foundation, rued how the current funding structure ensures that the public health sector, which exists to prevent outbreaks and disease, won’t be given the staff to do so until an emergency arrives.

“You’re basically saying, ‘We will wait for the fire to burn until we hire the firefighters,'” he said.


KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sleep no more: How do we escape Donald Trump’s fascist dream machine?

In a conversation several years ago that I think about often, novelist Jonathan Lethem explained the state of America to me:

Who’s a greater dreamer than Donald Trump? He’s dreaming so hard we’re all stuck inside. And Trump’s dream is a dream of revenge. Donald Trump is like the outer-borough rich kid who is going to avenge himself on the elites in Manhattan. And we’re stuck inside Trump’s deep, deep dream. Trump has an entire dream machine at Fox News and its various shows and hosts. There’s an entire social media infrastructure for Trump. There is almost an entire industry dedicated to keeping Donald Trump from waking up.

In 2016, tens of millions of Americans willingly succumbed to that dream and elected Donald Trump president. The sleep was so heavy that many Americans became lost in it, no longer able to discern reality from fantasy. Many of them remain willfully lost in Trump’s toxic dream, convinced it was their own and a type of heaven.

Many Americans resisted the dream state, of course, to one degree or another, but they could not entirely shake themselves from sleep. The deep dreamers found it comforting, in a maladaptive way. The more we tried to wake them up, the more enraged they became.

Joe Biden’s election was a collective attempt by millions of Americans to wake up from Donald Trump’s dream. It was only partly successful.

I have a friend who has suffered from depression for many years. He would sometimes stay up all night and then sleep for 16 hours or more. On one occasion he slept for several days straight. How was that possible, I asked him? What did it feel like to lose all track of time and reality? Surely sleeping all the time makes your mental state worse? My friend laughed at me. He felt the most alive while asleep, he said, because his reality was too painful. In his dreams, he was set free to do whatever he wanted to. In many ways, what he described was like Donald Trump’s dream-nightmare, which so many of his cult followers find so welcoming. 

Joe Biden’s election as president was evidence of a collective attempt by the American people to wake up from the Trumpian dream-nightmare. It was only partly successful. Trump and his followers responded with a violent attempt to keep the American people in the dream-nightmare through an attempted coup and the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Ultimately Trump was forced to leave office, but the dream-nightmare continued in the form of the Big Lie, and the larger campaign by the Republican-fascist movement to overthrow American democracy. 

Last week we saw another attempt to wake up, as tens of millions of Americans fought back against the Trump nightmare by voting for the Democrats in key elections across the country. Republicans expected a “red wave” that would swamp the Democrats, and perhaps overwhelm democracy. That did not happen. Democrats held control of the Senate, and Republicans only managed to win a slim and tenuous majority in the House. The power of the dream-nightmare has not been broken, but the American people won some breathing room and at least a momentary reprieve.

It now seems possible that American people are on the verge of waking up from Trump’s dream-nightmare. Trump and his followers and agents are desperately trying to stop this from happening.

On Tuesday, Trump finally announced that he will run for president again in 2024. In this sequel, we can think of Trump as a type of sleep demon, a fascist version of the legendary horror-movie monster Freddy Krueger. Trump’s third presidential campaign is meant to keep the American people asleep. If they wake up, Trump’s dark power may finally be broken.

In its report on Trump’s announcement, the Washington Post noted that

he has profoundly altered the tenor of American public life — shattering long-held standards of decorum and civility with often shocking attacks on political rivals, judges and reporters. He has frequently made racist and antisemitic remarks, mocked people with disabilities and denigrated developing countries, bragged about sexual assault and paid hush money to a porn star, praised dictators, declined to disavow extremists, inspired his supporters to resort to violence and defended white supremacists and Jan. 6 rioters.

In the Guardian, David Smith wrote that Trump was now playing a new role, that of “the ousted dictator, drained of power and surrounded by a dwindling band of loyalists in his last redoubt.” A potential Republican primary campaign between Trump, Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence and other potential candidates “threatens to be a Republican ‘Lord of the Flies'”:

Trump would start with the disadvantage of multiple federal, state and congressional investigations hanging over him. Maybe he thinks, probably erroneously, that becoming a presidential candidate will shield him from the justice department. …

He delivered his address surrounded by 33 US national flags and elaborate Corinthian-style columns, beneath a ceiling of 16 crystal chandeliers and elaborate gold leaf decoration. The walls boasted mounted faux candelabra and giant Versailles-style mirrors. Giant TV screens proclaimed in white on blue: “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! TEXT TRUMP TO 88022. DONALDJTRUMP.COM.”

In another Guardian article, political scientist Cas Mudde explored Trump’s real motives in his seemingly desperate third presidential campaign: 

The key problem of the Republican party is that Trump does not care about “his” party. He does not even really care about being president again. Trump must run to stay out of jail. That is why all the media speculation about whether he has announced too early is silly. The former president is facing an onslaught of legal cases, on a broad variety of issues — mishandling of classified documents, insurrection, and tax fraud — for which he needs a lot of money and political coverage. As a mere citizen, even as a former president, he holds much less leverage than as a primary candidate, who may not be able to win the presidency for the Republican party but is probably still strong enough to lose it for them.

As for Trump’s actual speech, it felt like a remix of his infamous 2017 “American Carnage” inaugural address, full of fabrications, threats, victimology, incitements to violence and outright hate speech:

I believe the American people will overwhelmingly reject the left’s platform of national ruin.

Our southern border has been erased and our country is being invaded by millions and millions of unknown people, many of whom are entering for a very bad and sinister reason. And you know what that reason is.

Under Biden and the radical Democrats, America has been mocked, derided and brought to its knees, perhaps like never before.

The cities are rotting, and they are indeed cesspools of blood.

Anyone who truly seeks to take on this rigged and corrupt system will be faced with a storm of fire that only a few could understand.

As he has done repeatedly, Trump is echoing and channeling the same kind of violent, apocalyptic, fantastical and profoundly paranoid rhetoric that fueled the fascist movements of 20th-century Europe, up to and including Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. In recent months, Trump has become even more explicit in his threats of widespread chaos and violence if he is indicted or otherwise punished by the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agencies.


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


He has said that journalists and whistleblowers (and by implication anyone else who resists the MAGA movement) should be subjected to rape in prison. After Nancy Pelosi’s husband was seriously injured in a home invasion by an unhinged Trump supporter, he told his followers that the House speaker was an “animal.” For decades, the American right-wing and “conservative” movement have used eliminationist rhetoric and stochastic terrorism — often framed as “jokes” — to encourage violence against Democrats, liberals, Muslims, immigrants and other individuals or groups they deem to be the enemy.

According to a Rolling Stone report, Trump has told advisers he’d like to find ways to send “significant numbers of reporters” to prison if he becomes president again. In recent rallies, he has approvingly cited China’s policy of summarily executing drug dealers, and repeatedly praised Chinese President Xi Jinping: “I call him king.”

Trump has told advisers he’d like to find ways to send “significant numbers of reporters” to prison. Maybe it’s just a thought experiment.

As for the American news media and political class, to varying degrees and in different ways, they are largely still living in Trump’s dream world. Most are lucid enough to perceive the difference between reality and toxic fantasy, but many do not consistently make that clear. Some may believe they are protecting the American people from ugly and unpleasant truths; others are malign or self-interested actors, eager to find ways to personally profit from the public’s dream-state. 

Too many in the media are already normalizing Trump all over again, defaulting to the same comfortable bad habits that helped to elect him in the first place. If Trump becomes the Republican frontrunner and the party submits to his power — as is very likely — most of the media will default to that narrative framework. They will treat Trump’s campaign as a sporting event, chasing down scandals and invented drama about Republican infighting, indulging in false equivalency, forced and irresponsible attempts at humor, an abdication of any moral imperative and a view of Trump as a “unique” and “unconventional” candidate rather than an existential threat to American democracy.

Perhaps the worst and most dangerous of these bad habits is the focus on Trump as an individual, a performer and a celebrity. As with most other neofascist movements, the leader is less important than what he or she symbolizes and channels for their followers in what they believe to be a revolutionary struggle born of destiny and fate.

The mainstream news media, trapped in its own dream state, largely chooses to focus on Donald Trump as a personality rather than the cultural, political and larger societal forces he represents. That first kind of story is easier and more familiar; most members of the mainstream commentariat could literally write it in their sleep. 

Whatever may happen with Trump’s attempt to force America back into his dream-nightmare, he will unleash vengeance and suffering and misery on all who stand in his way — including what remains of the Republican Party.

In a recent interview with MSNBC, Mary Trump was asked what her uncle will likely do if the Republicans try to exile him after their unexpected losses in the midterm elections:

Donald becomes his most dangerous when he fears loss of relevance, when he fears that he is no longer the center of attention… when he fears that he is no longer the one in control. We don’t know just what kind of information he has on other people in his party. What we do know is he would be willing to use it. … Donald will burn everything down if he feels like he is going down.

In fact, if Donald Trump disappeared tomorrow, the American people might feel that they have finally woken up from the bad dream. But as in Freddy Krueger’s universe, that might be an illusion. The larger dream-nightmare of American neofascism will not dissipate entirely; it will still be available for Ron DeSantis or some other demagogue to wield and control. Consider what David Rothkopf told me in an interview after the midterms:

The Republican Party is turning on Trump because they see how toxic he’s been for them. Trump has lost three elections in a row for the Republicans. Someone is going to step into that void who is just as dangerous in their impulses. My main worry is about Trumpism, white supremacy and fascism. I worry much less about who the current champion of it all is.

Frankly, I am relieved that Donald Trump has finally announced his 2024 presidential campaign. After that “reveal,” Trump is perhaps most vulnerable. Those Americans who believe in democracy must resolve to sleep no more — to force themselves fully out of their slumber and defeat him. Do not underestimate the power of Donald Trump’s dreams. This may be our last chance. 

Republicans learned nothing from the midterms: The impeachment of Philly’s prosecutor proves it

As the Republican Party takes on its unexpectedly slim majority in the House of Representatives for next year, one question lingers: Did they learn a damn thing from the midterm elections? Yes, they won the House by a handful of seats, but overall the election was a massive disappointment for Republicans, who had swaggered into the midterms expecting not only a sweep of both houses of Congress but a whole bunch of state and local races across the nation. Instead, Democrats won key gubernatorial races in swing states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin. retained control of the Senate (and may end up gaining a seat) and if not for a redistricting fiasco in New York might well have held the House too.

It’s no secret that this mostly happened because of Donald Trump and his MAGA nonsense. Indeed, an analysis by Nate Cohn of the New York Times tried to calculate exactly how much being a MAGA true believer cost Republican candidates: It was around five percentage points, Cohn says, easily enough to make the difference between winning and losing in many key races. This realization is kicking off a genuine civil war in the GOP. One side wants to cut Trump loose at last, stop touting the Big Lie about the 2020 election and scale back on the culture war antics. The other side, however, clings to MAGA dogma with religious fervor, believing that cannot fail but can only be failed by RINO phonies. All eyes are closely watching the newly minted House majority and their presumptive speaker, the ever-hapless Rep. Kevin McCarthy. Will they finally tone down the Dumpster fire a tiny bit, or can we expect the next two years to be nothing but bug-eyed conspiracy theories, frivolous “investigations” of Joe Biden‘s family and Cabinet members and threats to sabotage the world economy if Biden refuses to gut Social Security? 


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


In the House, early indicators suggest that Team MAGA Forever is getting the upper hand. But for even more definitive evidence, it’s useful to look beyond the Beltway and toward the normally sleepy state capital of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In the state legislature there, Republicans have made it abundantly clear they have no intention of learning anything from the massive rebuke voters offered their party in the midterm elections. 

Hours before it was announced that Democrats have won a majority in the state House for the first time in 17 years, the lame duck legislature in Pennsylvania made its last stand for MAGA by impeaching Larry Krasner, the district attorney in Philadelphia. While understandably unknown to most people outside Pennsylvania, Krasner has become a favorite punching bag in right-wing media, for his anti-racist and progressive views on fighting crime. Republicans paint him as “soft on crime” and blame him for the rise in gun violence in Philadelphia, even though a likelier culprit is the lax statewide gun laws passed by Republicans

Krasner, for his part, is painting the impeachment as a direct attack on the right of Philadelphians to choose their own leaders. “History will harshly judge this anti-democratic, authoritarian effort to erase Philly’s votes — votes by Black, brown and broke people in Philadelphia,” he said in statement.

This impeachment of Krasner sews together two of the biggest and most racist themes that fuel the MAGA movement: A belief that anti-racist movements like Black Lives Matter are to blame for rising crime rates, and a belief that voters in racially diverse urban areas are “frauds” who are “stealing” elections from white conservatives.


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


Philadelphia was one of the cities at the center of Trump’s false allegation that Democrats had stolen the 2020 election from him. During his drawn-out coup attempt following that election, Trump sent several of his surrogates — most famously Rudy Giuliani during the “Four Seasons” debacle — to paint the citizens of Philadelphia as illegitimate voters and demand that the state legislature throw their ballots out. In targeting Philadelphia — along with other cities with large Black populations, such as Detroit and Milwaukee — Trump essentially implied that those cities are less deserving of democratic representation than whiter, more rural areas of their state. (Biden also won Pittsburgh, but Trump wasn’t nearly as interested in demonizing that city, which is more than 60% white.) 

Along with Chicago, New York and other racially diverse cities, Philadelphia has also become central to right-wing media efforts to blame crime on the Black Lives Matter movement. Even in his supposedly “serious” campaign announcement speech Tuesday, Trump made the grotesque claim that “The blood-soaked streets of our once-great cities are cesspools of violent crime.” In reality, the spike in crime in the past couple of years seems largely attributable to the pandemic. Gun sales rose during the lockdown and schools were closed, meaning the streets saw an influx of weapons and bored young people, an almost perfect prescription for rising crime. As the pandemic has begun to recede, homicides have also started to decline

As a progressive prosecutor in a racially diverse city, Krasner makes the perfect hate object for the MAGA movement. He easily beat a Democratic primary challenger and then won the general election. Impeaching him is a hapless symbolic gesture, but also an omen of what’s likely to come when Republicans take over the House of Representatives in January. Joe Biden will be subjected to endless investigations and may well be impeached, for the same reason Krasner was: Right-wing outrage over losing an election to a racially diverse coalition. 

Impeaching Krasner is symbolic — and an omen of what’s ahead when Republicans take over the House: They may well impeach Joe Biden, because they’re furious they lost an election to a racially diverse coalition.

Perhaps no other state illustrated the voter distaste for MAGA politics in the 2022 midterms more than Pennsylvania. In the two biggest statewide races, Republicans nominated candidates tightly aligned with Trump: Dr. Mehmet Oz was his hand-picked candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat, and state Sen. Doug Mastriano, the gubernatorial candidate, is a hardcore Trump loyalist who helped foment the Jan. 6 insurrection and has numerous links to Christian nationalist causes. They both got creamed, even though Oz was running against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who suffered a serious stroke that provoked ugly media coverage suggesting that he was unfit to serve. (Although Fetterman has some difficulty with auditory processing, his mental capacity is fine.)


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


Pennsylvania is a classic swing state in terms of demographics and party registration, but its legislature is controlled by the GOP and packed with Trumpers — including Mastriano, who literally paid for charter buses to send MAGA loyalists to D.C. ahead of the Capitol insurrection. As Spotlight PA reported, “Dozens of GOP state lawmakers — including those in leadership — also attempted to stop or delay Biden’s electoral votes from being counted.”

You might have thought Republicans would respond to losing their 17-year grip on the state House by dialing back the MAGA madness. Absolutely not: They forged ahead with their plan to impeach Krasner, who has not been accused of any crimes. This follows on the heels of a Republican threat to impeach Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf for implementing public health measures during the pandemic, and various impeachment threats against Philadelphia election officials, based on Trump’s false claims of fraud during the 2020 election. 

“They just don’t think Philly has a right to govern itself,” Krasner has stated. He’s right, and that’s pretty much the through-line of all these Republican efforts. Rather than engaging in self-examination when they lose elections, they attack the right of other Americans — especially those who aren’t white — to participate in the democratic process. Krasner’s impeachment is just a symptom of this larger problem. We shouldn’t expect any Republicans, anywhere, to respond to these midterm losses by actively trying to deradicalize their party. If only. They’ll just double down on conspiracy theories and lies, in a last-ditch attempt to delegitimize the voters who keep rejecting them.