Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

France to require all large parking lots to be covered by solar panels

This story was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

All large car parks in France will be covered by solar panels under new legislation approved as part of president Emmanuel Macron’s renewable energy drive.

Legislation approved by the French Senate this week requires existing and new car parks with space for at least 80 vehicles to be covered by solar panels.

The owners of car parks with between 80 and 400 spaces have five years to comply with the measures, while operators of those with more than 400 will have just three years. At least half of the area of the larger sites must be covered by solar panels.

The French government believes the measure could generate up to 11 gigawatts of power.

Politicians had originally applied the bill to car parks larger than 27,000 square feet before deciding to opt for car parking spaces.

French politicians are also examining proposals to build large solar farms on empty land by motorways and railways as well as on farmland.

Former United Kingdom prime minister Liz Truss considered blocking solar farms being built on agricultural land.

The sight of parked cars under the shade of solar panels is not unfamiliar in France. Renewables Infrastructure Group, one of the UK’s largest specialist green energy investors, has invested in a large solar car park in Borgo on Corsica.

Macron has thrown his weight behind nuclear energy over the past year and in September announced plans to boost France’s renewable energy industry. He visited the country’s first offshore windfarm off the port of Saint-Nazaire off the west coast and hopes to speed up the build times of windfarms and solar parks.

The move comes as European nations examine their domestic energy supplies in the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Technical problems and maintenance on the powerhouse French nuclear fleet has exacerbated the problem while the national operator EDF was forced to cut its output in the summer when French rivers became too warm.

The government has also launched a communication campaign, “Every gesture counts,” encouraging individuals and industry to cut their energy usage, and the Eiffel Tower lights are being turned off more than an hour earlier.

The French government plans to spend €45 billion ($53.3 billion) shielding households and businesses from energy price shocks.

Separately on Wednesday, ScottishPower announced it would increase its five-year investment target by £400 million ($473.6 million) to £10.4bn ($12.3 billion) by 2025. The UK solar and wind farm developer hopes to generate 1,000 jobs in the next 12 months.

Desperate conservatives rally around an absurd talking point: Trump pivots to being presidential!

The writing has always been on the wall: Republicans will almost certainly rally to Donald Trump’s side now that he’s running for president again, even though they know he’s a loser who will make their already unpopular party even more loathed. Sure, after Trump’s long and boring announcement speech at Mar-a-Lago Tuesday night, pockets of Republican resistance remained, mostly in the form of milquetoast claims that better alternatives exist for the 2024 GOP nomination. The editors at the National Review even tried to make their rejection sound firm, running an editorial simply titled, “No.” But of course the same group of people rejected Trump’s run in 2016, only to become some of his biggest apologists over the next four years. We’ve seen this story before. We know how it ends. 

The GOP’s lingering wariness around Trump has little to do with the fact that he attempted a coup that resulted in a violent insurrection on January 6, 2021. Instead, they’re worried about how said coup is affecting the electoral prospects of Republicans. Midterm candidates who campaigned on Trump’s Big Lie tended to lose their elections. Republicans now know that Trump’s whiny lies about the 2020 election are a political flop. They also know there’s no way Trump will talk about much else for the next two years. So they’re worried. 


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


Trump’s announcement speech seemed like it was intended to assuage that concern. He adopted the low energy, droning tone he takes when trying to bait the press into calling him “presidential.” He tried to stick to the teleprompter, which dished out a speech full of lurid lies along with the notion that he is running to serve the public instead of his own ego. But, as Heather “Digby” Parton noted at Salon, even though Trump “tried to follow through on the promise to be dignified and ‘buttoned up,’ [he] couldn’t sustain it.” Soon, he was raving incoherently about the supposed conspiracies against him. At one point, he even bellyached, “I’m a victim. I will tell you. I’m a victim.” 

Still, Trump’s supporters understand the narrative he’s trying to create: Boring elder statesman who has “moved on” from 2020. And so they’re pretending he gave the speech he was supposed to give, rushing forward to praise Trump for his newfound gravitas. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, always a reliable sycophant, shot out of the gate early with his spin: “If President Trump continues this tone and delivers this message on a consistent basis, he will be hard to beat,” he gushed on Twitter. 

The tweet describes a speech that is purely imaginary. Trump wasn’t disciplined or on message, especially after the first 20 minutes or so. The idea that he’ll be able to manage two years of campaign self-restraint is a joke. 

But across much of right wing media, the same talking point echoed: This is a new Trump, one with self-control and an outward-facing message about a better tomorrow! We swear! 

Despite the hyped assertions that Rupert Murdoch’s empire is turning on Trump, Fox News went all in, gushing over Trump’s supposed pivot to presidential. Contributor Mike Huckabee declared “the construct of the speech is pitch perfect” and swore that Trump “stays on this message.”

“If he keeps on like this tonight, he is unbeatable in 2024,” Huckabee said. 


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


Of course, as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo noted, all this spin was going on while Trump was still talking. Quite literally, Fox News turned down the volume on Trump’s rant so they could assure the audience that the speech was actually statesmanlike and sober. As Parton explained Wednesday, the talking heads went on like this for quite a while, praising Trump for supposedly giving a “very serious, powerful speech” that puts American “family’s interests first” over images of Trump holding forth, all while muting his actual words. 

If they had let the audience listen, however, they would have heard quotes like this: “The raid of Mar-a-Lago! Think of it! And I say, why didn’t you raid Bush’s place? Why didn’t you raid Clinton? 32,000 e-mails! Why didn’t you raid Clinton’s place? Why didn’t you do Obama?”

“Donald Trump’s Announcement Speech for 2024 Strikes the Right Tone,” raved at headline at Red State. Underneath, the writer gushed about the alleged “hopeful message for the future” in the speech. 

Actual text from the speech: “The total effect of the suffering is just starting to take hold. They don’t quite feel it yet. But they will very soon.” 

Both Breitbart and The Federalist also pitched in on clean-up duty, running pieces that implied he gave a tight 10 minutes of material like, “Two years ago we were a great nation and soon we will be a great nation again” and “This will not be my campaign. This will be our campaign all together.” They ignored that the speech was a rambling mess running over an hour long, built mostly around Trump’s favorite theme, self-pity. They definitely did not mention the speech was so dreadful that the audience tried to leave, and had to be forced by security to stay

We’re not talking about random passers-by. These people flew to Palm Beach for this specific event. 

As demonstrated by Fox News talking over Trump’s speech to tell viewers how great it supposedly was rather than let them hear it for themselves, the tapdance right wing propagandists are doing depends heavily on their audiences not engaging directly with Trump’s actual words. Few people watched the speech, which was very boring. The cable news networks, which seemed to have started off with the intention to play the whole thing unedited and live, cut away a few minutes in, rather than lose their audiences. Trump’s snowflake-sensitive ego will no doubt be hurt by the lack of interest in his actual speech, but ultimately, it benefits him. It’s a lot easier to bamboozle people about his allegedly dignified demeanor if no one is actually listening. 

Alas, for Trump loyalists, two years is a long time. At some point, people will start to pay attention to Trump’s actual words again. They’ll see he’s still harping on the Big Lie, that he’s unsubtly promoting QAnon, and that he still believes violence towards his political opponents is desirable. Lipstick can be applied as often as they like. But after seven years of this, there’s little chance they can hide that they’re trying to pretty up a pig. 

Democrats make history with state-level gains — and that could be crucial for democracy

Republicans have dominated state-level politics for over a decade, holding a large majority of both governorships and legislative chambers. But with the 2022 midterms, Democrats have begun to turn the tables — flipping legislative chambers in several states where partisan battles over democracy and abortion rights have dominated Democratic messaging.

In at least three legislative chambers, Democrats have apparently made history, taking control of both chambers in the Michigan legislature and the Minnesota state Senate. Democrats in Pennsylvania also claim they have won a majority in the statehouse, although votes continue to be counted and that result is not yet official.

In Michigan, Democrats haven’t controlled the state Senate since 1984, but now hold a trifecta in Lansing with control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion. Incumbent Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer easily won a second term, largely vowing to fight “like hell” for abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Her Republican opponent, Tudor Dixon, who was backed by former President Trump, supported a near-total ban on abortion and remained a prominent election denier. 

Michigan also passed a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in the state constitution. Legislative Democrats have already started discussing their plans to codify that constitutional amendments and repeal a 1931 law that criminalizes abortion.

In Minnesota, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (as state Democrats have been known since 1944) now control both the state House and Senate, along with the offices of governor, attorney general, secretary of state and state auditor, InForum reported. That combination hasn’t happened since 2014.

DFL members have begun floating ideas about codifying abortion rights, passing paid family leave and approving marijuana for recreational use, according to CBS

In one of the nation’s most closely-watched gubernatorial races, Katie Hobbs became the first Democrat elected as Arizona governor since 2006, narrowly defeating former TV newscaster Kari Lake, a longtime Trump ally who falsely claimed the 2020 election was rigged and repeatedly refused to say she would accept the results of her race if she lost. 

On the campaign trail, Hobbs promised to protect abortion rights in the Grand Canyon State, where a state judge ruled that a near-total abortion ban must be enforced after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Hobbs can also veto any dramatic election changes suggested by Trump allies in the Republican-dominated legislature, including getting rid of early voting and mail-in ballots.

In Pennsylvania, Democrats are inching closer to taking control of the state House for the first time in 12 years. Should they prevail, Democratic lawmakers hope to advance an agenda that will include laws enshrining abortion rights, increasing the minimum wage and allowing early counting of mail ballots, WHYY reported.


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


The pro-Democratic super PAC Forward Majority invested more than $20 million in state legislative races this year, with the majority of its funds going to support candidates in 25 districts across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Arizona.

“We got started in 2017 when we saw how much chronic underinvestment there had been in state legislative races and the consequences,” said Vicky Hausman, a co-founder of Forward Majority. Those consequences were seen in multiple areas, she continued: “Both in terms of democracy with unprecedented gerrymandering on the Republican side and voter suppression, but also how these unrepresentative majorities were increasingly affecting every issue women care about.”

With the Supreme Court set to rule in December on Moore v. Harper, a case that could grant state legislatures nearly unchecked authority over federal elections, Forward Majority wanted to focus on states “where there were the greatest threats to democracy,” Hausman said. 

Prior to the midterm elections, Republicans held full legislative control in every major battleground state, she added. If the “independent state legislature” theory is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it could become possible for legislators to throw out election results they don’t like and appoint their own presidential electors. 

“We saw that there was an opportunity to win majorities in the legislatures in Michigan. Pennsylvania and Arizona,” Hausman said. “That would essentially bring the number of Electoral College votes where Republicans control the full legislature down under the 270 threshold” required to elect a president. “We had an opportunity to win these legislatures and build a bulwark against the worst threats of the independent state legislature theory.”

Jan. 6 was “version 1.0 of Trump trying to steal the election,” Hausman said. “What he ran up against was his inability to have legislators actually change their [electoral] votes.”

Many legal experts believe that four of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have issued opinions indicating that they are likely endorse the independent state legislature theory. The potential consequences could be chaotic: State legislatures would presumably then have the ability to bypass the popular vote in their states and send their own slates of electors to Congress, provoking an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis.

“The insurrection at the Capitol was version 1.0 of Trump trying to steal the election,” Hausman said. “What he ran up against was his inability to have legislators actually change their votes. That’s the weak spot, that’s where a second potential coup and insurrection might succeed. Legislators have been core to Trump’s plans to overturn the next election.”

Democrats have underinvested in state legislative races for decades, Hausman added, often neglecting them entirely. When it comes to protecting and reforming democracy, she said, these races sometimes matter more than the headline-grabbing contests at the top of the ballot.  

“I hope this election can be a demonstration of what’s possible in terms of the wins themselves, but also what follows in the months and years ahead in terms of what we can do with power,” Hausman said. “I hope that this is a galvanizing and helpful moment that leads to increased and sustained investment in these battlegrounds that matter so much, both for democracy and for all these issues we care about.”

How Mastodon works — and why the “federated” network won’t be the new Twitter

In the wake of Elon Musk’s noisy takeover of Twitter, people have been looking for alternatives to the increasingly toxic microblogging social media platform. Many of those fleeing or hedging their bets have turned to Mastodon, which has attracted hundreds of thousands of new users since Twitter’s acquisition.

Like Twitter, Mastodon allows users to post, follow people and organizations, and like and repost others’ posts.

But while Mastodon supports many of the same social networking features as Twitter, it is not a single platform. Instead, it’s a federation of independently operated, interconnected servers. Mastodon servers are based on open-source software developed by German nonprofit Mastodon gGmbH. The interconnected Mastodon servers, along with other servers that can “talk” to Mastodon servers, are collectively dubbed the “fediverse.”

Mastodon U.

A key aspect of the fediverse is that each server is governed by rules set by the people who operate it. If you think of the fediverse as a university, each Mastodon server is like a dorm.

Which dorm you’re initially assigned to can be somewhat random but still profoundly shapes the kind of conversations you overhear and the relationships you form. You can still interact with people who live in other dorms, but the leaders and rules in your dorm shape what you can do.

If you’re particularly unhappy with your dorm, you can move to a new housing situation — another dorm, a sorority, an apartment — that is a better fit, and you bring your relationships with you. But you are then subject to the rules of the new place where you live. There are hundreds of Mastodon servers, called instances, where you can set up your account, and these instances have different rules and norms for who can join and what content is permitted.

In contrast, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook put everyone in a single, gigantic dorm. As millions or billions of people joined, the companies running these platforms added more floors and bedrooms. Everyone could communicate with each other and theoretically join each other’s conversations within the dorm, but everyone also has to live under the same rules.

If you didn’t like or didn’t follow the rules, you had to leave the megadorm, but you were not able to bring your relationships with you to your new housing — that is, to a different social media platform — or talk to people who stayed in your original megadorm. These platforms tapped into the resulting fear of missing out to lock people into a highly surveilled dorm where their otherwise private behavior was mined to sell ads.

Mastodon desktop homepageMastodon desktop homepage (Wikimedia Commons/Eugen Rochko)

Incentives for good behavior

The big social media companies sell ads to pay for two primary services: the technical infrastructure of hardware and software that lets users access the platform, and the social infrastructure of usability, policy and content moderation that keeps the platform in line with users’ expectations and rules.

In the Mastodon collection of servers, if you don’t like what someone is doing, you can cut ties and move to another server but keep the relationships you already made. This removes the fear of missing out that could otherwise lock users into a server with other people’s bad behavior.


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


There are a few factors that should put Mastodon servers under strong pressure to actively and responsibly moderate the behavior of their members. First, most servers don’t want other servers cutting ties entirely, so there is strong reputational pressure to police members’ behavior and not tolerate trolls and harassers.

Second, people can migrate between servers relatively easily, so the server administrators can compete to provide the best moderation experience that attracts and keeps people around.

Third, the technical and financial costs of creating a new server are much greater than the costs of moderating a server. This should limit the number of new servers cropping up to evade bans, which would avoid the endless “whack-a-mole” challenge of new spam and troll accounts that the big social media platforms have to deal with.

Not all milk and honey

The federated server model on Mastodon also has potential drawbacks. First, finding a server to join on Mastodon can be hard, especially when a flood of people trying to find servers leads to the creation of waitlists, and the rules and values of the people running a server aren’t always easy to find.

Second, there are significant financial and technical challenges with maintaining servers that grow with the number of members and their activity. After the honeymoon is over, Mastodon users should be prepared for membership fees, NPR-style fundraising campaigns or podcast-style promotional ads to cover server hosting costs that can go into the hundreds of dollars per month per server.

After the honeymoon is over, Mastodon users should be prepared for membership fees, NPR-style fundraising campaigns or podcast-style promotional ads.

Third, despite calls for newspapers, universities and governments to host their own servers, there are complicated legal and professional questions that could severely limit public institutions’ abilities to moderate their “dorms” effectively. Professional societies with their own methods of verification and established codes of conduct and ethics may be better equipped to host and moderate Mastodon servers than other types of institutions.

Fourth, the current “nuclear option” of servers entirely cutting ties with other servers leaves little room for repairing relations and reengagement. Once the tie between two servers is severed, it would be difficult to renew it. This situation could drive destabilizing user migrations and reinforce polarizing echo chambers.

Finally, there are tensions between longtime Mastodon users and newcomers around content warnings, hashtags, post visibility, accessibility and tone that are different from what was popular on Twitter.

Still, with Twitter melting down and the long-standing issues with the major social media platforms, for many people the new land of Mastodon and the fediverse doesn’t have to be all milk and honey.The Conversation

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

The landlord & the tenant: One kind of justice for those who own and another for those who rent

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

 

In West Allis, a Milwaukee suburb once dominated by a factory that long ago manufactured steam engines, ore crushers and kilns, a man living on West Hicks Street opens his back door to let the dog out and sees smoke.

It’s coming from the house next door, from the roof. He calls 911. “Seven, seven, five, zero,” he says. “The house is on fire.” He doesn’t see flames. But the smoke keeps pouring. Sunset is more than two hours away, but the smoke gets so thick it darkens the sky. It’s cold and wet. In the mud, in the side yard of the smoking house, there are two toy trucks and a stuffed animal.

Engine 1 and Engine 2 arrive within seconds of each other, then Engine 3.

There are two stories to the house. The top story is covered in stucco, the bottom in brick veneer. Angelica Belen lives in the house with her four children, the oldest 5, the youngest a toddler. In between are twin boys, 4 years old, one with cerebral palsy, the other with autism and epilepsy. Belen is 24. She’s a renter. The landlord, when she moved in, was Todd Brunner. Known around Milwaukee as the foreclosure king, Brunner collects properties others have lost to banks. He’s a familiar figure to building-code inspectors for his long list of violations.

Neighbors gather, drawn by the smoke and sirens. A battalion chief, the commander on scene, sees people watching from a nearby porch. He yells to them, asking if anyone is inside the smoking house. Their car is gone, no one is home, a man answers. The chief returns to his command car, gets on the radio and gives the all clear. The house is vacant, he says.

When firefighters go in, the smoke layer is so thick they can hardly make out anything. On the ground floor, in the kitchen, they see the fire. Flames roll across the ceiling, burning a hole 2 feet wide.

Embers from a bedroom above fall into the kitchen sink.

Todd Brunner is only 20 when, in the summer of 1977, he buys an old duplex on Milwaukee’s south side. He purchases the house with Glen Guldan, a friend from high school. A bank gives them a $24,000 loan.

For Brunner and Guldan, the house is an investment. The two young landlords are from the suburb of New Berlin, where the residents, to quote one magazine, are “remnants of Milwaukee’s white flight in the 1960s and ’70s or descendants of local farming families.”

At New Berlin Eisenhower High School, Brunner had been a football star, defensive tackle on a team that went undefeated his junior year, giving up fewer than 100 yards a game. Pat Raebel, nose tackle, played right next to Brunner. He remembers Brunner’s dad, proud of his son, coming to every game. (Brunner’s dad died a few years later in his 40s.) Brunner was popular, teammates recall. A nice guy. Into fast cars. His junior year, he was on prom court. Brunner’s senior year, students elect him a class officer. He leads the team in tackles. He’s all-conference. He’s honorable mention all-state. He’s the defensive line’s biggest player. One newspaper story pegs him at 6’6″, 245.

Brunner gets a scholarship to play football at Northern Illinois University. But the university has no record of him ever attending.

Before Brunner and Guldan turn 21, they go in on another nearby duplex. Then they keep going. Together they will buy more than a dozen properties, collecting more than $100,000 a year in rent.

In an apartment on Milwaukee’s south side, two girls, both toddlers, sit in their cribs, crying. One is naked, the other in a dirty diaper. They’ve been crying for much of the night.

Police arrive to find the door open and no adult anywhere. The house is filthy, the smell of urine and feces in the children’s bedroom so overpowering an officer holds his breath. Neighbors tell police the children’s mother, 20-year-old Dawn Sosa, left the day before and hasn’t returned. She often leaves her kids alone, the neighbors say. In the cupboards and refrigerator, police find little other than juice, cake and canned corn.

Nobody can say where Sosa went. Her husband, the children’s father, moved out earlier in the year.

Two days later, Sosa returns from a bar. She had gone to watch her boyfriend play in a band and didn’t come home because “it was too dark, too cold and too late,” she tells police. A friend was supposed to be watching the girls, she says.

Sosa is arrested and charged with child neglect. But ultimately, she gets to keep her kids. In 1987, she has a third daughter. Then, on May 20, 1988, at Sinai Samaritan Medical Center, Sosa gives birth to a fourth, a girl with both Puerto Rican and Menominee Indian ancestry.

Sosa names her Angelica.

Police detectives get called on a winter afternoon to investigate the death of a child who has been beaten and starved.

The child’s name is Marisol. She is Dawn Sosa’s daughter and Angelica’s younger sister. Marisol was 17 months old.

An autopsy reveals four broken ribs, a broken leg, a bruised jaw and bleeding in the brain. Marisol weighs 9.8 pounds. Asked if he’s ever seen a baby this malnourished, the pathologist says, “I have not.”

Prosecutors charge Sosa and her boyfriend, Ramon Velez. The story is all over the news. Velez tells police he hit Marisol two or three times a day. His reason, a police report says, was “Marisol had a mouth on her and would cry a lot.”

Angelica, now 3 years old, is the middle child of Sosa’s seven daughters. After Angelica came Rosalie, then Marisol. Those three sisters had the same father, a man their mom had left for Velez.

Sosa’s oldest daughter, 8, testifies at Velez’s trial. She says her mom slapped Marisol when she wouldn’t walk right. She says Velez took Marisol by the neck and slammed her against a wall. “Almost every day,” she says. Velez also brutalized Angelica and Rosalie, she says. When they sucked their thumb, “he would take a bottle of hot sauce and put it in their mouth.”

Velez is convicted of reckless homicide and gets 15 years.

Sosa pleads guilty to child neglect, resulting in death. When her sentencing comes, new horrors emerge, as details of her own childhood come before the court.

When Sosa was little, her mother hit her and her sisters with extension cords or whatever was handy. “The girls were locked in their room for days at a time,” a social worker’s report says. Food was slipped through the door. The girls peed in their boots. Sosa went into foster care, then, as an adult, had relationships with men who beat her. It is not uncommon, the social worker writes, for childhood abuse victims to partner with abusers, “and thus the cycle continues.”

The social worker advises against incarcerating Sosa, writing, “Up to this point, her life has been nothing but a prison.”

The prosecutor is Mark Williams, an assistant district attorney in his late 30s who handles only homicides. “To find justice for the families of homicide victims is the purest kind of law you can practice,” Williams will say. In Sosa’s case, Williams tells the judge: There’s “got to be incarceration.” How a mother could do this to her child, “I don’t understand it,” he says.

The judge tells Sosa: “You came from a terrible background. I feel for you.” Then he says: “Your mother was mentally ill. Are you mentally ill? I don’t think so. You are weak.”

The judge sentences Sosa to eight years.

After Marisol’s death, a psychologist evaluates Angelica. Angelica tells him that her mom and Velez both hit her with shoes and sticks. Angelica is “affiliative and dependent,” traumatized and anxious, the psychologist writes. “She chose to stand very close to examiner during much of the formal psychometrics.”

Like her mother before her, Angelica enters foster care. She and Rosalie stay together while the other sisters go elsewhere. At Sosa’s sentencing, a lawyer sounds a note of optimism about the girls’ future, now in the hands of the state. She says foster parents can undo any damage done and ensure “we don’t end up” in another courtroom in years to come, dealing with another generation of child abuse or neglect.

In Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Glen Guldan files a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Todd Brunner, and, in the spring of 1992, Guldan prevails. A judge orders Brunner to pay about $11,000. The two men’s friendship, and business partnership, is through.

Brunner is 35, married, with two kids, the youngest, a son, about to turn 2.

The men’s parting is remembered differently, depending on who’s remembering.

Rebecca Harms, who was Guldan’s wife, says when the partnership unraveled, Brunner would call their home at 2 a.m., screaming and threatening to kill Guldan. “We got an alarm system installed in our house, we changed our phone number, and my husband got a gun from a friend,” Harms says.

By this time, Guldan is fighting mouth cancer. Brunner makes an awful time even worse, Harms says. Guldan would go on to have 20 surgeries before dying at 44.

“Absolutely never happened,” Brunner will write later of threatening Guldan. They’d been best friends, according to Brunner. Once, while making a wine rack for Guldan, Brunner cut off four fingers; doctors reattached two, he says. They were both Type A personalities, with strong opinions, and when Guldan wanted to build a budget movie theater in a Milwaukee suburb, “I strongly disagreed so we went our own ways,” Brunner writes.

On the same day that the judgment is entered in favor of Guldan, Brunner declares bankruptcy in federal court in Milwaukee, using Chapter 13, a way to preserve property while slow-paying creditors. Bankruptcy can be seen as failure. Or it can be seen as a fresh start. Brunner sees it as part of being a self-made man. He will say, in years to come, “Every self-made man has filed bankruptcy at least three times in his life.”

As young children, Angelica and Rosalie move through foster homes. In one, they go to church. Angelica absorbs the stories. She finds solace in scripture’s description of a loving Father. She finds comfort in prayer. But not just the typical childlike petitions said before bed. For Angelica, faith becomes a lifeline.

In August of 1993, when Angelica is 5 and Rosalie 4, the girls are placed with two women, a mother and daughter. The girls call them Mom and Grandma. Mom works in a factory, second shift. Grandma is often gone.

And for Angelica and Rosalie, there is freedom — safety, even — in being left alone. Angelica walks to kindergarten, then walks home to find Rosalie in the basement or their bedroom, playing by herself. They make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. They drink Kool-Aid. In the summers, they get up when they want and leave the house when they want. They can play outside, do whatever. This lasts for three years, and for Angelica, these will be the best three years of her childhood.

“I did not feel neglected, or scared, or any of that,” she will write. “It was just that we had no adult supervision.”

Rosalie and Angelica walk into a beautiful house in Waukesha, a suburb west of Milwaukee. They’re 7 and 8. Their new foster parents tell the girls they can pick bedrooms. Each has a large bed with a floral print comforter, perfume on the dressers, and closets full of clothes and shoes. The rooms feel fit for princesses.

It is an inviting house, at first. And it’s a door to a different world — seats at “The Nutcracker,” insistence on proper enunciation. The girls stay up late, memorizing vocabulary. Angelica reads books usually assigned in middle school or high school. She’s reading Dickens and Twain.

But years later, when interviewed separately, Rosalie and Angelica will both describe another side to this home. If the girls don’t finish the milk in their cereal, the foster mom forces them to drink glass after glass until they are sick, they both say. When the girls complain of “starving” after a day of errands, the foster mom force-feeds them pancakes, saying, “You don’t know what starving is.” Sometimes, the foster parents pull the girls’ hair. Sometimes they force the girls to kneel, for hours, on gravel or stand on one leg, with arms out to the side, hangers on their wrists. If their arms drop and the hangers fall, they are further punished.

One night, Rosalie watches as the foster dad slams Angelica’s head against a wall, both sisters will later recall.

In Milwaukee County there is a Children’s Court file, with three manila folders, in which the girls’ whereabouts and well-being were charted. In these records, there’s no mention of abuse. Social workers often employ boilerplate language. “Angelica is a very energetic 8-year-old child who loves attention. She is extremely friendly and charming.” And the next year: “Angelica is a very energetic 9-year-old child who loves attention. She is extremely friendly and charming.”

Eventually, social workers note behavioral issues. Angelica “is angry, lashing out, tantruming and refusing to get dressed,” a report says. Sometimes she kicks Rosalie. To Rosalie, Angelica was like a cornered dog. “She was fight and I was flight,” Rosalie says years later. A caseworker writes that the foster parents have warned Angelica they won’t keep her if she doesn’t improve: “Angelica understands this and is really trying to be better.”

On January 16, 1998, an emergency order is issued to remove the girls from this home. The court record doesn’t explain why. All it offers is one sentence with a misspelled word: “Pre-adoptive placement has disrutived.” Years later, an aunt will write to a judge: “I knew things were not right in that home. I told the social workers and eventually they found out that Angelica and her sister suffered horrible abuse in that home.”

(A Journal Sentinel reporter recently interviewed this foster dad. He denied they abused the girls. Sometimes if the girls were lying or acting up, they’d have them kneel and face a wall for 10 or 15 minutes, he said. The agency took Angelica and Rosalie, concluding the placement wasn’t a good fit, he said.)

When Angelica is 10, she returns to the foster home of the two women she used to call Mom and Grandma. But things are not as before. They don’t want Angelica but must take her to keep Rosalie, they tell her. “I was told on a daily basis that I was unwanted, worthless, and stupid,” Angelica will later write.

This family adopts the girls when Angelica is 11. The two women’s home will provide Angelica a “safe, stable and nurturing environment,” a caseworker writes. This is where the family court file ends.

Rosalie and Angelica both say later that the two women tormented Angelica; they isolated her, and the woman they called Mom punched and kicked her. She takes Angelica to psychiatrists, who prescribe a litany of powerful antipsychotics and other medications including lithium, Depakote, Zyprexa, Neurontin, Lamictal and Wellbutrin.

A police sergeant in Pewaukee, a Milwaukee suburb that boasts of country living with a big lake for boating and fishing, gets dispatched to the parking lot of a McDonald’s. It’s close to 2 in the morning. The sergeant sees a car, a maroon Cadillac Escalade — it’s new, it’s a 2002 — parked near the drive-through, headlights burning, engine running, with a vanity license plate, “LANDLD.”

The driver is asleep.

The sergeant wakes him up and smells alcohol. The driver is Todd Brunner. The sergeant asks Brunner to recite the alphabet. Brunner stops after “E,” saying he can go no further, because his throat is dry. He blows a .14, well above the legal limit. A subsequent blood test comes back even higher.

Brunner is charged with driving drunk, something he’s been convicted of twice before. His first two convictions were in 1989 and 1993. In between those convictions he was charged with driving on a suspended or revoked license (third offense) and driving without a valid license (second offense).

Brunner pleads guilty, and prosecutors recommend a jail sentence of 120 days.

Brunner’s lawyer writes the judge, saying Brunner “is basically a hardworking man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Of Brunner’s prior convictions, the lawyer writes, “Drank a bit too much in an isolated incident, made a bad decision to drive and got caught.”

In the fall of 2003, the judge sentences Brunner to 35 days.

After Brunner serves 17 days, his wife writes the judge, asking that Brunner be allowed to serve his remaining time at home on electronic monitoring. She says he hurt his back and can’t sleep on the jail bunk and that without sleep he can’t run his business and that if he can’t run his business all his employees will lose their livelihoods.

In the court file for this case, a handwritten note in the margins of her letter says “denied without medical verification,” after which medical verification was provided, with a doctor writing the judge about Brunner’s aching back.

The jail no longer has records showing when Brunner was actually released. Brunner will later write that the jail was overcrowded and he was too big for the jail’s beds. The best he can remember, “I was released for good behavior.”

The house at 7750 West Hicks Street in West Allis, built in 1893, uses balloon framing, with long, wooden studs stretching from basement to roof. That style of construction saved money and time but introduced danger. If a fire broke out, those unbroken studs could become a highway for flames.

Todd Brunner buys this home, with three upstairs bedrooms and a steep, gable roof, in the spring of 2003. The purchase price is $50,507. He later bundles it with 10 other properties to get a $1.1 million loan from Tri City National Bank.

For Brunner, the West Allis house becomes part of a growing enterprise. In Milwaukee alone, he buys at least 65 properties from 2002 to 2005, many on the city’s economically distressed north side. He scoops up a Cape Cod on North 38th, a duplex on North 58th, a ranch on North 72nd. At sheriff’s sales, where foreclosed properties go up for auction, he’s such a fixture he has his own desk.

Brunner’s name is all over property records. It’s all over court records, too. He constantly sues, and he is constantly being sued. Court records turn up disputes with contractors, creditors, debtors, tenants, banks, utilities, code enforcers and tax collectors. He feuds with neighbors and with business associates and with business associates who once were neighbors.

In court, he wins some, he loses some. He’ll later say a lot of this litigation stems from tenants who don’t pay their rent or from properties he buys in poor condition, not up to code. “I was proud of the work we did on these properties,” he’ll write. With a crew that grew as big as 30, “we usually completely rehabbed them turning them from the worst to the best properties in the area.”

Brunner lives in Pewaukee, in a sprawling, serpentine house on two acres near the lake. In 2004, a neighbor accuses Brunner of harassment. Home surveillance video captured Brunner, in a Cadillac Escalade, pulling up to the neighbor’s home and yelling: “Cocksucker. Fucking piece of shit. Fuck. Come out here. I will kick your fucking ass.” At a court hearing, the neighbor testifies that Brunner has also pulled up on other occasions and revved his engine: “He sits out in front of the house, honking, roaring.”

A judge orders Brunner to stay away from the neighbor. Months later, according to a police report, the neighbor hears a vehicle outside his house, idling. He sees Brunner on an ATV. “Take a picture, motherfucker,” Brunner says, before driving off. Charged with violating the anti-harassment order, Brunner ends up being convicted of disorderly conduct and pays a $181 fine.

Years later, Brunner goes at it with a different neighbor. He pulls up to the neighbor’s house and yells at the family to “get off his land,” according to a police report. He says, “You want a piece of me?” A deputy writes in his report, “It should be noted, Todd is a very large man approximately 400 pounds.” Brunner subsequently appears in the neighbor’s driveway with a tape measure. “For some reason,” a deputy writes, “Brunner believes the asphalted driveway … is now his property.”

Doctors tell Angelica Belen that her first child will be a boy. So the arrival of a girl, when Belen is 19, leaves her with no name prepared. A day later she’s doing the word search puzzle and spies, between the circled words, four letters, N-A-Y-A.

Naya will be her name, Angelica says. No, make it Nayeli, the father says. Because it means “I love you” in the language of the Zapotecs, an indigenous population from southern Mexico.

As Naya grows, her mother sees that she is smart, charismatic, funny, kind, “a bit sassy, and very easily distracted.” Naya walks early, talks early, reads early. When she’s 2, she trick-or-treats as a Spanish dancer in a red dress. She loves cute shoes, big bows in her hair and lip gloss. And she loves ballet. She idolizes Misty Copeland, a Black ballerina. Her favorite singers are Rihanna and Beyonce. They are brown like her, and true to the title of Beyonce’s smash album, they are “fierce.” That word is Naya’s “every aspiration,” Belen later writes. Naya will say, “Mom, I just need to be fierce, I am fierce, I need to look fierce.”

In 2008, when Belen is 20, she has twin boys, born premature.

Adrian, 3 pounds, 12 ounces at birth, has epilepsy and autism. He gets medication for seizures, and as he grows, he is quiet, gentle and sweet. He loves wearing his Batman costume. His favorite song is “Bohemian Rhapsody.” He keeps pennies in his pocket and helps his mom around the house, putting dishes in the sink. His mom will give him rubber bands and paper clips, and he will make an airplane. On a trip to Famous Footwear, he goes to a bin and starts sorting, white socks here, black socks there.

Alexis, or Alex for short, is even smaller at birth: 3 pounds, 7 ounces. He has cerebral palsy. He gets physical therapy and speech therapy. When he crawls at 15 months, his mom claps; when he pulls himself up at 19 months, she cheers; when he walks at 22 months, she cries. His mom calls Alex her “little spitfire.” If there’s trouble to be had — say, smearing grape jelly and mustard everywhere — Alex is the one to start it, while Adrian tags along. Alex’s favorite movie is “The Avengers.” He likes to sit in his mom’s lap, and if she cries, he strokes her face.

Naya is close to her brothers. She goes along on their visits to therapists and doctors. Belen teaches Naya to protect her brothers. After Belen burns cookies and a smoke alarm goes off, she instructs Naya on fire safety, saying, try to find a safe way out, and if you can’t, put a towel under the door to block the smoke and throw toys out a window and scream, so someone can hear.

In the summer of 2010, Todd Brunner sells the house on West Hicks Street in West Allis. Only it’s not really a sale, because no money is exchanged. As Brunner will later admit in court papers, he’s trying to shield this house — and many others — from creditors.

Brunner creates three shell companies, in which he hides real estate, cars and boats. He doesn’t exactly cover his tracks; they’re organized under the name of his son, Shawn. Shawn is in college. He’s 20. He’s on Facebook posting “eat pray blowjob” and “getting white boy wasted tomorrow?!?”

When Shawn was 17, he was charged with a felony for throwing fireworks at a passing train, causing temporary hearing loss for an engineer leaning out a window. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a $325 fine. When Shawn turned 18, his dad, as a birthday present, gave him $100,000 to invest in real estate.

Todd Brunner files for bankruptcy, again, declaring, in court records, that he owes more than $18 million to creditors listed across 60-plus pages.

He owes taxes to 29 municipalities, from Brookfield to West Allis. At least nine banks hold mortgages. He owes First Business Bank $2.2 million for a construction loan for a failed venture to build an assisted-living center for seniors. He has unpaid court fines and condominium dues; outstanding debts to suppliers and lawyers; and credit card balances ranging from $350 to $92,000.

He lists 218 properties he owns in Wisconsin. They include many rentals, with paying tenants, but even so, Brunner lists, as his monthly income, “$0.00.”

The bankruptcy records include Brunner’s personal possessions, revealing an attraction for what he later calls “some cool toys.” He owns a 1918 Rauch & Lang electric car; a 1937 Ford Coupe; a 1959 Jaguar; a 1984 Rolls Royce; and a 2006 Bentley worth $70,000. He also owns a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, an ATV and at least eight trucks.

Brunner’s flashy collection doesn’t sit well with some creditors. “A guy doesn’t usually come out here in a Bentley to tell you he can’t pay you 1,900 bucks,” the president of a window-and-door dealer tells the Journal Sentinel. Brunner’s boats include a 30-foot catamaran that, he writes, reaches 134 mph and consumes 136 gallons of fuel an hour, wide-open throttle. He also owns a 37-foot cigarette boat, worth $80,000, named El Diablo.

Kerry Kneser, a former football teammate of Brunner’s, remembers working at a bank in Pewaukee and seeing Brunner pull up, in a Bentley, and park in a no-parking zone. “At that point he had an attitude, I can do whatever I want.”

​​Dennis Witthun Jr., a former business partner of Brunner’s, says Brunner wore a gold necklace with diamond-encrusted propellers. Brunner, Witthun says, “was a good actor.” Witthun says he once went with Brunner to meet with bank officials to seek relief with a big loan. In the meeting, Brunner cried with “actual tears,” Witthun says. Then outside the bank Brunner stopped crying and said to Witthun, “How was that?”

(“Never happened/ A total lie,” Brunner later writes to a reporter when asked about this.)

One week after Brunner files for bankruptcy, a sheriff’s deputy finds two of Brunner’s employees on railroad property, according to police records. The two say they were digging a channel under the tracks to run electricity from one of Brunner’s rental properties to his boat lifts on Pewaukee Lake.

Brunner tells deputies he did indeed order this work. He says he doesn’t have a permit “but would pull one with the City of Pewaukee during the week,” according to a deputy’s report. A couple of trains get delayed while the track is inspected for possible damage to the railroad bed. The railroad fills the hole — 3 feet long, 1 foot wide — and Brunner’s employees get charged with, and convicted of, trespassing.

(Brunner himself wasn’t charged, based on what these records show. Asked recently about this incident, Brunner wrote: “I never said I would get a permit because I didn’t think I needed one. We were just driving a 1′ pipe underneath the railroad tracks, that never hurt anything and we were only copying what other neighbors had done years earlier. I paid for the tickets my people got.”)

The West Allis code inspector who shows up at 7750 West Hicks Street doesn’t go inside. On this spring day in 2011, he inspects only the house’s exterior, checking for violations.

Milwaukee, 6 miles east, has a program at this time requiring interior inspections of rental units in particularly distressed neighborhoods. Its program recognizes that if a renter notifies the city of some problem — say, failing pipes or faulty wiring — an upset landlord could respond by filing to evict. Milwaukee strives to catch dangerous conditions without exposing renters to retaliation.

West Allis has no such program. Its inspector sees what he can from the outside, and at 7750 West Hicks, he sees five violations, including weeds, a boarded-up window, scattered junk, and wood in need of paint.

The remaining violation falls under the city’s electrical code. But the inspector’s written notes offer only six words of description: “two outlets east side of house.”

On June 14, the inspector sends a “notice,” directing the landlord, Todd Brunner, to fix the violations by June 30.

On July 20, the inspector returns and sees the same violations. He sends an “order,” demanding Brunner fix them by August 20.

On August 22, the inspector sees that three violations remain, including the problem outlets. He sends a “second order,” demanding Brunner fix them by September 22.

Angelica Belen didn’t plan for another child, but her IUD fails. She’s 23 when her fourth child is born, and her fourth child, like her second and third, is born premature. Born at 28 weeks, he has a breathing disorder; he needs a nebulizer three times a day, an inhaler twice a day. She carries him constantly, afraid he’ll have an asthma attack.

When Belen first met the boy’s father, he seemed caring and helpful. He went to the kids’ doctor’s appointments and sat and played with them. “More than anything else that’s what drew me into him,” she’ll write years later. But a few months after their child’s birth, he hits Belen in the face, bloodying her nose, then grabs and shakes her head, according to a criminal complaint. He gets convicted of disorderly conduct and is ordered to stay away from Belen.

For Belen, this is history repeating. The twins’ father had also been a good father at first. Then, she says, he became violent and lapsed into drugs, and she knew she had to leave him.

In the spring of 2012, Belen gets evicted from her home in Oak Creek, south of Milwaukee. It’s her second eviction, the kind of history that will make it hard to find a new place. The man who served the eviction papers sees three children outside, unattended, near a busy intersection, two in diapers so soiled they hang to the knees.

Belen gets a job at a thrift shop but loses it for missing too many days taking care of her kids.

She enrolls Naya in Saint Lucas, a Lutheran school in Milwaukee, even though it will require her to drive Naya back and forth every day. On days when Belen’s minivan breaks down, she takes her by city bus. A fellow mom writes of seeing Belen arrive one winter day, “her baby strapped to her chest and one boy in each hand,” out of breath, having walked a half-mile from the bus stop through snow. Robert Gurgel, the parish pastor, notices Belen in the pews at church. “I thought who is this woman with these well-groomed, well-mannered children,” Gurgel will later say. “I wondered what her story was.”

Belen makes beautiful dresses for Naya, and she makes it to school events, like Pastries with Parents, and she volunteers to help clean the school on weekends.

The way Todd Brunner divulges information in his latest bankruptcy declaration, dribbling it out, angers creditors and the U.S. trustee, who monitors cases and enforces bankruptcy laws. Asked in a hearing where he got the information needed to fill out the voluminous bankruptcy forms, Brunner says, “Out of my head.” As creditors and the trustee keep digging, he keeps revealing more assets, including a backhoe, a forklift, boat propellers, five guns and four pieces of real estate in Bend, Oregon.

In January 2012, the trustee asks that Brunner’s request for bankruptcy protection be denied. “A core purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide a fresh start for honest debtors,” the trustee’s motion says. “It is not a safe haven for fraud or deception.”

Brunner accused a former secretary of throwing all his records in a snowbank. (“Not truthful,” the trustee’s motion says.) Brunner transferred properties into shell companies when in financial trouble — a “badge of fraud,” the motion says. He then moved many of them back, including the house in West Allis. He didn’t disclose his income to the bankruptcy court; he hasn’t filed federal tax returns for two years running; and he declared assorted assets only after creditors asked about them, the motion says. The trustee likens Brunner’s actions to “a game of ‘cat and mouse.'”

In April 2012, the bankruptcy judge tosses Brunner’s bankruptcy request out of court. Brunner, the judge says, blamed his poor record-keeping on a former record-keeper, his property transfers on bad advice from a former lawyer, and his poor property management on a property-management company. “You have a propensity to blame others,” the judge tells Brunner. “And you seem to be portraying yourself as an innocent victim, and I’m not persuaded by that at all.”

Instead of getting protection from creditors, Brunner’s now in trouble with law enforcement. In June, an assistant U.S. attorney emails federal and local authorities about what she calls Brunner’s “multi-faceted fraud activity.” At least three Milwaukee police detectives work with federal agents; their emails back and forth reveal an investigation that keeps expanding. Subpoenas go out to banks, title insurers, property managers. Investigators collect rent ledgers, loan applications, balance sheets. They interview Brunner’s business partners, tenants and at least two of his former lawyers.

Banks swoop in to collect. In October 2012, Brunner, questioned under oath by one bank’s lawyer, says, “This is just a witch hunt.” He says, “I wasn’t meaning to defraud anybody.” He says, “If you think I got a big bag of money somewhere, you’re wrong.” Some questions, he just won’t answer. He refers to getting a high-interest loan but treats the loan’s source as a secret.

“I borrowed it from an attorney. He makes loans.”

“And who is that attorney?”

“He doesn’t want his name out there.”

“So you’re willing not to answer this question under oath to protect the attorney?”

“I’m done with this right now. What else do you want?”

Two days later, the FBI raids Brunner’s home, seizing computers and paperwork. Separately, the FBI finds, in a warehouse, expensive engines, superchargers and gauges that had been stripped from El Diablo, Brunner’s cigarette boat.

A fire starts in the garage of a rental house on Ridgeview Drive in the Milwaukee suburb of Brookfield, and the fire spreads to the house, but thanks to a barking dog, the two people sleeping inside on this Friday morning are alerted to the blaze and able to get out.

Crews from fire departments around Milwaukee respond to the fire, which causes about $150,000 worth of damage. Firefighters fill out a form for the fire, and in the section titled “Ignition,” in the subsection for “Heat source,” the author types, “Electrical arcing.”

The rental home’s owner is Todd Brunner.

In nearby Milwaukee, firefighters are accustomed to getting called to Brunner’s rental properties.

In December of 2009, they get called to a house of Brunner’s on North 41st Street. The incident report says “bad outlet.” Firefighters shut off power to the outlet and advise the tenant to call an electrician.

In May of 2010, firefighters get called to a house of Brunner’s on North 28th Street. The incident report says the woman living there “witnessed sparks coming from electric outlet.” Firefighters shut off power to the kitchen, the room with the sparking outlet, and advise her to call an electrician.

In July of 2012, firefighters go to a house of Brunner’s on North 65th Street. The incident report says “OUTLET SPARKING.” Firefighters shut down the circuit and advise: “contact landlord.”

Knowing nothing about the house’s landlord, Todd Brunner, Angelica Belen signs a lease and moves with her four kids into 7750 West Hicks Street in West Allis. For weeks, Belen’s family had been sleeping in her minivan or at a relative’s house or in a shelter. Now, with the help of government assistance for her children with disabilities, she can rent this house — a big house — for $825 a month. “This place looked like a dream come true,” she’ll write later.

In the kitchen, one light flickers. A friend tightens the bulb, but still, Belen needs to flip the switch several times to turn the light on. The light above the kitchen sink is worse. The first time she turns it on, two bulbs blow. She replaces them and tries again, but those bulbs blow as well, leading her to give up. She tells the property manager about the problems with the lighting, but nobody comes to fix whatever is wrong, Belen will say later. Belen considers calling the city but chooses not to, fearing her landlord will kick her out.

Thelma Nash, who rented the house before Belen, says the wiring throughout was “a mess.” “The lights were going on and off all the time,” Nash says. “I thought there were ghosts in there.” She complained to property managers but got no response, she says. She never saw an electrician make repairs.

A month or so after moving out, Nash meets Belen while returning to pick up mail. Nash asks if the electrical wiring has been fixed, and when Belen says no, Nash tells her, “Baby, they shouldn’t have let you move in.”

There is so much about the house Belen doesn’t know. She doesn’t know about the code inspector who has flagged two exterior outlets. She doesn’t know what the wiring looks like in the basement, because she doesn’t go down there. Basements give her the creeps; plus, a property manager told her the floor had been torn up. And she doesn’t know the house’s history.

In the summer of 1978, decades before Brunner became owner, the house caught fire. As smoke poured from the eaves and windows, firefighters found, in an upstairs bedroom, a teenager. She wasn’t breathing. She had no pulse. Firefighters carried her outside and resuscitated her.

The fire department classified the fire’s cause as electrical. A TV overheated, the battalion chief wrote. A captain, in a report now preserved on microfilm, requested an electrical inspection of the house by the city’s Fire Prevention Bureau. He wrote, “Various electrical code violations were noted in the building while overhauling — especially the basement.”

On the final day of 2012, a year and a half after the code inspector first flagged the problem outlets, the city’s file on the house on West Hicks Street is closed.

After Todd Brunner failed to respond to the “notice,” then the “order,” then the “second order,” the city filed a citation against Brunner, hoping that would get his attention. Brunner failed to appear in municipal court, resulting in a $5,000 default judgment, after which Brunner’s attorney got the case reopened and then resolved with payment of a $50 fine.

But what happened at the house is unclear. The inspector’s notes — handwritten and at times barely legible — indicate the issue with the outlets was corrected in March 2012. But just as his initial notes didn’t specify the problem, his subsequent notes don’t describe the fix.

Nash, the home’s renter in early 2012, says she doesn’t remember anyone coming to the house to do repairs. There is no record on file of anyone getting an electrical permit. Electrical permits trigger an inspection by city engineers who can ensure work was done — and done properly.

A social worker is on her way to Angelica Belen’s house when she notices that Belen is driving right in front of her in a minivan. The social worker sees Belen arrive at her home and get out with only her daughter.

Belen, the worker discovers, has left her three boys in the home, alone. The twins are crying; the toddler is in a high chair. Confronted, Belen makes up a story, then admits the truth: She’d left them for about an hour while picking up Naya from school.

The social worker is with the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare, an agency that helps families in crisis. Child welfare officials have received at least a half-dozen complaints about Belen, all of which they’ve found to be unsubstantiated or not credible enough to investigate. But there are real problems. Social workers report that Belen has been missing therapy appointments for her children. Their medication isn’t being routinely refilled. Her home is often filthy, with dirty diapers and garbage strewn about.

The bureau is doing unannounced visits. Social workers have been meeting with Belen about once a week to work on family safety. They tell her: Under no circumstances should she leave her kids alone.

Two weeks later, Belen drives to a store in West Allis and goes inside with Naya to buy art supplies. Outside, in the parking lot, a man discovers the twin boys walking around. One nearly gets hit by a car. Someone else discovers Belen’s youngest child inside the minivan, alone and crying. The police are called, and caseworkers notified, and Belen says this is how she was raised, that as a child she’d been left in the car with no harm done.

In a follow-up, a West Allis police detective goes to Belen’s home on March 18 and does a walk-through. The children seem OK, the detective reports. There’s clutter, the kitchen is dirty, food seems limited, but the detective doesn’t see anything dangerous. The detective returns the next day and reports that conditions have “improved greatly.” The kitchen’s clean, floors vacuumed, refrigerator restocked.

For the two instances of leaving three of her kids alone, Belen gets charged with six misdemeanor counts of child neglect.

While those charges are pending, child welfare officials decide to let Belen’s children remain in the home.

On April 9, a social worker visits Belen and sees no cause for concern. The home is fine. The children appear happy. Belen has a new job, as a hostess at a Chinese restaurant, and says she’ll be putting her kids in day care.

Angelica Belen wakes up around 6 a.m.

Then she wakes up Naya, Adrian and Alex.

She makes oatmeal for breakfast, then gets everyone ready, faces washed, teeth brushed. Naya wants to wear her blue tights, but Belen can’t find them, so Naya wears pants instead.

Around 7:30 they pile into the minivan, all four of them. (Belen’s youngest child is with his dad today.) Belen drives east into Milwaukee, to Naya’s school, Saint Lucas Lutheran. The trip’s just 6 miles, but with city traffic it can take 20 minutes. It’s cold and wet. Naya doesn’t want to get out of the van. But there’s a place to pull up, close to the school’s doors. Belen drives up and Naya goes in.

Then it’s 6 miles back.

Belen and her twin boys get home after 8. They watch a movie, “Lilo & Stitch,” for “the thousandth time,” as Belen puts it.

Around noon, a social worker comes by to check on the family. The kids are watching another movie, “Stardust.” The social worker stays at the house for 30, maybe 40 minutes.

After she leaves, Belen makes lunch. Macaroni and cheese. She makes two boxes because they always eat more than one.

The boys watch “Lilo & Stitch” again while Belen changes clothes, preparing for work later today. This will be just her third shift at Lychee Garden, a restaurant she’d been going to since she was a child. She’s scheduled for 4 to 7.

Belen changes the boys’ diapers. She changes Adrian’s shirt, because he got macaroni and cheese on it. Around 2:30 she puts them in the van, and it’s back to school, to pick up Naya, then back home again, pulling in sometime after 3.

When she worked two nights ago, Belen found neighbors, neighbors she barely knew, to watch her kids. Going forward she’ll have subsidized day care; her boss has already signed the form, verifying her employment. She’ll be dropping those papers off tomorrow at the county office.

But for today, she’s been unable to find anyone to babysit. At 3:47 she tries one more time, she calls one of her sisters, but the sister can’t.

Belen gives her kids hugs and kisses, tells them she loves them and promises to bring home almond cookies from the restaurant.

Play with your toys, she tells them. When I get home, we’ll have spaghetti for dinner.

She puts Naya, Adrian and Alex in the boys’ bedroom, the one just above the kitchen. She closes the door.

And locks it.

At 3:49, she drives away.

The same day, at 10:48 a.m., as Angelica Belen’s twins are watching “Lilo & Stitch,” or perhaps by now they’re watching “Stardust,” Todd Brunner is supposed to be in Milwaukee Municipal Court.

The court’s docket has two cases in which Brunner has been charged with 14 counts of violating building-maintenance codes. One count is for not fixing a rental home’s porch steps. Another is for not fixing a foundation to keep out rodents.

His arraignment is this morning. But Brunner fails to show.

The judge finds Brunner guilty of all 14 counts and fines him $14,050. If Brunner fails to pay, he could be jailed for 171 days.

That sounds serious. But the threat is hollow.

The year before, city inspectors ordered Brunner to fix defective electrical wiring at one rental, defective electrical fixtures at another and a defective electrical outlet at a third. When Brunner failed to show he had fixed anything, the city charged him, adding three code violations to a long and growing list.

In 2013, Brunner will be called to court to face 134 code violations. He won’t contest any and will be found guilty of all. He’ll be fined more than $100,000 and threatened with more than three years in jail. (Nine years later, he will have paid less than half and served not one day.)

On this very day, the city has at least 11 warrants out for Brunner’s arrest, for failure to pay his fines. Not one warrant will ever be executed. In this, Brunner is the beneficiary of a practice meant to help the poor. Municipal court, not wishing to jail low-income people who can’t afford to pay fines and traffic tickets, generally allows people with warrants to have at least four contacts with police before being arrested.

At 1:18 p.m., two and a half hours after Brunner fails to appear in court, a deed is recorded at the Milwaukee County Assessor’s Office showing Brunner no longer owns the house at 7750 West Hicks Street in West Allis. That’s the house where, at about this time, Belen is cleaning up after lunch, or perhaps getting ready for work.

Brunner, the foreclosure king, lost the home six weeks ago in foreclosure to Tri City National Bank.

In online records, the new deed will take a while to show up. So this evening, when a member of the West Allis Fire Department searches for the home’s owner, Brunner’s name will still appear. The firefighter will call Brunner, get no answer, then leave a message and get no response.

Angelica Belen clocks out at the restaurant at 7:06 p.m., then drives home. Nearing her house, she sees firetrucks. A block from her street, she sees a police officer. He tells her a house is on fire. Which one, she asks. He doesn’t know the address, but with each detail he offers, the north side of the street, the far side of the alley, realization, then panic, set in.

She jumps out of her car, leaving it where it is, the door open, and runs toward her house, in ballet flats, splashing through puddles, praying, please, God, not this, not my kids. People try to stop her, but she runs past. In her yard she finds a firefighter and asks, frantically, about her kids.

There’s nobody in there, the firefighter tells her.

While Belen was at work, firefighters from West Allis and nearby cities had chased the fire through the home. Discovering a locked door on the second floor, they’d used a Halligan tool to force it open. But they couldn’t search the room; the smoke was thick, the floor unstable.

Belen tells firefighters that she believes her children are inside. She says her sister was with them and may be inside, too.

A firefighter climbs a ladder up the side of the house and goes through a window into the boys’ bedroom. Underneath a dresser he sees what appears to be a doll’s hand.

He lifts the dresser and says, “Oh my God.”

Firefighters find all three children dead, their bodies in a corner, touching.

Detective Thomas Kulinski turns on the tape recorder and waits for Angelica Belen. It’s 11:29 p.m., about four hours after Belen learned of her daughter’s and sons’ deaths.

“How you doing? Doing OK?” he asks as she enters.

Kulinski interviewed Belen once already, earlier tonight. She’d told him that when she’d left for work today, she had left her kids at home with her sister Nicole. But police now know that’s a lie. They’ve interviewed Nicole, and Nicole has detailed her day, and the police have corroborated her timeline.

Kulinski, a former Marine with a graduate degree in theology, reads Belen her rights. Then he tells her: “Your sister wasn’t there. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your sister wasn’t there.”

He asks Belen, “Who was with the kids when you left for work?”

For 13 seconds, there is silence. Then Belen says, “No one, sir.”

She tells him that she had no one to babysit, that she’d called around, with no luck, that she’d just started her job, she needed the job, and if she didn’t show, she would have been fired.

“There was nobody in your life at all that could have watched your kids?”

“I have nobody.”

“Why didn’t you build a better support system for yourself?” Kulinski asks.

“What support system? These people were never there for me.”

Belen tells the detective: “There’s been nobody in my life. For 24 years I’ve been either beaten, abused, left alone to fend for myself. That’s, that’s what I’ve had.”

“Don’t make me look. Please don’t make me.”

Angelica Belen is being interviewed by Detective Nick Pye, who has brought photographs to the cellblock where she’s now being held. Pye says the medical examiner is having trouble telling her sons apart, so they want her help. One boy died with his face away from the flames. Pye would like her to say if it is Alex or Adrian.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, please don’t,” she says.

She describes her sons, to help distinguish them. Adrian was taller, his hair curlier. He sucked his thumb, and his bottom teeth, the ones in the middle, were pushed in.

“You’re not going to show me the pictures, please don’t,” she says. “Please, sir, please, I’m begging you, please. Please.”

As Belen speaks, her breath is short. She sounds panicked, exhausted. But Pye expects tears. After 18 minutes, he says, “How come you’re not crying?” She tells him she has cried and screamed, horrified at what she’s done, and now she’s numb. She says she wants to remember her kids the way they were. She asks the detective if he’d want to see his kids this way.

After a half hour, Pye tells her, “I’m not going to force you to, I mean, OK?” When she starts to waver, he says: “I’ll tell you what. Your choice. I’ll slide it face down under the door, OK, and you can take as brief a glimpse …”

“No, no. I can’t, I can’t do that alone,” she says.

So he stays. “You ready?” he says. She looks at the photo.

“Alex,” she says, and he turns off the recorder as she gasps and wails.

Detectives Pye and Kulinski interview Belen for what is now the fifth time. This interview lasts more than two and a half hours.

Belen talks of leaving her children alone. She never wanted to do what her mother did, to hurt her kids. But “in the end,” she says, “I did exactly what she did, only three times worse.” She didn’t want to lose her job, Belen says. She’d told her kids that with her first paycheck, she’d buy them toys. Naya wanted a Barbie Dreamhouse. The boys wanted action figures — for Adrian, Batman, for Alex, Captain America.

The detectives want Belen to admit locking the bedroom door. “I swear to you, I swear to you, on everything that is holy, I would never lock my kids in the room,” she says. They offer her an out: By locking her kids in, she thought she was keeping them safe. The kids couldn’t get to the kitchen and play with knives. They couldn’t leave the house and wander into traffic. Belen refuses their offer.

Finally, after an hour, Pye screams at her, “How did they get locked in the room!”

“I don’t know!” Belen screams back.

Soon after, she gives in. She admits turning the lock. “Because it kept them safe,” she says. She tells the detectives that when she was a kid, she was left alone and nothing happened, “everything was fine.”

Did her kids try to open a window? Belen asks, at one point.

“I think they did. Because there were some toys laying on the ground,” Pye says.

“She tried,” Belen says. “She tried, she did what I told her to do. She tried. My sweet baby girl, she tried.”

Death certificates show the children died from inhalation of soot and products of combustion.

The detectives tell Belen that with the high level of carbon monoxide in the children’s blood, the kids would have become numb. Euphoric, even. “You just close your eyes,” Pye says. “You go to sleep,” Kulinski says.

“The fire didn’t get them first?” Belen asks.

“No,” Kulinski says.

Pye tells Belen about electrical problems in the house. He describes the power hookup to one bathroom as “about the most careless thing I’ve ever seen in my life.”

“The fire is not your fault,” he says.

Kulinski talks about how old the house is and says, “What are the odds that it would burn down the three hours you’re gone?”

There’s no predicting how things will turn out, Kulinski tells Belen. Some jurors could understand why she did what she did. Some could sympathize with what she’s endured. And some jurors, he says, “will look at you as the devil and want to take you out back and shoot you.”

A lieutenant from the West Allis Fire Department meets with an electrical engineer at the house in West Allis where the children had died four days before. They are among 12 people from four departments — federal, state and local — investigating the fire’s cause.

They start outside, at a pole-mounted transformer. Then they follow the electricity, looking for evidence of arcing, where a current may have jumped off course. They examine the service panel in the basement, then trace the circuits running up, removing drywall and flooring to ensure they don’t lose track of each current’s path.

Ultimately, their investigation takes them to the kitchen and to a space, 1 foot deep behind a wall, filled with plumbing, heat vents and wiring. Here, they find their answer. The fire, they conclude, started with a failure in the circuit that powered the light above the kitchen sink.

The state classifies the fire’s cause as “accidental.”

No one is charged in connection with the fire’s ignition. Only Belen is charged, for what came after. Prosecutors charge her with three counts of criminal neglect of a child, resulting in death.

An employee with Badger Process Service Inc. goes to Brunner’s home on May 31, 2013, to serve an order requiring Brunner to answer questions about money he owes the city of Milwaukee.

No one answers the door. She leaves a card. She returns on June 4 and finds the door open. But no one answers. On June 6 she returns at 10:10 a.m. and again at 8:30 p.m., and both times, “someone is home but won’t answer,” she later writes. On June 9 she sees Brunner’s wife outside. “I’m not accepting anything,” Brunner’s wife says, to which the server says, “That’s OK,” and lays the papers at her feet, which does the job.

Brunner shows up on June 27 to answer questions from a lawyer. But Brunner becomes “argumentative,” standing and swearing and asking why he has to be there, according to a court commissioner’s affidavit. Sit down and stop swearing, the commissioner tells Brunner. Brunner does neither; he shouts and waves his arms. The commissioner orders him out, but Brunner refuses, so the commissioner asks his secretary to notify the police, at which point Brunner leaves, “using profanity all the way out the door.”

Brunner gets held in contempt, and a new hearing is scheduled, for which Brunner fails to appear, leading to another motion for contempt, for which Brunner must be served, leading another process server to his door, where, twice, the server hears a dog barking but gets no answer.

Twenty-one years after Angelica Belen’s mother was sentenced in the death of Marisol, Belen appears for sentencing in the deaths of her three children. The prosecutor is the same. It’s Mark Williams, an assistant DA with thick, gray hair, who, according to one newspaper story, has likely prosecuted more homicides than anyone in the country.

Colleagues call him a “machine.” Williams, in another newspaper story, says that he works from morning to midnight and that prosecuting homicides is his “dream job.” Before he’s through, he will prosecute more than 700.

Belen has pleaded guilty to all three felony counts of child neglect resulting in death. Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

The defense submits a memorandum from a sentencing mitigation specialist who writes, “Ms. Belen unfortunately experienced perhaps one of the most tragic developmental histories that this writer has come across in twenty years of working with indigent, criminal defendants.” Belen’s crime, he writes, “was an offense of omission rather than commission. … Additionally, there has never been any report of Ms. Belen abusing her children physically, emotionally, or verbally.”

Members of Belen’s family address the sentencing judge, some to condemn, others to defend.

Two of Belen’s sisters describe the pain of losing their nephews and niece, and blame Belen. “Time will not heal these wounds,” one sister says. Belen “had so much help and support around her” but turned it away, this sister says.

Angelica’s aunt — who was in court when Angelica’s mother was sentenced, in the hospital when Angelica was born and now in court as Angelica is sentenced — says: “She was ill-equipped and overwhelmed. And it’s not true when people say they were falling all over themselves, offering to help her. That’s not true.”

This same aunt, in a letter to the judge, described her niece’s history of being abused: “People wonder why Angie didn’t reach out for help. But I have to ask, would you? The system and the important people in her life failed her over and over. She learned as a young girl not to trust anyone.”

Williams, the prosecutor, laces into the Bureau of Child Welfare for leaving the children with Belen despite all the reports of her neglect. “And this house, we — everybody knew that this house was not exactly in good repair,” he says. “It was possible that anything could have happened.”

When Belen’s mother was sentenced, Williams had said of her crime, “I don’t understand it.” Now, he says of Belen’s crime, “It’s beyond comprehension.” He asks the judge to sentence Belen to a “period of substantial confinement” for each of the three counts. And he asks that the sentences run back-to-back, saying that’s what each child deserves.

Belen, offered the chance to speak, tells the court: “I would like to say that I’m sorry to my children, my beautiful Adrian, Alexis and Nayeli. I’m sorry they will never grow up. I’m sorry I will never see you graduate from high school and get married and have children of your own. I’m sorry that my decision that day took that from you.”

Belen apologizes to her sisters, to her aunt, to the police and firefighters. She says of her children, “They were everything to me, and I loved them so much.”

At the hearing’s end, the judge, Jeffrey Wagner, tells Belen: “I don’t think there’s anybody in this courtroom that would disagree that you loved your children very much.”

“I understand your — your terrible, terrible upbringing. I know that you’ve been victimized yourself growing up,” he tells her. “But there shouldn’t be this cycle.”

He gives her six years in prison on each count — and orders the sentences to run back-to-back.

Belen, sentenced to 18 years, gets sent to Taycheedah, the same prison where her mother was sent.

A federal grand jury returns an 11-page indictment against Todd Brunner and his son Shawn for financial misdeeds. To reach this point, the government has expended enormous resources. Here’s the investigation and charges, by the numbers:

Agencies involved in the investigation: 4 (FBI, IRS, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Milwaukee Police Department)

Boxes of evidence collected in search of Todd Brunner’s home: 22

Documents collected: nearly 46,000

Felony charges against Shawn Brunner: 4

Maximum years he could face (all charges, combined): 95

Felony charges against Todd Brunner: 15

Maximum years he could face (all charges, combined): 350

 

The indictment accuses father and son of both bank fraud and bankruptcy fraud. Todd Brunner used invoices that were duplicated, forged, altered or inflated to make draws on that $2 million construction loan for the senior center, the indictment alleges. With his son, he used three shell companies to hide cars, boats and more than 100 parcels of real estate, federal authorities say. The value of those hidden assets, according to the indictment, totals about $7 million.

Brunner also “fraudulently concealed” the engines from El Diablo and claimed to have no income when his rental properties were generating, on average, more than $30,000 a month, the indictment alleges.

In a press release, U.S. attorney James Santelle says Brunner’s crimes undermine the operations of bankruptcy court and “compromise the strength of our financial institutions.”

Rather than arrest the Brunners, federal agents try to serve a summons, instructing them to appear in court. Papers in hand, U.S. marshals go to Todd Brunner’s home in Pewaukee. The lights are on. A dog is barking. But no one answers.

After multiple failed attempts, government officials conclude they’re being dodged. They get an arrest warrant. Early on a Monday morning, U.S. marshals, heavily armed, backed up by three other police agencies, bang on Brunner’s door, get no answer, then break the door down. They come out with father and son.

Accompanied by officers, Todd Brunner walks from the house to a sheriff’s van. His steps are slow and labored. That afternoon, he gets arraigned. Then he’s released, on condition he post $2,000 cash bail. Outside the courthouse he gets into a black pickup and drives away.

Local governments see it as a threat to tenants.

A bill being debated by state lawmakers in Madison will gut the ability of cities to inspect rental properties. And, say local officials from across the state, it will prevent them from forcing owners to fix code violations before renters move in.

One state legislative sponsor says the bill “promotes regulatory fairness” by treating all properties alike, whether occupied by renters or owners.

But Milwaukee says the bill’s prohibitions “strike at the heart of what a local government does — to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.” Its inspection program, in place since 2010, has allowed the city to target areas with higher-than-average building-code complaints, officials write. The city of Beloit also opposes the bill. This year, in two months alone, its rental inspection program found 33 units unfit for inhabitation.

The bill passes the Republican-controlled Assembly along party lines, 60-31. The Senate gives its approval, and Gov. Scott Walker signs the bill into law.

The bill is one of five major, landlord-friendly laws passed between 2011 and 2019.

Among lawmakers voting on these measures, about 1 in 5 are themselves landlords or property managers.

At times in a wheelchair, at times using two canes, Todd Brunner makes his way from the federal courthouse’s entrance to the courtroom where he will be sentenced. It takes two hours. In the hallway, his screams of pain draw courthouse employees from their offices.

It’s been nearly five years since the FBI searched his home and nearly three since he was indicted. There’s been no trial — Brunner took a plea deal — but still the case has dragged, due in part to Brunner’s obesity and poor health.

Brunner’s lawyer argued, unsuccessfully, to let Brunner appear at one hearing by video, citing his lack of mobility. Transporting him to court would cost $3,000 to $4,000, the lawyer estimated. Then there was the matter of Brunner’s mental fitness. Brunner suffered a stroke, but, following a psychiatric evaluation, both sides agreed he was competent to enter a guilty plea.

Brunner has pleaded guilty to three felonies: two for bank fraud and one for concealing assets from bankruptcy court. Fraud deemed sophisticated can yield a longer sentence. But Brunner’s lawyer, a public defender, argues his client was, as a criminal, incompetent: “The sophistication level was bordering on the juvenile.”

As his criminal case lingered, Brunner kept making news. In 2016, the Journal Sentinel revealed that Milwaukee Municipal Court keeps a list, called “Egregious Defendants,” of landlords with delinquent fines for code violations. Brunner was the list’s No. 2, owing $161,019.

In the courtroom, awaiting sentencing, Brunner sobs. His lawyer says he has cried at the sight of Brunner’s agony. “Mr. Brunner shouldn’t be in court. He shouldn’t have to endure that, that long walk,” he tells the judge. “It hurts my soul to see someone like Mr. Brunner suffer this much.” The lawyer argues against any prison time for Brunner, saying, “I don’t believe Mr. Brunner is long for this world.” Brunner’s existence, he says, is now confined to “living in his bed.”

Federal guidelines suggest a sentence of between 37 months and 46 months.

The prosecutor, who says of Brunner, “Every time he turned around, he did something that was intended to deceive someone,” asks for a sentence of two years.

She says Brunner has “morbid obesity,” which can be treated in a prison medical facility. She describes Brunner’s various frauds: the falsified invoices, the hiding of money from bankruptcy court. Brunner hid so much cash, she says, that a bank employee had to help Brunner’s son shove a stuffed safety deposit box back into place.

As the prosecutor makes her case, the judge, J.P. Stadtmueller, interrupts her. “You’ve got to put this case in context,” he says. Brunner committed his crimes during a time of lax financial oversight, when “it was go, go, go, go, go, and we don’t need to get verification for anything.”

“Perhaps, but that doesn’t excuse what he did,” the prosecutor says.

“I’m not suggesting that he be excused. What I’m suggesting is, this case is the product of bent rules and blind eyes. Make no mistake about it!”

Before announcing the sentence, the judge asks Brunner if he’d like to say anything. “No, sir,” Brunner says.

The judge says, “Obviously, the core facts of this case are not much more than a very simple fraud.”

Brunner is “barely, barely ambulatory,” the judge says. He now weighs more than 600 pounds. To put him in prison, the judge says, “borders on the unconscionable.”

The judge sentences Brunner to probation — two years on each of the three felony convictions.

Rather than lasting six years, Brunner’s probation will last two. The judge orders the probationary periods to run concurrently instead of back-to-back.

The judge says: “Obviously, there is no fine. He doesn’t even begin to have the resources to pay.”

After the sentencing, Milwaukee police Detective Elisabeth Wallich gets a phone call. A fellow detective gives her the news. Together, they investigated Brunner for more than six years. When she hears Brunner’s getting no time, she’s devastated. “All of this work went for nothing,” she’ll say later. “We often said, ‘If I were a criminal, I’d be a white-collar criminal, because nothing ever happens to them.'”

(A reporter recently emailed questions to Stadtmueller, asking if he felt his sentence held Brunner accountable. The judge declined to be interviewed.)

In pursuing felony fraud charges against Todd and Shawn Brunner, the federal government viewed the son as more sympathetic. Shawn did what he did, one prosecutor said, “because he loved his father.”

Now, in early 2018, the government drops its charges against Shawn as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. By this point he is 27.

If there is a cycle in Angelica Belen’s family, the same goes for Todd Brunner’s.

On Facebook, Shawn calls his father “the wisest man I know.”

In 2014, Todd Brunner transferred 24 properties to his son.

In 2015, one of those rental homes caught fire. The ignition sources included a floor lamp plugged into an outlet, according to Milwaukee Fire Department records.

In 2016, a sheriff’s deputy arrested Shawn on a charge of drunk driving. Shawn told the deputy he was weaving because his glasses were dirty, according to police records. Shawn was convicted and ordered to pay $1,000.

In 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, judgments or tax warrants are filed in circuit court against Shawn for money owed. One, for delinquent state taxes, is for $456,079.12. (Shawn did not respond to requests for an interview for this story.)

In 2021, Shawn is found guilty of 80 counts of violating Milwaukee’s municipal code for problems with his rental properties ranging from black mold to a missing stair handrail to noncompliance with the rules requiring smoke alarms. He is fined about $20,000 — and as of this week, still owed more than half.

A little after midnight, deputies get dispatched to a call of a 61-year-old man who has fallen in his home in Delafield, west of Milwaukee. It’s Todd Brunner, in a bathrobe, on his living room floor.

As police and emergency responders try to help Brunner, he becomes “rowdy and boisterous,” according to court records. “Fuck off,” he says. He hits a firefighter on the arm and tells a deputy he is going to kill him, court records say. Brunner gets charged with two felonies: battery to an emergency rescue worker and threatening a law enforcement officer. In a plea deal, he’s convicted of the first while the second is dismissed.

The battery conviction carries a maximum sentence of six years.

In November of 2020, Brunner appears for sentencing and tells the judge: “If this happened, which apparently it did, I fell and hit my head. I don’t remember it. It’s not like me.” The judge, calling this a “serious offense,” sentences Brunner to a year’s probation and payment of $1,158.

In 2017, when sentenced on the federal fraud charges, Brunner received two years’ probation. The judge attached 17 conditions, one being, “The defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.” Brunner committed this battery within those two years. But it took eight months for the authorities in Waukesha County to charge Brunner. By that time, his federal probation had ended.

Angelica Belen sues Todd Brunner. Her lawsuit, filed in federal court on March 31, 2020, accuses Brunner of negligent upkeep of the rental home in West Allis, resulting in her children’s deaths.

Unable to find a lawyer, she ends up representing herself.

Belen writes her seven-page complaint by hand, in block letters. She attaches exhibits: the notice of code violations sent to Brunner (“two outlets east side of house”) and investigative reports that describe the basement’s exposed wiring and conclude the fire’s cause was electrical.

Belen also sues Guardian Investment, the real estate company put in charge of managing the house, and Tri City National Bank. After Tri City foreclosed on the house, a bank representative, accompanied by a Guardian employee, did a walk-through inspection, Belen writes. Neither “expressed any concerns” to Belen about the house’s condition, her lawsuit says. This was in February 2013, two months before the fire.

When called recently by the Journal Sentinel, a Tri City spokesman said he would research this but then never got back. Rick Geis, of Guardian Investment, told a reporter that he couldn’t recall what repairs, if any, his company may have ordered. “It was a while ago,” Geis said. “And unfortunately it brings back bad memories and I don’t want to talk about it.”

“I did nothing wrong,” he said.

In November of 2020, eight months after Belen’s lawsuit was filed, her lawsuit is dismissed.

The federal court lacks jurisdiction, a judge determines. In tossing the suit, the judge — the same judge who earlier sentenced Brunner to probation on the federal fraud charges while imposing no fine — says Belen must pay a $350 filing fee. He orders the funds be collected from her prison trust account.

Sitting across from a reporter, the sun glittering off razor wire through the windows behind her, Angelica Belen says she feels the safest she’s ever felt.

“Prison saved my life,” she says.

It’s been more than nine years since the fire, much of it spent in a cell with little more than memories and books. In comments still online, Belen is vilified, with people writing: “stupid, ignorant whorebag”; “selfish maggot”; “burn her at the stake.”

Belen clings to her pastor’s words after her children died. “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted,” he told her, quoting Psalm 34. “He saves those who are crushed in spirit.” It was what she needed to hear. Now, at 34, halfway through her sentence, she credits God for getting her through.

Since the Journal Sentinel reached out to Belen in February, she’s shared details of her life in emails, phone calls and visits.

“I am to blame for my poor choices,” she says. “I want to be able to atone.”

Through counseling and a peer mentorship program, she’s processed the hurt she’s suffered and caused. She’s forgiven her abusers. Now she’s a mentor herself. In recent evaluations, staff called her an “excellent example” to others and “extremely engaging and positive.” As a certified peer specialist, Belen was recently transferred to a prison that specializes in mental health services.

“This job has given meaning and purpose to every bad thing that has ever happened to me,” she says.

Belen, preparing for her future, has saved up $4,000 in the years she’s been locked up, she says.

In Wisconsin, Belen’s sentence of 18 years stands out. Reporters analyzed 40-plus cases statewide from 2007 to 2018 in which people were convicted of child neglect resulting in death. Belen’s sentence is the longest, although she’s the only person convicted in three deaths. Wagner, the judge who sentenced Belen, several years later sentenced another mother whose toddler died in a fire after she left her three young children alone. He gave her 17 months.

Wagner recently told the Journal Sentinel he barely remembers Belen’s case. As for the fire itself — and the problems with the house’s wiring — Wagner said it was for others to decide whether to assign blame to any landlords or property managers. “I would think that some other law enforcement agency or entity would seek prosecution of that,” he said. Williams, who prosecuted Belen and her mother, recently told a reporter, “The cops did not ask for those types of charges.” Pye, the fire’s lead investigator, said, “We never really went that direction.”

After the deaths of Belen’s children, the state investigated the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare’s handling of the case. The bureau violated state standards in a number of ways, including in how it assessed the dangers and provided support services to Belen, the state concluded.

After Belen’s arrest, the bureau placed her surviving child with his dad.

Belen’s son is now 11.

Soon after Belen was sentenced, she requested that he be able to visit. A family therapist, in a court-ordered evaluation, interviewed Belen and her son separately. The therapist concluded that knowing his mom would be good for the child.

But it never happens. Belen still has parental rights, but once the courts grant her estranged husband custody, he moves with their son to another state.

The father doesn’t want him in contact with Belen. “She walked out on us,” he recently told a reporter before hanging up.

Belen says she misses her son beyond words. She remembers how he’d stare her in the eye and throw food from his highchair and giggle when she’d pick it up. How he carried around a Bob the Builder book shaped like a wrench, hoping to get his mom or sister to read it to him. And how he adored Naya, who he called Ya-Ya.

Now, she wonders how he’s doing, what he’s learning in school, who his friends are, what his favorite color is, what he wants to be when he grows up. Things a mom should know.

She wants him to know that she’s always wanted to be part of his life. She wants to apologize.

She wants to be worthy of his forgiveness.

This February, a Journal Sentinel reporter goes to Todd Brunner’s home in Delafield. He declines to come to the door but calls her in her car, parked just outside. Since his stroke, Brunner tells her, “My memory’s shot.” She asks about the house on West Hicks Street in West Allis, and he says: “It’s so long ago, I don’t remember a lot. All I know is, you know, we never did any electrical work there.”

He says of the house, “I don’t even know what it looks like.”

In late August, she returns, hoping to ask more questions. Two small lion statues sit at the end of the driveway. On the side of the house, near a wheelchair, there’s a black Lincoln pickup. A sign above the garage says “Brunner Blvd.” The house appears under construction, as it has for months. Porch planks are half laid, the siding half finished. In the driveway there’s a car, covered by a tarp. Peeking out is a hood ornament so famous it has its own name. It’s the Spirit of Ecstasy, the Rolls-Royce’s crowning touch.

The reporter sees a lit candle in the window. When she knocks, a dog barks. Nobody answers the door.

Later, on October 26, Brunner picks up the phone. He says he didn’t own the house when it caught fire. He won’t answer questions and hangs up. Then he texts, asking for questions in writing. The reporter mails 11 pages of questions.

Brunner responds by fax. Some questions he addresses. Some he does not. “To the best of my knowledge,” he writes, he never knew about Belen’s lawsuit against him. Of his arrest on federal fraud charges, he says police broke down his door before his family could answer. Of his battery conviction, he says rescue workers strapped him down against his wishes: “They had no right to do that and in my opinion, they should have been charged.”

Figuring out what Brunner owns, and how he’s faring financially, has long been a challenge, even for law enforcement. Years ago, when creditors seized Brunner’s possessions after he was denied bankruptcy protection, a police detective interviewed Brunner as part of the joint task force investigation.

Brunner told the detective he’d managed to borrow money from friends, and secure a new bank loan, and with that infusion, he’d bought back “most of his property” that had been put up for auction, according to the detective’s interview notes. That 30-foot catamaran? Brunner tells the detective he bought it back for $26,000.

As for rental properties, Brunner may no longer be the owner of title, but that doesn’t mean he’s out of the real estate business.

In 2017, when Milwaukee receives a complaint of leaking pipes and loose wires at a house on North 36th Street owned by Shawn Brunner, an inspector for the Department of Neighborhood Services writes, “Talked with Todd Brunner.” In 2019, when Milwaukee receives a complaint about no hot water at another house of Shawn Brunner’s, an inspector writes, “Called owner Todd — said he drove down there today and they wouldn’t let him in so he turned off gas because they said they smelled gas.”

This year, Milwaukee gets a complaint of no heat at an apartment on West Sheridan Avenue owned by Shawn Brunner.

An inspector writes, “Called Todd Brunner, who identifies as the property manager.”

How We Reported This Story

“Break up Ticketmaster”: AOC calls out ticket monopoly over Taylor Swift fiasco

Without explicitly mentioning pop star Taylor Swift and her upcoming tour, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke up for fans who spent hours on Monday trying to get concert tickets only to wait in a queue of thousands of people and in some cases be automatically logged out by ticketing giant Ticketmaster before they could make a purchase.

The significant technical glitches, as well as price-gouging on Ticketmaster’s resale platform, are the result of the 2010 merger between the company and Live Nation, which was approved by the Obama administration’s Justice Department, suggested Ocasio-Cortez and other critics.

“Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly,” tweeted the New York Democrat. “Break them up.”

As Chokepoint Capitalism author Cory Doctorow explained in a video released by progressive media organization More Perfect Union on Tuesday, elected officials from both sides of the aisle helped create a live music market in which Ticketmaster controls 80% of venue ticket sales.

Near-total control of the market has allowed the company to introduce an algorithmic “dynamic pricing” model, which pushes prices as high as $5,000 per ticket in the case of one recent Bruce Springsteen tour, as well as leaving customers without other options if they run into major technical difficulties.

“How can Ticketmaster get away with it? Because they are the bullies of the music industry playground,” said Doctorow. “Ticketmaster and Live Nation… can basically do whatever they want because they have seized control over every aspect of the live music industry by creating a monopoly. This ticketing cartel has the power to destroy venues and artists who refuse to work with them. They even have their own resale platform and they encourage ticket resellers to gouge fans.”

“All of these exploitative practices make Ticketmaster execs very, very rich,” added Doctorow, pointing to the $70.6 billion compensation package given to Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino in 2017.

Ticketmaster defended itself Tuesday, saying the technical issues were the result of “historically unprecedented demand” for tickets, but Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.—one of several Democratic lawmakers who last year called on the Biden administration to revisit the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger—noted that the company charges numerous processing and convenience fees which, according to More Perfect Union, now equal 78% of ticket costs.

“You would think the endless list of service and convenience and other fees would help Ticketmaster run a smooth webpage, but that isn’t the case,” Pascrell told The Hill. “The only three constants in life anymore seem to be death, taxes, and fan frustration with Ticketmaster.”

The ticketing fiasco came weeks after President Joe Biden announced his administration is cracking down on “junk fees” that banks charge customers “because they can.” The Federal Trade Commission launched a rulemaking process to “broadly reduce junk fee practices across the economy, including for event ticketing, hotels, funeral homes, and any other industry that uses mandatory fees.”

Now, said lawmakers including Pascrell, Ocasio-Cortez, and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., the Biden administration must “break up Ticketmaster.”

“Ticketmaster’s excessive wait times and fees are completely unacceptable, as seen with today’s Taylor Swift tickets, and are a symptom of a larger problem,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I. “It’s no secret that Live Nation-Ticketmaster is an unchecked monopoly.”

“The merger of these companies should never have been allowed in the first place,” he added.

“Don’t play into his hand”: Expert calls out media’s coverage of Trump

Now that he’s in the 2024 presidential race, the media circus that is Donald Trump is returning for a new season.

Trump is still newsworthy. He’s been weakened by his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, his attempt to overthrow its result and the underperformance of Republican candidates in the 2022 midterms. Nevertheless, Trump is more than a party leader. “Make America Great Again,” known colloquially as “MAGA,” is a political movement. Trump has a legion of diehard followers.

Then there’s Trump the storyline. Trump is to reporters as honey is to bears. Journalists prize conflict, and Trump delivers it in abundance. It’s why he dominated news coverage nearly every week of his 2016 presidential run; why he got three times as much news coverage during his first 100 days as president as did his immediate predecessors; and why he has remained in the news since leaving the White House.

He’s also an easy “get.” In an era where politicians are increasingly scripted and walled off from the media, Trump is at their doorstep. As president, he answered more questions from reporters than any of his recent predecessors.

There’s a third reason that Trump will get the news media’s attention: He’s good for ratings. During the 2016 presidential election alone, he boosted cable television viewership so much that its advertising revenue rose by hundreds of millions of dollars. Broadcasters benefited, too: CBS CEO Les Moonves famously declared that Trump’s presidential run “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” During Joe Biden’s presidency, TV and online news viewership is down sharply from the Trump years.

So the question is not whether Trump will get showered with news coverage, but how journalists should cover him. If they are to serve the public interest, journalists cannot apply the ordinary rules for covering candidates. They are reporting on a politician who regularly defies democratic norms and lies with abandon. As a longtime scholar of political journalism, I offer some recommendations for giving due respect to Trump’s candidacy without amplifying his false claims or promoting his anti-democratic beliefs.

Don’t play into his hand

Trump is a master at changing the story when it’s not going in his direction or favor. To do that successfully, he relies on journalists to take the bait. Racing to air Trump’s latest outrage serves only to give him disproportionate coverage and to divert the public from what’s more deserving of its attention.

Do call out his falsehoods, but don’t dwell on them

When it’s impossible to ignore one of Trump’s false claims, label it as such in the story. At the same time, to report yet again that Trump is playing fast and loose with the facts is to say nothing novel or unexpected. The latest untruth might be tantalizing, but that alone doesn’t make it news. A 2015 Columbia University study found news outlets “play a major role in propagating hoaxes, false claims, questionable rumors, and dubious viral content.” Journalists don’t typically make false claims of their own, but do air those of newsmakers. And once aired, the falsehoods get amplified on social media, where they take on a life of their own in part because people tend to accept false claims that align with what they’d like to believe. Few examples illustrate the point more clearly than the continuing belief of a sizable Republican majority that the 2020 election was stolen.

Don’t play up his social media provocations

When Trump was president, one-third his most popular tweets contained a false claim. But many Americans wouldn’t have heard them directly from Trump. A study found that only about 1% of his Twitter followers saw a tweet directly from his Twitter feed. Most Americans heard of his tweets through news coverage.

Don’t confuse access with newsworthiness

The offer of a Trump interview might be enticing, but unless the reporter has a clear purpose and pursues it doggedly, it will work only to the advantage of Trump, who is a master at manipulating the agenda. Instead of speaking with Trump to get insights on him, the University of Colorado’s Elizabeth Skewes suggests getting them from people who have worked with him or studied him closely.

Do notice when he trashes democracy

Obeying laws, respecting institutions and following standard expectations – sometimes called “democratic norms” – are all critical to a healthy democracy. Journalists, as watchdogs of the powerful, are duty-bound to hold the powerful accountable, including Trump’s attacks on democracy and its institutions. But the danger that Trump poses to democracy does not grant reporters – who are purveyors of facts, not opinion – a license to judge his substantive policies. Journalists break their own norms by taking sides in partisan debates over policy issues like immigration and trade. Leave those judgments to the voters.

Do avoid false equivalence

A story about a Trump transgression does not inherently need a mention of something similar involving a political opponent. Doing so can make Trump’s behavior look normal when it is not. He’s a serial transgressor of social and political expectations.

Do provide context

It’s not safe for journalists to assume news consumers know what’s happening either on the surface or behind the scenes of what they’re reporting. As far back as the 1940s, journalists were being criticized for offering their audiences too little context. In recent years, journalists have sought to restore public trust in their work by being more transparent about news decisions. Context is a key piece of that, explaining why the story is newsworthy and why it’s being told in the way that it is.

Don’t lump all Trump loyalists in the same basket

The Trump followers who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are not fully representative of his followers. Overlooked in the turmoil that followed the 2020 election is the fact that Trump received the second-most presidential votes in history. Simplistic portrayals of Trump’s supporters deepens their mistrust of the media and its reporting.

None of this will be easy. A century ago, journalist Walter Lippmann wrote that the press, rather than bringing order to political chaos, tends to “intensify” it. Trump personifies chaos, and his news coverage has indeed been chaotic. As one analyst described it as far back as 2018, “The press rushes from one out-of-proportion headline to the next, focusing on the weird, the sensational and the polarizing.” More disciplined reporting would benefit the American people as the Trump circus takes its 2024 show on the road.

 

Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press, Harvard Kennedy School

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

Brendan Fraser stands his Me Too ground and refuses to attend Golden Globes, even if he’s nominated

Brendan Fraser isn’t budging when it comes to abandoning an organization that he claims protected itself over those it’s supposed to honor.

In a new GQ cover profile, the actor – who is one of the Best Actor frontrunners for his performance in Darren Aronofsky’s “The Whale” – said he “will not participate” at this year’s Golden Globe Awards, slated for Jan. 10, even if he does secure a nomination.

“I have more history with the Hollywood Foreign Press Association than I have respect for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association,” Fraser said, condemning the organization that stages the Golden Globes and bestows the awards. “No, I will not participate.”

“It’s because of the history that I have with them. And my mother didn’t raise a hypocrite. You can call me a lot of things, but not that,” he added.

In 2018, “The Mummy” actor alleged that former HFPA President Philip Berk had groped and assaulted him at a 2003 luncheon at the Beverly Hills Hotel — a claim that Berk later disputed. Fraser recounted the experience, saying then that it “made me retreat” and made him feel like “something had been taken away from me.” 

“I felt ill,” he recalled to GQ. “I felt like a little kid. I felt like there was a ball in my throat. I thought I was going to cry. I felt like someone had thrown invisible paint on me.”

Following Fraser’s accusation, the HFPA said in a statement that it “stands firmly against sexual harassment and the type of behavior described in this article.” The organization also said it would never allow Berk in a room with Fraser again and — after an investigation into the incident — asked Fraser to sign a joint statement, which he refused to do. The statement read: “Although it was concluded that Mr. Berk inappropriately touched Mr. Fraser, the evidence supports that it was intended to be taken as a joke and not as a sexual advance.”

“I knew they would close ranks,” Fraser said of the HFPA. “I knew they would kick the can down the road. I knew they would get ahead of the story. I knew that I certainly had no future with that system as it was.”

While Fraser struggled to revive his acting career, Berk remained unscathed as a voting member of the HFPA. But things took a turn in 2021, when the Los Angeles Times published an exposé revealing that HFPA had no Black members. That same year, Berk was expelled from his position after he sent an email to his co-workers criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement as a “racist hate movement” and criticizing BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors for buying a home in Topanga Canyon, California.


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


A representative for HFPA also told the LA Times that the organization is “committed to addressing” its recent controversies:  

“We recognize the HFPA’s commitment to ongoing change and look forward to welcoming back the Golden Globes to NBC for its landmark 80th Anniversary in January 2023,” Frances Berwick, chairman of Entertainment Networks, NBCUniversal Television and Streaming, said in a September press release.

In his recent profile, Fraser said that if the HFPA did attempt to make amends, he would reconsider his relationship with both the organization and the Golden Globes.

“According to rules of engagement, it would be my responsibility to take a look at it and make a determination at that time, if that became the situation,” Fraser said. “And it would have to be, I don’t know, what’s the word I’m looking for . . . sincere? I would want some gesture of making medicine out of poison somehow. I don’t know what that is. But that would be my hope. But it’s not about me.”

Allen Weisselberg links Trump to illegal tax scheme — and reveals he’s still on the payroll

Former Trump Organization financial chief Allen Weisselberg took the stand in Manhattan State Supreme Court on Tuesday in the company’s criminal trial on tax fraud charges. He testified that he received $1.76 million in untaxed, off-the-books perks from the Trump Organization, confirming several aspects of the district attorney’s case against the former president’s company.

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization was involved in an illicit compensation scheme that lined the pockets of executives like Weisselberg. After pleading guilty to a 15-count indictment in August, Weisselberg agreed to “testify truthfully” against the Trump firm. 

He testified that Trump suggested in 2005 that he move into a luxury Riverside Drive apartment using company funds, and even signed the lease for the property. In addition to paying for Weisselberg’s rent, the Trump Organization covered his utility and parking fees, according to the indictment.

“It’s your understanding that was authorized by Mr. Trump?” Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger asked about the payment of utilities at the rent-free apartment on Tuesday. 

“That was my understanding, yes,” Weisselberg responded.  

“He said it would help me be able to spend more time at the office rather than sitting on a train for three hours back and forth [from Long Island] … and make my life easier,” Weisselberg told the jury. 

Trump’s companies also paid for Weisselberg’s “homes and for an apartment maintained by one of his children,” including “new beds, flat-screen televisions, the installation of carpeting, and furniture for Weisselberg’s home in Florida,” according to prosecutors. 

Weisselberg admitted that he knew he owed taxes on the Upper West Side apartment, as well as leases on two Mercedes-Benz and his grandchildren’s private school tuition. He confirmed that he underreported his income and thus knew his tax forms were false. 

When asked if Trump paid for the private schools personally, Weisselberg said “correct” and added that he knew that these perks should have been taxed, but both he and the Trump Payroll Corporation did not treat them as reported income on his W-2s. 

“Did you know at the time you owed taxes on those amounts, sir?” Hoffinger asked. 

“Yes,” Weisselberg replied. 

Hoffinger then asked whether Jeffrey McConney, senior vice president and controller for Trump Corporation, helped Weisselberg in the tax fraud scheme.

“In my mind, I absolutely felt that [McConney] knew it should have been reported,” Weisselberg said. “I asked Jeffrey McConney to back those amounts out of my bonus and salary.”

Weisselberg also told prosecutors that Trump entities would often provide cash to him around Christmas so he could give out “personal holiday gratuities.” 

He said he knowingly withheld information about the perks from accountants because he knew they were inappropriate. “They may not have wanted to sign my tax return and prepare my taxes,” he said in court.

Weisselberg attested that the tax fraud helped both him and the company, as the Trump Organization would have had to give him a raise that was double the amount that they spent on his personal expenses in order to provide the same benefit if taxes were withheld. 

Trump authorized Weisselberg’s compensation and that of other senior executives, and had an “open door policy” within the company according to Weisselberg’s testimony.

“Who authorized executive compensation?” Hoffinger asked Weisselberg.

“Donald Trump,” he responded.

“Did you authorize compensation for Matthew Calamari?” she asked.

“No,” he responded.

“Jason Greenblatt?” Hoffinger asked, referring to the Trump Organization’s general counsel.

“No,” he repeated.


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


As per the terms of his plea deal, after the trial ends, Weisselberg is expected to be sentenced to five months in Rikers Island prison, with an additional five years probation. However, if he violates the agreement, he could face up to 15 years, according to Judge Juan Merchan. He is also expected to return $2 million in unpaid taxes. 

However, Weisselberg revealed that even after stepping down as CEO, pleading guilty, and testifying against the company, he is still receiving his full six-figure salary, and continues to show up to work in Midtown Manhattan. He still personally advises Eric Trump on business dealings and oversees company cash management.  

Weisselberg even celebrated his birthday at Trump Tower after finalizing his plea deal. “It was a small cake. It was a cake. That was the party,” he said of his birthday celebration.

Weisselberg is now on a paid leave of absence and told the jury that he will “hopefully” receive his $500,000 bonus in January in addition to his $640,000 yearly salary.

As for the Trump Organization, if convicted, they could be fined $1.6 million. Trump is not on trial, but prosecutors have closely connected him to the alleged illegal activity. In the opening statements on Oct. 31, prosecutors said that “when most of the criminal conduct occurred,” between 2005 to 2017, the companies were “owned by Donald Trump.”

Even after Trump became president, the enterprises “were still effectively owned by Donald Trump through a trust called the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust,” according to Hoffinger. 

Trump’s companies have pleaded not guilty, with his team dismissing the entire case as a political witch hunt. During her opening statement, Susan Necheles, who represents the Trump Corporation, said that Weisselberg was the guilty party when it came to the company’s tax fraud, but that he was “paraded in front of cameras in handcuffs” and will endure “public humiliation.”

“This was a man who had a beautiful life, he was a chief financial officer of a prestigious company, at his peak he made over $1 million a year and lived very well,” Necheles said. “Allen Weisselberg had everything a man could want. But once he was arrested, he realized he was in danger of losing all of that and being sentenced to jail for years.” 

Necheles told the jury that the tax shenanigans “started with Allen Weisselberg and it ended with Allen Weisselberg.” 

“It was Allen Weisselberg who wanted to clean things up. Allen Weisselberg knew that he had been cheating on his personal taxes and all of a sudden the Trump Organization was going to get a lot of scrutiny,” she claimed. “Donald Trump did not know that Allen Weisselberg was cheating on Allen Weisselberg’s personal tax return[s].” 

However, the prosecution dismissed this argument when they called Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney to the stand. Despite McConney’s attempt to play dumb about his role in the tax scheme, assistant district attorney Joshua Steinglass was determined to get a straight answer out of him.

“You have a college degree in accounting, correct?” Steinglass asked. “You worked at an accounting firm for eight or nine years before you joined the Trump Organization, correct? You were in charge of payroll at a multi-billion dollar corporation for 30 years… you’re a paid tax preparer. That requires at least some familiarity with the tax code, correct?”

McConney continued to insist that he wasn’t aware the company needed to report untaxed corporate benefits.

Tensions have been rising since Monday, when McConney testified that he didn’t know creating a fake job for Weisselberg’s wife so that she could gain taxpayer benefits like Social Security was illegal.

“I knew it wasn’t correct,” McConney said. “Wasn’t sure it was illegal.”

Jurors also heard from Trump Organization accounts payable supervisor Deborah Tarasoff, who admitted that Weisselberg instructed her to go back and deleted evidence of a crime. 

When asked why a copy of the company’s ledger the DA’s office obtained via a subpoena was missing the instruction “per Allen” next to a listed, untaxed company perk, Tarasoff responded: “somebody went in and deleted the name.” Asked who, Tarasoff said “me.” She also admitted that on Sept. 26, 2016, she and McConney deleted a dozen of those lines from the company’s ledgers. 

Zosia Mamet on pushing for a trigger warning for stories about food and feelings

“Food and feelings.”

That’s what Zosia Mamet invited a collection of famous friends — and notable strangers — to talk about for the new anthology “My First Popsicle.” Featuring essays and recipes from an array of talent including Patti Smith, Kaley Cuoco, Ruth Reichl, Katie Holmes, Ted Danson, and of course, Mamet herself, the book is an intimate, evocative exploration of one of the most intense relationships in our lives.

The “Girls” and “Flight Attendant” actor joined me on “Salon Talks” about SpaghettiOs, sorbet and feeling starstruck meeting Martha Stewart. Watch our episode here or read our conversation below. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

It’s called “My First Popsicle,” but this book goes in directions that I did not expect it to go. Food is not always a light, easy breezy journey, right?

Definitely not. I had hoped that we would capture that in the through line of this book, but I gave the contributors the loosest leash that I possibly could. I said, “Food and feelings, write about whatever you want to.” I had an inkling and a hope that they would come back with these exceptionally nuanced and varied essays, and they did. 

We have a spectrum, from Tony Hale writing about his love of chain restaurants to Rosie Perez talking about her very intense childhood trauma. It shows that we all have these connections and these emotional relationships and memories with food. Some of them are really good, some of them are really traumatic, some of them are triggering and some of them are joyful. That’s what I wanted to get across with this book.

The “first popsicle” in the title is not your first popsicle; it’s somebody else’s. It is an emotional journey for that particular person. 

I wanted to show the spectrum of these emotional connections that we all have to food; that it’s good and bad and everything in between.

It was our friend’s toddler. My husband and I were having dinner with some friends and they were late. They showed up, and they explained that they had given their son a popsicle for the first time, and they had to stay to watch his reaction because they didn’t really expect it to be so extreme. They were thinking, “Oh, he is going to love it,” which he inevitably did. But before he gets to that conclusion, he experiences a myriad of emotions. They had gotten it on film, so they showed us this two-minute video of their son having a popsicle for the first time. 

It struck me, because he is sort of confused at first and then he seems to not like it because it’s very cold. Then he gets very into it, perhaps too into it, and he gets a brain freeze and then he starts to cry. Then he’s like, “I want more.” That was the first seed that planted in my brain about this idea of our emotional connection to food.

This book has an all-star lineup of people not just from the world of acting, but from writing, from the food world, from music. There are people like [Mamet’s “The Flight Attendant” co-star] Kaley Cuoco, who it makes sense is in this. But I heard that you actually cold-contacted some people that you wanted for it. How did you decide who to include in the book? 

There were a couple of people who I didn’t know personally or I didn’t necessarily have an easy access connection to, but I was just such an admirer of their work in whatever field they were in. I just really hoped that they would consider contributing. Everybody that I called and emailed said yes, which was so crazy and amazing. 

You’ve done this with other projects in your life too. How do you do that? It can be scary to ask strangers to do something.

I think you just do it. Something that I have to remind myself of a lot, but I think is the most important, is: What’s the worst thing that can happen? The worst thing that can happen is someone says no. Where my horrible imagination goes beyond that is, that someone could be offended or someone would never want to speak to you again. But, especially if you’re cold-emailing someone, you already don’t know them. If they get offended then you probably don’t want to work with that person anyway, because what a bizarre reaction. Whenever I’m afraid to do something like that, I just ask with gratitude and an open heart. Normally when I’m asking someone to do something, it’s because they’re someone that I admire. 

I complimented a woman the other day. I was leaving a yoga class and I was like, “Your leggings are so cool.” She was like, “Thank you so much. My husband always says, ‘What woman doesn’t like a compliment?'” I think that it’s like that for every human being, but sometimes we get so afraid and we turn in on ourselves and start to think, “How is this person going to react to my ask?” Most people are in their own worlds and they’re not necessarily thinking about you. As self-centered individuals, as human beings, we often forget that. I feel like no human doesn’t like being complimented and being asked to take part in something because someone admires them. So I think you just do it, and remind yourself the worst that can happen is they say no.

In your introduction, you talk about your own experiences, the fact that this book is going to take on some heavy things, and that there are going to be discussions about eating disorders and mental health. How did you set the tone in this book so that there was space in it for these harder conversations, knowing they can be difficult for people to read about? 

I wanted this book to be a home for any kind of story that the contributor wanted to tell. I wanted to show the spectrum of these emotional connections that we all have to food; that it’s good and bad and everything in-between. That’s why I didn’t lead anybody in terms of a subject matter. I just wanted them to have free rein to write about whatever called to them. 

I knew that people were going to write funny stories and silly stories, and I had hoped that people would go to these darker, deeper places, and they absolutely did. I wanted to create the space. I went a bit back and forth with my editors about whether or not we should have, essentially, a trigger warning at the beginning of the book. We inevitably decided that we wanted to have that. It was actually one of the hardest parts of the book to write, because I wanted to set it up in a way that didn’t deter anybody from reading these essays. I just wanted to make them aware that they were there so no one was caught off guard if a subject matter was going to be triggering for them. 

Rosie Perez’s piece deals with some very heavy topics. The other night, she was on a panel with me. She was talking about writing it and she was like, “Writing that story wasn’t necessarily cathartic, and talking about it isn’t necessarily cathartic, but I know that I have to in order to heal.” I think writing and reading about things that may be triggering for individuals is kind of necessary. As someone who has survived something quite traumatic in my younger years, if you put something in a drawer deep down inside, it’s never going to get better. I definitely thought it was important to make space for people to tell those kinds of stories in this book.

Perez also generously includes a lengthy, complicated, beautiful recipe at the end of it. You also have Jell-O cake, SpaghettiOs, sophisticated restaurant food. Have you made any of the dishes from the book? 

I haven’t. I haven’t had time to make any of the dishes yet, but I’m pretty excited. Actually, I had a bucket list moment earlier today. I was at the “Today” show and Martha Stewart was on right before me. We were in the green room together. Martha Stewart was holding my book, and I was like, “Cool, I can die now.” She asked me the same question, and I was like, “I haven’t made any of them,” and she kind of gave me a discerning look. I was like, “Don’t worry, I will.” 

I know that you do like to entertain. When people come over, what do you like to serve them? You talk a lot about how your love language is gifts, and I assume that also means giving people food. What do you like to feed people?

Anything and everything. I live in fear of there not being enough food, so I’m always the person who’s making way too much. I’m a big believer in snacks, so I’m a big believer that you never want to eat on an empty stomach. People come over, and there’s a cheese plate with nuts and apples and 17 different types of crackers. I always want to have options for everyone. Normally that’s what’s out first. My husband likes to call me a rustic cook, which I think is a very kind euphemism for just not actually that good. 

It’s about the presentation. That’s what I think of when I think of the word rustic.

I’m not very good about presentation either though. It’s all going to the same place. I like a simple meal. We had some friends over the other night and I made an epic taco spread. That’s a pretty classic meal that I’ll serve people. I like something simple and hearty that I feel like no one has to feel like polite eating. You could eat with your hands. Who doesn’t love that?

When I read the book, I set a challenge for myself. I thought, “When was the last time I had a “My First Popsicle” experience?” When is the last time in your life that something took you on a journey when you approached it for the first time? 

I honestly haven’t had one. One of the things that made me think about food and emotions on a deeper level was thinking about how rare it is that we have a “My First Popsicle” moment past the age of 12. Unless you’re eating something truly exotic, I feel like we as adults don’t really have firsts with food that often in a way that hits that deep as your first popsicle would. That’s what got me thinking about this on a deeper level. What are those other emotional connections that we have to food, beyond just a first time experience? 

When was the last time you ate something that blew your mind?

Most recently, I had a papaya sorbet that was pretty insane. I’m a pretty rough judge because I’ve been allergic to dairy since I was seven. What do kids have at birthday parties from the age of seven to 13? Pizza with an ice cream cake. I was always the kid where they were like, “Well, there are celery sticks.” And I’m like, “I don’t want a celery stick.” Once sorbet started to be a thing, I always felt like it was just a sorry excuse for ice cream. “You can’t have ice cream, but here’s a sorbet.” I was like, “That’s flavored ice.”

So any time I’m at a restaurant and I ask, “Do you have any desserts that don’t have dairy?” and the say, “We have sorbet,” I’m like, “No thank you.” But they offered up sorbet at this restaurant and they said, “It’s pretty amazing. I already had my judgment hat on, and I’m a chocolate girl, but he brought this papaya sorbet out and it was incredible.


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


Tell me what you’re working on now. You’re working on another movie, right?

I shot two movies this summer and into September.

And then I hear you have another book coming out.

I’m working on a book of personal essays that will be coming out next after this one. 

“I had an inkling and a hope that they would come back with these exceptionally nuanced and varied essays, and they did.”

Is there a theme?

I’m sort of the through line, that they happen to be all coming out of my brain. It’s a book of nonfiction essays.

You end the book with Christmas, talking about how much you love the season and your bittersweet memories tied to food. Now that we’re getting into the season, what are you excited to eat or make, Zosia?

I love Christmas so much. I’m a huge baker. I’ve always loved to bake. I didn’t learn to cook until later in life, but baking has been a joy of mine since I was little. One of the things I love so much about Christmas are the smells of the season. Literally, anything I can possibly think of that smells like a holiday season, I will start baking probably once this press tour is over. Pumpkin bread, pies, anything with a gingery smell to it. My husband’s training for a movie right now, so he’s going to be very mad at me because I am going to be filling the house with baked goods. But yeah, anything and everything baking-wise that smells like Christmas.

 

Recount flips New Hampshire seat from Republican to Democrat — by one vote

A remarkable situation unfolded in New Hampshire on Monday night when an incumbent state representative lost his reelection bid for an eighth term by a single vote.

Republican Larry Gagne of Hillsborough 16 House District, who was first elected in 2008, was defeated in a recount by Democrat Maxine Mosely, a retired school counselor and first-time candidate for political office.

The final tally that was certified by Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) was 1,799 to 1,798. Hillborough 16’s second seat was won by Republican Will Infantine.

“I did not really anticipate that I could pull it off, but I wanted to use the process of recount to make sure that everyone that supported me knew I was doing everything in my power to have the most verifiable vote at the end,” Mosley said as reported by Manchester Ink Link. “I will take today as a win with great, great gratitude.”

Mosley called it a “historic day here in New Hampshire,” noting that “everybody was gracious and there was no nastiness and no negative politicking” and that “it was as it should be, you run on your merits. I am very appreciative of all of candidates.”

Gagne remarked that while the results were “very unusual” and that he does not “know what happened,” he accepts the outcome as “God’s will.” Infantine, meanwhile, suggested to the New Hampshire Union Leader that “there’s got to have been a mistake made in the count.”

New Hampshire State Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley said that “we are ecstatic to learn of Democratic candidate Maxine Mosley’s win in Manchester Ward 6 following today’s recount. With today being just the first day of several extremely tight races, we look forward to the remaining recounts. We appreciate the professionalism of the staff at the Secretary of State’s office and the State Archives for their work in this process, and to our recount team on the ground, whose careful review of ballots aided in today’s result.”

The Mosley-Gagne showdown was one of many close contests in the Granite State, where recounts are underway to decide a spate of knifes-edge races.

“I think the turnout was tremendous,” Mosley said. “I’m so proud of the citizens for coming out to vote.”

Politics is indeed rooted locally and every ballot matters. But the drama in New Hampshire has developed into a microcosm of the GOP’s lackluster performance in congressional elections.

Mosley’s upset victory “cuts the Republican majority in the 400-member House of Representatives to just four seats. If that margin stands, it would be the slimmest New Hampshire House majority in more than 80 years,” New Hampshire Public Radio pointed out late Monday night.

“Heading into Election Day, Republicans — aided by new redistricting maps they themselves drew — expected to increase the 13-seat majority voters gave them two years ago. But with Monday’s recount results, Democrats have so far picked up 11 seats,” NHPR explained. “Leaders in both parties say, regardless of how the 20 outstanding recounts go, the razor-thin partisan split could affect everything from policy to who lawmakers choose to be the next House Speaker.”

“Total open warfare”: Reporters say hostility between Rick Scott, Mitch McConnell “off the charts”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., the head of the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, on Tuesday sent a letter to Senate Republicans launching a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to lead the caucus next term.

“I believe it’s time for the Senate Republican Conference to be far more bold and resolute than we have been in the past,” wrote Scott, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “We must start saying what we are for, not just what we are against. I do not believe we can simply continue to say the Democrats are radical, which they are. Republican voters expect and deserve to know our plan to promote and advance conservative values. We need to listen to their calls for action and start governing in Washington like we campaign back at home.” 

Scott and McConnell have long been involved in a battle about the best strategy and vision for the party. The two also held differing views when it came to spending resources in the midterm election, the quality of candidates running and messaging, CNN reported

But their rivalry, which has mostly existed behind the scenes, publicly erupted after the Republican Party’s poor performance in last Tuesday’s contests.  

Tensions between the two Republicans and their aides started simmering leading up to the elections. McConnell was cut out of NRSC strategy discussions, his aides blamed Scott for releasing a policy plan that suggested changing Social Security and a source close to Scott blamed McConnell for allowing Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to propose a national abortion ban, The Washington Post reported.

After Republicans failed to win back the majority, the pair’s ongoing battle grew even more intense with their political operations getting involved and blaming the other for the poor outcome. 

“Senator Scott disagrees with the approach that Mitch has taken in this election and for the last couple of years, and he made that clear, and Senator McConnell criticized Senator Scott’s management of the NRSC,” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told reporters, according to CNN.

The two engaged in a tense discussion during a private three-hour Senate GOP meeting, according to several senators. Following the meeting, Scott was disinvited from speaking at the party’s weekly leadership press conference, according to Scott spokesman McKinley Lewis.

But that wasn’t the only development coming out of the meeting. Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., called for an independent review of how the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent its resources for the midterm election, Politico reported

Blackburn told Scott that there needed to be an accounting of how money was spent so that senators understood how and why key decisions were made, according to two people familiar with the discussion, Politico reported. 


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


People aligned with McConnell and Scott have also started to get involved in their feud on social media. 

Curt Anderson, a Scott adviser, criticized Senate Leadership Fund, the McConnell-linked super PAC for its lack of commitment to winning the Georgia Senate runoff election.

“Watched Monday Night Football here in Georgia last night, and the evening news.  Schumer’s superpacs running tons of ads attacking Walker.  McConnell’s superpac running zero ads attacking Warnock. Have they given up?” he tweeted

Steve Law, the CEO of McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund, fired back, saying that NRSC was barely making a dent in the race.

“But don’t worry little buddy—we’re used to covering for you,” Law responded

Law also retweeted a screenshot of an NRSC email, which showed that the committee kept 99% of the funds Herschel Walker was raising. 

“Good committees raise enough so that they don’t have to steal from their candidates,” Law said

“Now it’s total open warfare between McConnell world and Scott world,” tweeted MSNBC host Chris Hayes.

“The open hostility between Rick Scott’s and McConnell’s teams is just off the charts,” noted Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake.

Despite their teams publicly feuding, Scott wrote in his letter that “there is no one person responsible for [the Republican] party’s performance across the country” and blamed a lack of Republican voter turnout for candidates losing.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee put out a statement calling attention to the ongoing feud between Scott and McConnell.

“Senate Republicans are getting nasty, petty and viciously personal – everything we could ask for heading into the Georgia runoff,” the statement said. “For our part, Senate Democrats are unified and focused on re-electing Rev. Warnock.”

Mar-a-Lago attendees tried to walk out of Trump’s speech early — but security forced them to stay

On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported that attendees to former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago speech announcing his third consecutive run for president were not allowed to leave the country club until he was finished speaking — and that apparently, some attendees appeared to wish to do so.

“Donald Trump announced his latest bid for the White House to a practically captive audience at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Tuesday night,” reported Ed Mazza. “ABC’s Jonathan Karl called the speech ‘incredibly low energy’ and said he saw people leaving in the middle of it ― until they were blocked from departing.”

Further, according to the report, “ABC’s Olivia Rubin filmed a crowd forming near the doors, waiting for a chance to leave as Trump rambled in the background.”

Trump’s announcement, which comes as he continues to face dual criminal investigations around his role in the plots to overturn the 2020 election and the stash of highly classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago, is the culmination of months of hints that the former president would try to retake the office from President Joe Biden in 2024.

“The announcement also comes as polls say his popularity within the GOP has plunged. One new poll showed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), a one-time Trump acolyte and potential 2024 rival, surging past him in multiple states,” said the report. “Trump insiders had reportedly urged him to delay his announcement.” Some have worried that it could complicate GOP efforts to get out the vote in Georgia, where a runoff will determine whether Democrats hold a 50 or 51 seat majority in the Senate.

According to another report, many Republican voters are unhappy with Trump’s new run, fearing that it could split the party and hurt their chances in 2024.

Ex-Trump chief of staff warns “he’s the only Republican who could lose” as allies pan 2024 speech

Former President Donald Trump’s third bid for the White House may harm the Republican Party because he’s the “only” candidate who could lose in 2024, Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney predicted on Tuesday.

Asked on CNN Tuesday night if he thought Trump’s announcement at Mar-a-Lago was good for the GOP, Mulvaney responded: “No I don’t. I think he’s the only Republican who could lose.”

Mulvaney served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget and then served as Trump’s third acting chief of staff between 2018 to 2020. 

A growing number of Republicans believe Trump cannot garner enough support for the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential election. With the rise of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the failure of many Trump-endorsed candidates in the midterm elections last week, pundits believe Trump is not worth the risk in a general election.

Mulvaney believes that while Trump will likely win in the primaries, he won’t get far against President Joe Biden, who received about 7 million more votes in 2020. If Trump wins the primary, Mulvaney believes that he’ll be a distraction 

“It will be about Donald Trump, the same thing we saw in 2020,” Mulvaney said on CNN. “No one voted for Joe Biden. Everybody voted for or against Donald Trump. It was a referendum on him.”

He also said a Trump nomination would mean “the 2024 race is not about Joe Biden or whatever Democrat is on the ticket, not about inflation, not about world events, not about abortion.”

“That’s what we’re hurtling toward in 2024,” he warned. “And I don’t see the outcome being any different two years from now than it was two years ago.”

Other former allies of Trump are now backing out and washing their hands clean of the former president. On Wednesday, Stephen Schwarzman, a major Trump donor and chief executive of Blackstone, announced that he would not support him this time around.

“America does better when its leaders are rooted in today and tomorrow, not today and yesterday,” Schwarzman said in a statement to Axios. “It is time for the Republican party to turn to a new generation of leaders and I intend to support one of them in the presidential primaries.”

Former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper was similarly displeased with the Mar-a-Lago announcement when appearing on CNN Tuesday night. 

“I wish he wouldn’t,” Esper said of Trump’s third consecutive run for president. “I think he’s unfit for office. I thought his remarks were very subdued and very uninspiring and I think it’s time for the Republican Party to go to more unified leaders and work on policy issues and not on personal attacks.”

Esper also claimed that Trump “puts himself before [the] country.” 

“So, to me, that’s shortcoming number one,” Esper elaborated. “I believe he has integrity issues and character as well. I don’t think he’s an honest person. We saw the falsehoods in the remarks that came out of his remarks last night, with regard to this. And Americans need a leader they can trust, that they have confidence in, that is putting them above an individual’s own self-interest. This is that’s what we need from leadership. I’ve mentioned, that’s what Ronald Reagan gave us.”

Like many GOP leaders, Esper believes that the party can succeed with its agenda without Trump as a figurehead.

“My message has been there were accomplishments in the Trump administration … better border security, conservative judges, lower taxes, deregulation,” he told CNN. “I think you can get all those things with a new generation of Republican leaders who may be more inline with what I consider myself, a Reagan Republican, who can do so without the baggage and personal attacks and self-centeredness of Donald Trump and can grow the Republican base as well.”

Pointing to the failure of the “red wave” in the 2022 midterms last week, Esper said Trump is “incapable of winning an election” and that he’s done more to help Democrats than Republicans. 

“There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have a bigger margin in the House and we should have taken the Senate and yet we haven’t,” Esper said. He put DeSantis at the top of his list for the Republican nomination.

Trump’s own family members are distancing themselves from his 2024 campaign. Ivanka Trump, who served as a key advisor in the last two Trump campaigns alongside husband Jared Kushner, did not attend the Mar-a-Lago campaign launch and stated that she is stepping away from politics now.

“I love my father very much. This time around, I am choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family,” she wrote in a statement Tuesday night.

While she said she “will always be proud of many of our administration’s accomplishments,” she added “I do not plan to be involved in politics.” 

“While I will always love and support my father, going forward I will do so outside the political arena,” she said.

Ivanka Trump also gave an exclusive interview to Fox News claiming she “never intended to go into politics,” and that she “left it all on the field, and I don’t miss it.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, both Republicans, also rejected Trump’s candidacy and believe their party won’t win if he is chosen as the 2024 Republican nominee.

“Doubling down on losing isn’t just foolish. It’s a gift to the Democrats,” Hogan wrote in a Tweet Tuesday night. “It is time to turn the page.”

Hutchinson wrote that “there are better choices” for a Republican nominee and called Trump’s message “self-indulgent.”

“Trump is correct on Biden’s failures, but his self-indulging message promoting anger has not changed. It didn’t work in 2022 and won’t work in 2024,” wrote the governor.

Jeb Bush Jr. also claimed Trump was “weak,” referring to him as “#SleepyDonnie.”

“What a low energy speech by the Donald. Time for new leaders!” wrote Bush.

In addition to Mulvaney, other former staffers are coming out against Trump, including former White House director of strategic communications Alyssa Farah and deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews

“This started as, again, sort of professional, it was sort of on-script at first, but then just interspersing it with just outright lies, dabbling into conspiracy that maybe China had something to do with the midterms, something I haven’t even seen on the dark corners of the internet,” Farah told CNN on Tuesday.

“No credible person in the Republican Party wanted this announcement today, but this is going to get legs,” Farah warned. “We are going to be covering him for the next two years and again there’s a non-zero chance he could be president again.”

Matthews added on Twitter that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago address was “one of the most low-energy, uninspiring speeches I’ve ever heard from Trump.”

Insulin used to be affordable — and then, seemingly out of nowhere, it wasn’t. Why?

Ever since billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter — arguably the world’s most powerful social media platform — observers predicted that his radical changes would have significant real-world consequences. Soon they were proved right: Thanks to Musk making it possible for anyone to verify their Twitter account for $8, a bogus account posed as pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and falsely claimed that they were giving away free insulin. Soon other fake accounts began lying about Eli Lilly’s practices, prompting their stock price to plunge and erasing billions in market cap.

“The bottom line is our system is so broken, but there is too much disagreement to really fix it.”

In the process of trolling both Musk and Big Pharma, however, the pranksters publicized the ongoing social problem that is skyrocketing insulin prices. Insulin is so expensive that Congress has unsuccessfully attempted to impose caps. In August an attempt to cap insulin prices at $35 for all Americans failed to achieve a filibuster-proof Senate majority by three votes, although Congress did agree to that cap for Medicare recipients. For countless Americans, insulin is still so expensive that they have to cut back on other living expenses or ration out their care.

This is tragically ironic, for insulin was discovered by scientists who made it their explicit goal that it would be available to everyone regardless of class.

When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he famously refused to profit off of it. Instead of putting his name on the patent, Banting allowed co-inventors Charles Best and James Collip to sell it to the University of Toronto for $1. They believed that it was unethical for anyone to try to make money off of an invention that others needed to survive. It was their dream that insulin would be affordable for all. Banting famously summed up this view by proclaiming, “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.”

The modern medical-industrial complex begs to differ. For decades insulin was affordable in the United States, although there were some price increases after the introduction of human insulin in 1984 and insulin analogs in 1996. Between 2007 and 2018, the retail cost of insulin rose by 200%, while patients with either inadequate insurance or no insurance at all can pay as much as $1000 per month. For low-income residents in the 12 states that refused to expand Medicare access as part of the Affordable Care Act, they are particularly vulnerable because they do not have access to Medicare to cap their insulin costs at $35.


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


“The entire reason for the $1 patent from the scientists who discovered insulin at the University of Toronto was so insulin would be accessible for everyone,” Irl B. Hirsch, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, told Salon by email. “Obviously, that didn’t happen.” He described the reasons behind soaring insulin prices as “very complex,” with “insulin manufacturers, ‘middle men,’ and politicians” all bearing some of the blame. Pharmaceutical companies gouge prices, pharmacy benefit managers similarly exploit the system, and overall America’s “hydra-headed system” manages to create for consumers (as Hirsch explained in a recent op-ed) “dysfunction, inefficiency and, ultimately, higher prices for all patients.”

Not everyone attributes the rise in insulin prices to nefarious forces. Douglas Holtz-Eaken, an economist at the center-right think tank The American Action Forum, told Salon that “you only can determine the price of something if you know the quality because you pay more for high quality.” While it is easy to compare modern insulin to the Banting version and claim that it is being gouged, the reality is that advances in medical technology over the past century has improved the quality of Banting’s original — but, quite literally, at a cost.

“The entire reason for the $1 patent from the scientists who discovered insulin at the University of Toronto was so insulin would be accessible for everyone,”

“Insulin now and insulin a hundred years ago are not the same thing,” Holtz-Eakin told Salon. “There have been sort of dramatic changes in the delivery system, dramatic changes in the formulation.” Despite this, “you can get very cheap insulins that don’t look like modern ones. People tend to prefer the more modern version.” Holtz-Eakin also argued that market-based solutions can solve the problem of high insulin prices.

“I think that the key is to — as always when you have a pricing problem, you have a supply problem — you want to have more competition and drive prices down,” Holtz-Eakin told Salon. “That’s always the successful long-run solution. In this case, as I said before, we’ve had entry of new insulins, but we haven’t had large market take up of it. And that is the key question.”

In contrast, Hirsch has argued in favor of Congress imposing a direct price cap on insulin so that customers can receive immediate relief.

“Short of a vote for a cap by Congress, there is a non-profit company in Utah I mention, in addition to a plan in the State of California,” Hirsch told Salon.

Even so, the outlook for people who need insulin remains grim.

“The bottom line is our system is so broken, but there is too much disagreement to really fix it,” Hirsch mused.

Expert: Indictment won’t stop Trump campaign — he could even run and serve from a jail cell

Donald Trump announced his 2024 run for the presidency on Nov. 15. In his address he railed against what he perceived as the “persecution” of himself and his family, but made scant mention of his legal woes.

Confirmation of Trump’s White House bid comes at a curious time – a week after a lackluster Republican midterm performance that many blamed on him. Moreover, it comes as the former president faces multiple criminal investigations over everything from his handling of classified documents, to allegations of falsifying the value of New York properties. There is also the not-so-small matter of a Justice Department investigation into the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

The announcement has led some to speculate that Trump may be hoping that becoming a presidential candidate will in some way shield him from prosecution.

So, does an indictment – or even a felony conviction – prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?

The short answer is no. Here’s why:

The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

These three requirements – natural-born citizenship, age, and residency – are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

Congress has ‘no power to alter’

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.

Justices clarified the court’s position in their 1969 Powell v. McCormack ruling. The case followed the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives barring pastor and New York politician Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. from taking his seat in the 90th Congress.

A button with a man's face on it under the motto 'Keep The Faith, Baby'.

Adam Clayton Powell. David J. & Janice L. Frent/Corbis via Getty Images

The resolution was not based on Powell’s failure to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements for House members set forth in the Constitution. Rather, the House found that Powell had diverted Congressional funds and made false reports about certain currency transactions.

When Powell sued to take his seat, the Supreme Court invalidated the House’s resolution on grounds that it added to the constitutionally specified qualifications for Powell to hold office. In the majority opinion, the court held that: “Congress has no power to alter the qualifications in the text of the Constitution.”

For the same reason, no limitation could now be placed on Trump’s candidacy. Nor could he be barred from taking office if he were to be indicted or even convicted.

But in case of insurrection…

The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions – with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The reason why this matters is the Department of Justice is currently investigating Trump for his activities related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

Under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, Congress is authorized to pass laws to enforce its provisions. And in February 2021, one Democratic Congressman proposed House Bill 1405, providing for a “cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.

He might also argue that his activities on and before Jan. 6 did not constitute an “insurrection” as it is understood by the wording of the amendment. There are few judicial precedents that interpret Section 3, and as such its application in modern times remains unclear. So even if House Bill 1405 were adopted, it is not clear whether it would be enough to disqualify Trump from serving as president again.

Running from behind bars

Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign – even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running – and even being elected – while in prison. As early as 1798 – some 79 years before the 14th Amendment – House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

Eugene Debs, founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran for president in 1920 while serving a prison sentence for sedition. Although he lost the election, he nevertheless won 913,693 votes. Debs promised to pardon himself if he were elected.

A black and white photo shows a man in a suit and long coat standing in front of a boat.

American socialist Eugene Debs ran for office from prison. Bettmann / Getty Images

And controversial politician and conspiracy theorist Lyndon Larouche also ran for president from a jail cell in 1992.

A prison cell as the Oval Office?

Several provisions within the Constitution offer alternatives that could be used to disqualify a president under indictment or in prison.

The 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to suspend the president from office if they conclude that the president is incapable of fulfilling his duties.

The amendment states that the removal process may be invoked “if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

It was proposed and ratified to address what would happen should a president be incapacitated due to health issues. But the language is broad and some legal scholars believe it could be invoked if someone is deemed incapacitated or incapable for other reasons, such as incarceration.

To be sure, a president behind bars could challenge the conclusion that he or she was incapable from discharging the duties simply because they were in prison. But ultimately the amendment leaves any such dispute to Congress to decide, and it may suspend the President from office by a two-thirds vote.

Indeed, it is not clear that a president could not effectively execute the duties of office from prison, since the Constitution imposes no requirements that the executive appear in any specific location. The jail cell could, theoretically, serve as the new Oval Office.

Finally, if Trump were convicted and yet prevail in his quest for the presidency in 2024, Congress might choose to impeach him and remove him from office. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Whether that language would apply to Trump for indictments or convictions arising from his previous term or business dealings outside of office would be a question for Congress to decide. The precise meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is unclear, and the courts are unlikely to second-guess the House in bringing an impeachment proceeding. For sure, impeachment would remain an option – but it might be an unlikely one if Republicans maintained their majority in the House in 2024 and 2026.

 

Stefanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science, Arizona State University

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

Leaked memo: Facebook changes policy on Trump after 2024 announcement — no fact-checks

On Tuesday night, November 15, former President Donald Trump officially announced he plans to seek the 2024 presidential nomination — an announcement that not everyone on the right is welcoming. Right-wing pundit and former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, for example, has implored Trump not to run in 2024 and warned fellow Republicans that he would “likely lose” to a Democrat if he received the GOP nomination.

Trump’s 2024 campaign will keep a lot of fact-checkers busy, as the former president and many of his loyalists continue to push the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. But the fact-checking, according to CNN, won’t be coming from Facebook and its parent company Meta (which also owns Instagram). Ahead of Trump’s announcement, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan reports, Meta sent out a company memo reminding employees that politicians are exempt from third-party fact-checkers.

O’Sullivan notes, “Facebook’s parent company Meta pays third-party fact-checking organizations to apply fact-check labels to misinformation across Facebook and Instagram. The carve-out is not exclusive to Trump and applies to all politicians, but given the rate fact-checkers find themselves dealing with claims made by the former president, a manager on Meta’s ‘news integrity partnership’ team e-mailed fact-checkers on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s announcement.”

In the November 15 memo, Meta reminded employees that “political speech is ineligible for fact-checking,” adding, “This includes the words a politician says as well as photo, video, or other content that is clearly labeled as created by the politician or their campaign.” Meta’s policy is not new; back in 2019, Meta’s Nick Clegg defended the policy and argued, “It is not our role to intervene when politicians speak.”

Meta’s 2022 memo, according to O’Sullivan, stated, “We define a ‘politician’ as candidates running for office, current office holders — and, by extension, many of their cabinet appointees — along with political parties and their leaders.”

After the January 6, 2021 insurrection, Trump was banned from some of the top social media platforms. Meta banned him from Facebook and Instagram, and Twitter deactivated his @realdonaldtrump account. But these bans aren’t necessarily permanent.

With Tesla CEO Elon Musk having acquired Twitter, many Trump supporters are hoping that Trump’s @realdonaldtrump account will be restored. And on January 7, 2023, Facebook will consider reactivating Trump’s account.

Trump, meanwhile, continues to operate his own social medium platform, Truth Social, promoting it as a MAGA alternative to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

The Facebook/Instagram and Twitter bans haven’t kept Trump’s supporters from making Trump-related announcements on those platforms. The Trump-associated Facebook page Team Trump still has around 2.3 million followers.

Biden touts methane crackdown at COP27

President Joe Biden made a brief appearance at COP27, the annual United Nations climate conference, on Friday to try and convince the world that the United States is more committed than ever to tackling climate change. In addition to touting the passage of the biggest climate bill in U.S. history, the president announced several initiatives to cut emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane, including new oil and gas regulations at home and a plan to drive down emissions internationally.

Cutting methane emissions is an urgent climate project. The gas is 80 to 90 times stronger than carbon dioxide at heating up the planet in its first 20 years in the atmosphere, and it leaks out of fossil fuel infrastructure ranging from wells to pipelines all the way to power plants and homes. Methane breaks down in the atmosphere in a matter of decades, meaning that addressing these leaks today can reduce its impact quickly — which would slow down climate change and stave off some of its worst effects. 

A year ago, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations to address methane leaks from existing oil and gas sites. The U.S. already had some rules in place to prevent leaks from new wells, but existing wells have been allowed to go on polluting. Now, after an extensive public comment period, the agency is proposing even stronger regulations that could take effect as soon as next year. Environmental groups applauded the government on Friday for addressing key concerns raised by experts in their feedback on the original proposal.

“The Biden administration is continuing to advance the ball on these crucial standards,” said Jon Goldstein, the senior director of regulatory and legislative affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund.

Under last year’s proposal, if emissions at a particular oil or gas well were low enough, those wells would be exempt from routine monitoring for leaks. Now the EPA wants regular monitoring of all wells — including those that are no longer being pumped but have yet to be properly shut down. These previously exempt wells, often called “marginal wells” because they don’t produce much oil or gas, are estimated to be responsible for more than 50 percent of all wellsite methane.​​ 

The oil and gas industry fought to exclude marginal wells from monitoring, claiming the rules would be too burdensome for smaller companies. But the Environmental Defense Fund found that three-quarters of these wells are in fact owned by large companies that raked in an average gross revenue of $335 million in 2019.

The EPA is also proposing to strengthen limits on “flaring,” an industry practice of burning off methane that comes out of oil wells, converting it into carbon dioxide — which is still harmful to the climate, but less so in the short term. But flares regularly fail, and the less wasteful alternative is to capture that gas and sell it, so that if it’s burned, it’s at least creating usable energy. The new rules would require well operators to capture the gas unless they can prove it’s not feasible or safe to do so.

“While we are disappointed EPA did not propose an outright ban on oil and gas industry flaring,” said Melissa Hornbein, a senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, “we are nonetheless encouraged by the draft rule’s incisive measures to tackle leak detection and repair from all sources, including low-producing and abandoned wells.”

The third big change is a “super emitters program” that would authorize third parties that track methane leaks to notify companies when they detect big plumes and require companies to respond within a matter of days. Satellite companies like Kayrros regularly uncover high-volume methane leaks in the Permian Basin, an oil and gas field that spans West Texas and Southern New Mexico. To date that data has been used to shame companies — now it could be used for enforcement. 

The EPA says the rules would deliver an estimated $3 billion worth of climate and health benefits per year, taking into account the costs of compliance. That includes preventing 36 million tons of methane from entering the atmosphere between now and 2030, the greenhouse gas equivalent of shutting down all the coal power plants in the U.S. for a year. The estimate also accounts for eliminating nearly 10 million tons of volatile organic compounds, chemical gases emitted by oil and gas infrastructure that can harm human health and contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. 

Once put into effect, the rules would work in conjunction with a fee on methane emissions that was created by the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate bill Biden signed in August. Beginning in 2025, major offenders will be charged a fee of up to $1,500 for each excess ton of methane they release.

In addition to strengthening regulations at home, Biden is also working to shore up international cooperation on methane. At last year’s climate conference in Glasgow, the U.S. launched the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions from all sources by 30 percent by 2030. At COP27 on Friday, the U.S., along with the European Union and a number of other partner countries, agreed to develop standards for monitoring and reporting methane emissions that would help create a market for “low methane-intensity natural gas.” 

More than 130 countries signed on to the Global Methane Pledge, and dozens are expected to release more detailed plans to address methane at the conference. But the initiative has still failed to attract the three of the worst methane offenders in the world — Russia, India, and China.

Donald Trump launches 2024 revenge tour — and Fox News, at least, is here for it

In one of the most predictable moves in American political history, Donald Trump announced the America First Vengeance Tour 2024 at his Mar-a-Lago beach club last night. Although commentators have been saying it’s the earliest notification of a presidential run in history, it actually isn’t. Trump himself announced his intention to run for re-election the day he took office in 2017. He has been champing at the bit to make it official this time, and only held back in order to collect as much unaccountable money as possible through his various PACs, which will now be subject to more stringent campaign finance rules.

It’s pretty obvious that one of Trump’s prime motivations for going into campaign mode now (aside from his bottomless thirst for revenge) is so he can claim that the various criminal and civil cases against him are all political hit jobs. He seems to be under the impression that running for president conveys magical powers, as if the Justice Department rule against indicting a sitting president somehow applies to a candidate. It does not, although there is little doubt that even a criminal indictment will not stop him from running. In fact, he knows he can capitalize on any legal troubles by claiming he is being persecuted, and knows his followers will eat it up with a spoon. Last night’s speech even featured this rather pitiful lament:

Trump’s speech itself was remarkably boring and perfunctory. He tried to follow through on the promise to be dignified and “buttoned up,” but couldn’t sustain it. The first 20 minutes or so were prepared remarks about how he turned over a country that was gloriously successful with a great economy and Joe Biden has turned it all into a barren hellscape. It was filled with lies, of course. When he finally slunk out of town in January 2021, unemployment was more than twice what it is now. America lost 87,222 people to COVID that month, the peak of the entire pandemic. The country has rarely been in such horrible shape, and the American people held him responsible for much of it.

But the speech soon devolved into Trump’s normal shtick: He did some whining and complaining, while also taking credit for everything from the sun coming up in the morning to the Republicans’ midterm “victory” in the House, which hasn’t been called yet and is likely to leave them with a devilishly narrow margin. He insulted Joe Biden, calling him mentally incompetent even as he said things like this:

The hand-picked Mar-a-Lago crowd was straining to stay engaged as Trump rambled on. First CNN cut away and then Fox News followed suit — MSNBC didn’t cover it at all — switching to their pundit panels even as he was still talking. That was when we finally got a glimpse of how this pseudo-event was going to be received by the media.

Trump is the “pre-eminent fighter for freedom of his generation,” pronounced Pete Hegseth. “There are others who will leverage their relationship with Trump but there is only one original.” Who could he possibly mean?

I had expected that he’d do at least a little better, and that mainstream media talking heads would feel free to pronounce that just maybe he had finally seen the light and become a serious politician. But after that stale and lifeless performance, most of them just sat there numbly, repeating their talking points from earlier in the day. On Fox News it was a different story, of course. On one side of the screen Trump droned on, while on the other Sean Hannity and his guests gushed like a bunch of tweens at their first Taylor Swift concert.

Pete Hegseth exclaimed, “There is nothing like the original!” According to him, it was a “forward-looking speech that recognizes the disaster of the last two years.” He continued, “Trump is the best I’ve ever seen him. He is the standard-bearer!”

Hegseth was just getting warmed up, calling Trump the “pre-eminent fighter for freedom of his generation” and asserting that “he delivered on every prerogative that any conservative Republican or America First supporter would have wanted.” Trump was “at the top of his game,” he announced, “the original is a flavor in and of itself. There are others who will leverage their relationship with Trump but there is only one original.”


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


Hannity chimed in, saying it  was “a very serious, powerful speech. This is Donald Trump. It’s game time for him.” Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee — who had criticized the timing of Trump’s announcement less than a day earlier — said that “the construct of the speech is pitch perfect. He has made it about the American people. He is fighting for us. This was an absolutely brilliant speech. … If he stays on this, he is unbeatable.” Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of Trump’s most loyal acolytes in Congress, joined the chorus: “I think Pete and the governor have this exactly right. This is our campaign. I think of the great coaches. Something that athletes know [is] that their coach puts their athletes first. That’s something Americans know about Donald Trump. They know he puts their family’s interests first.”

It went on like that as a muted Trump blathered on about God only knows what, while Joe Concha declaring that this flat, monotonous diatribe “felt more like a State of the Union address than a rally speech.”

Rupert Murdoch has  supposedly said he won’t support Trump this time and is all-in on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, but his celebrity talkers apparently didn’t get the memo. (Furthermore, Murdoch has said that before and lost his nerve.) They were ecstatic, and one can only assume that ecstasy was transferred to their viewers. As Amanda Marcotte wrote for Salon, “while Republicans love to play-act the independent-minded freedom lovers, invariably they cannot wait to kneel before the biggest, loudest bully in the room. ” Nobody is louder than Donald Trump.

Will this speech knock the Republicans’ Great White Hope of the midterms down a peg? Maybe. Last night Trump plopped himself right in front of DeSantis’ big victory lap and invited his faithful to join him. Fox dutifully complied as if the GOP’s midterm debacle had changed nothing.

The mainstream media is no doubt still high on DeSantis. They seem very excited by his prospects. But Fox News hasn’t made that transition, at least not yet. Their star performers are still in thrall to Trump despite his dismal record of failure and a performance that could put a room full of colicky babies to sleep. So DeSantis has his work cut out for him. Without the right-wing media, all he’s got is the hollowed-out Republican establishment — and they are about as popular with the GOP grassroots as man-buns and vegan hot dogs. Good luck with that. 

Ivanka snubbed dad’s speech and tried to distance from his campaign — after he “begged” her to come

Former President Donald Trump’s eldest daughter was notably absent from his 2024 campaign announcement on Tuesday and later issued a statement seeking to distance herself from his third presidential bid.

Ivanka Trump, who served as a key advisor alongside her husband Jared Kushner during her father’s first two campaigns and at the White House, did not attend Trump’s Mar-a-Lago campaign launch.

“I love my father very much. This time around, I am choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family,” she said in a statement released shortly after her father’s speech.

“I do not plan to be involved in politics,” she continued. “While I will always love and support my father, going forward I will do so outside the political arena.”

She added that she was “grateful” to have had the honor to serve the country and “I will always be proud of many of our Administration’s accomplishments.”

Ivanka Trump also gave an exclusive interview to Fox News, which has had a notable turn against Trump after his candidates lost competitive races last week and cut away from his rambling speech on Tuesday.

Ivanka Trump told the outlet that she is “extremely close” with her father and “that hasn’t changed and will never change.”

“I’ve had many roles over the years but that of daughter is one of the most elemental and consequential,” she said. “I am loving this time with my kids, loving life in Miami and the freedom and privacy with having returned to the private sector. This has been one of the greatest times of my life.”

She added that she “never intended to go into politics.”

“I’m very proud of what I was able to accomplish,” she said. “I left it all on the field, and I don’t miss it.”

A source close to Ivanka Trump told Fox News that she was transparent with her father and did not decide to stay out of politics “yesterday.”

“This is where she’s been since she left Washington,” the source said. “She felt she had served the country, and now she is going to focus on her family, and Jared felt the same.”

Though Kushner ultimately attended the announcement without his wife, Ivanka Trump’s refusal to get on board caused some “extra behind-the-scenes tension” ahead of the announcement, The New York Post reported on Monday.


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


Trump spent part of his youngest daughter Tiffany’s wedding over the weekend “begging” Ivanka and Kushner to join him at the announcement, sources told the outlet.

“Trump thought he could convince Ivanka this weekend to come back and campaign for him as she was the most requested speaker after the president himself last time around … but so far she’s resisting his entreaties and holding firm, as is Jared,” a source told the Post. “They both feel they got burned in Washington and don’t want to go back and expose themselves and their children to another bitter campaign.”

Tiffany Trump was also absent from the event after traveling for her honeymoon, according to the report.

And while Eric and Barron Trump attended the event, Donald Trump Jr. was also missing from the announcement after his flight from a hunting trip out west was canceled due to weather, according to the Post.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., another close Trump ally, also canceled his plans to attend the event, blaming the weather.

Ivanka Trump and Kushner have spent months trying to distance themselves from their time in the Trump White House, The New York Times reported over the summer, rejecting Trump’s election lies but apparently doing little to stop him from waging a campaign to try to steal the 2020 election. Though anonymous “sources close to the couple” frequently tried to paint them as a moderating influence in the White House, they stuck by his side through all of the campaign and administration scandals and played highly influential roles in domestic and foreign policy.

Ivanka Trump testified to the Jan. 6 committee that she did not believe her father’s election claims but she told a documentary crew in December 2020 that her father should “continue to fight until every legal remedy is exhausted” because people were questioning the “sanctity of our elections.”

The committee aired Ivanka Trump’s testimony saying that she “accepted” the assessment of then-Attorney General Bill Barr, who called Trump’s election claims “bullshit,” prompting Trump to issue a statement dismissing her opinion.

“Ivanka Trump was not involved in looking at, or studying, Election results,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “She had long since checked out and was, in my opinion, only trying to be respectful to Bill Barr and his position as Attorney General (he sucked!).” 

It’s not just Coca-Cola: Corporations have co-opted the UN climate talks

Once a year, delegates from almost 200 countries gather for the purpose of finding ways to keep climate change from spiraling out of control. This time around, they’re meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, for COP27. And the event is brought to you by the largest plastic producer in the world, Coca-Cola.

While Coca-Cola is considered a lower-tier sponsor than the conference’s “partners,” which include Microsoft, IBM, and Bloomberg Philanthropies, Coca-Cola’s role has garnered an exceptionally large amount of criticism. Nearly 240,000 people have signed a petition for the Egyptian government-led conference to drop the partnership with Coca-Cola, a corporate giant that makes roughly 4,000 plastic bottles from oil every second

Over the years, climate summits have become a branding opportunity for corporations to attach their names to high-profile efforts to save the world. One report found that the companies sponsoring the 2015 summit in Paris, for example, had paid around $18.8 million, about 10 percent of the total budget. It can be hard for organizers of an expensive-to-run conference to turn down that kind of money. But those sponsorships have become a target of protest as activists seek to show how companies like Coca-Cola have contributed to the climate crisis, the very thing COP27 is supposed to address. 

The Coca-Cola debacle inspired a recent political cartoon that contrasts the conference’s lofty goal of limiting climate change with the merch-filled expo that takes place alongside it. “Make sure you grab your COP27 gift bag,” says a comic by Australian cartoonist Andrew Marlton. The panels advertise fictional swag: a shirt that says “My environment minister went to COP27 and all I got was this lousy t-shirt,” an “economy-size bottle of greenwash,” and the new book by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg (“no need to read it, just be seen with it”). Thunberg, for her part, decided to skip the conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, in part because of the corporate-friendly atmosphere.

All the logos on display at COP27 hint at what’s going on behind the scenes: Companies have been influencing the global climate negotiations since their inception in Rio de Janeiro 30 years ago, working to make sure that the final agreement would not force them to cut emissions from fossil fuels. Instead, they began volunteering “net-zero” pledges to cancel out their emissions at some later date. They’ve also started to shape the conversation at every summit. When COP27 attendees talk about “net-zero” and the need for ever-better climate data, for example, they are talking about climate change in a language that businesses helped develop, and one that experts say distracts from the true goal: the need to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

The Coca-Cola sponsorship “seems outrageous to me,” said Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo. “But if you’re in a world where pretty much everything is voluntary and everything has to make, ultimately, business sense, then you’re going to get net-zero pledges, and you’re going to get corporate sponsorships of government or civil society.”

Even though oil companies haven’t been allowed to sponsor the talks, the fossil fuel industry still has a huge presence: By one count, it sent more than 630 lobbyists to Sharm el-Sheikh, a larger delegation than sent by any country except the United Arab Emirates, the host of next year’s climate summit. (It wasn’t until last year that the conference’s final agreement mentioned the phrase “fossil fuels” at all — and even then, the language got watered down.) COP27 has also been criticized for hiring a public relations firm, Hill+Knowlton Strategies, that has represented oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and Saudi Aramco, to manage communications.

Climate advocates often justify corporate involvement by saying that companies have a role to play in financing the changes that are needed, said Jennie Stephens, a professor of sustainability science and policy at Northeastern University. But she believes that corporate influence at negotiations is preventing “more transformative action” from resulting. Instead of denying the problem or undermining science, those who oppose reducing emissions are now focused on delaying climate action, Stephens said. “Part of delay is to acknowledge the problem and then present corporate interests as if they’re doing something to mitigate problems, when in fact, they’re not.”

Despite talking about fixing climate change more than ever, for instance, all major oil companies are on track to increase oil production by 2026, according to a report earlier this year. “If they are still planning to extract all these fossil fuels in perpetuity,” Stephens said, “there’s no way we’re ever going to meet any of the goals that all the countries have committed to in this whole long, expensive process that so much time and effort has gone into.”


So how did corporations become such major players in climate politics? It goes back to an old public relations strategy. In the 1960s and ’70s, environmental activists brought attention to how polluters were setting rivers on fire, spilling oil into the ocean, and spraying pesticides everywhere. Companies were branded as villains and were forced to get in line with new regulations to prevent pollution. 

Around that time, a young PR rep named E. Bruce Harrison figured that the key to avoiding future regulations was all about compromise. Calling for “balance” between the “Three Es” — the environment, energy, and the economy — would make the industry’s position look reasonable and responsible, and leave environmentalists looking like they wanted to ruin the economy. By working with environmentalists, companies could appear to be doing the right thing — and get a seat at the table where decisions got made. 

That’s exactly what businesses did leading up to a major U.N. climate agreement in 1992. The first order of business of the Global Climate Coalition — a group of utilities, oil drillers, automakers, and other companies assembled by the National Association of Manufacturers a few years earlier — was to influence the international treaty that would be signed in Rio de Janeiro. At negotiating sessions, industry representatives argued for a voluntary approach to reducing emissions, in the hopes of avoiding a binding one. They got what they asked for. A National Association of Manufacturers business activity report in 1992 congratulated itself on a “strong and effective presence” during the Rio negotiations.

After that, the Global Climate Coalition “actively lobbied” ensuing climate conferences to make sure companies wouldn’t be forced to cut emissions, according to a report by Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Brown University. It also lobbied Congress and the White House to make sure that the United States, the biggest emitter in the world in the 1990s, would not ratify any binding climate treaties that managed to pass anyway. In 2001, when President George W. Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required countries to cut carbon emissions, White House staff met with the Global Climate Coalition to congratulate them. “POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you,” read the talking points prepared for Paula Dobriansky, the lead negotiator on U.S. climate policy at the time.

The coalition disbanded in 2002, with its mission accomplished, but companies never left the scene of climate negotiations. They gradually took on more of a sponsorship role and began setting up official-looking side events.

Corporations’ high level of involvement in the negotiations is a natural outcome of people’s lack of faith in government to take action on climate change, and the belief that businesses can help fill in the gap, Rome said — an idea that’s been in force since around 1990. “There’s obviously still a lot of people who are skeptical of what corporations will do,” he said. “But a lot of other people, whether grudgingly or not, have thought, ‘Well, government isn’t going to do anything. Businesses are usually powerful institutions. If anybody can do something, it’s business.'”


Companies and governments often pledge to go “net-zero” — meaning that they’ll suck up as much carbon dioxide as they emit — but such plans are often light on the details. The United Nations says it wants to crack down on these wishy-washy climate promises. Last week, it issued a new report offering guidelines to make “net-zero” pledges more meaningful. The report was perceived as taking companies to task — the U.N. secretary-general, António Guterres, said there must be “zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing.” 

But experts told Grist that the bigger issue was that the United Nations was spending so much time talking about “net-zero.” While the concept of zeroing out emissions could work, in theory, critics say it is too ambiguous to be meaningful and easily gets exploited by policymakers and companies. A recent study analyzing public pledges from hundreds of large global companies found that 93 percent of them were on track to miss their emissions goals.

For those who see “net-zero” as bogus, talking about it might end up perpetuating the problem. Rome thinks that the U.N. report’s focus on getting companies to follow through on their pledges seemed to be dodging a real solution: requiring companies to cut emissions. The report “only guarantees that we’ll spend a lot more time talking about the details, when the whole idea of it is the problem,” he said. 

Squabbling over details has become a feature of U.N. climate conferences as well as discussions around corporate sustainability, said Matthew Archer, a professor of sustainability at the University of York in the United Kingdom. Archer is writing a book arguing that “endless discussions” about metrics and measurements can distract from the real work that needs to be done on climate change. He argues that, while accurate data is needed, the search for ever-more-accurate numbers has become a form of delaying action itself. 

“The whole conversation [around net-zero] is turning toward, ‘Oh no, you’re measuring it wrong, you haven’t considered this aspect,” Archer said. The debates “end up just becoming technical squabbles and people fighting over very minor methods and methodological questions,” while ignoring the bigger questions about power in politics — such as whether net-zero is a helpful way to achieve climate goals at all.

Rome says that voluntary action from corporations will never be enough to solve the climate crisis. “The whole last 30 years has been this vast experiment in what they are willing to do voluntarily,” he said, with lackluster results. The world doesn’t need more “good” companies to make more net-zero pledges, Rome explained: It needs rules that force all companies to cut their emissions.

Coca-Cola may be in the spotlight for greenwashing with its sponsorship of the latest climate summit, but the problem is much bigger than one company. The U.N. has been “trying to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in the corporate world,” Rome said. “That’s important, but it’s not nearly as important as pointing out that at the end of the day, we need something beyond more good guys.”

‘Fourth trimester’ focus is pushed to prevent maternal deaths

For several weeks a year, the work of nurse-midwife Karen Sheffield-Abdullah is really detective work. She and a team of other medical investigators with the North Carolina public health department scour the hospital records and coroner reports of new moms who died after giving birth.

These maternal mortality review committees look for clues about what contributed to the deaths — unfilled prescriptions, missed postnatal appointments, signs of trouble that doctors overlooked — to figure out how many of them could have been prevented.

The committees are at work in 36 states, and in the latest and largest compilation of such data, released in September by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a staggering 84% of pregnancy-related deaths were deemed preventable.

Even more striking to nurse-detectives like Sheffield-Abdullah is that 53% of the deaths occurred well after women left the hospital, between seven days and a year after delivery.

“We are so baby-focused,” she said. “Once the baby is here, it’s almost like the mother is discarded. Like a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. The mom is the wrapper, and the baby is the candy. Once you remove the wrapper, you just discard the wrapper. And what we really need to be thinking about is that fourth trimester, that time after the baby is born.”

Mental health conditions were the leading underlying cause of maternal deaths between 2017 and 2019, with white and Hispanic women most likely to die from suicide or drug overdose, while cardiac problems were the leading cause of death for non-Hispanic Black women, according to the CDC report.

The data highlights multiple weaknesses in the system of care for new mothers, from obstetricians who are not trained (or paid) to look for signs of mental trouble or addiction, to policies that strip women of health insurance coverage shortly after they give birth.

The No. 1 problem, as Sheffield-Abdullah sees it, is that the typical six-week postnatal checkup is way too late. In the North Carolina data, new moms who later died often missed this appointment, she said, usually because they had to go back to work or they had other young children.

“We really need to stay connected while they’re in the hospital,” Sheffield-Abdullah said, then make sure patients are referred for the appropriate follow-up care “within one to two weeks after delivery.”

Increased screening for postpartum depression and anxiety, starting at the first prenatal visit and continuing throughout the year after birth, is another CDC recommendation, as is better coordination of care between medical and social services, said David Goodman, who leads the maternal health team at the CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, which issued the report.

A common crisis point in the months after childbirth is when a parent’s substance use problem gets so bad that child protective services takes the baby away, precipitating a mother’s accidental or intentional overdose. Having access to treatment and making sure child visitations happen regularly could be key to preventing such deaths, Goodman said.

The most important policy change underscored by the data, he said, has been the expansion of free health coverage through Medicaid. Until recently, pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage typically expired two months after delivery, forcing mothers to stop taking medications or seeing a therapist or doctor because they couldn’t afford the cost without health insurance.

Now, 36 states have either extended or plan to extend Medicaid coverage to a full year postpartum, partly in response to the early work of maternal mortality review committees. For years, the data showed about a third of pregnancy-related deaths occurred one year after delivery, but in this report, they jumped to more than half, Goodman said, putting more urgency on the importance of longer-term Medicaid coverage.

“If this is not a call to action, I don’t know what is,” said Adrienne Griffen, executive director of the Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance, a nonprofit focused on national policy. “We’ve long known that mental health issues are the most common complication of pregnancy and childbirth. We just haven’t had the will to do anything about it.”

The latest CDC study from September analyzed 1,018 deaths in 36 states, significantly more than in the previous report. The CDC is providing additional funding for maternal mortality reviews, Goodman said, with the hope of capturing more complete data from more states in the future.

Advocates and doctors have been heartened by the increased awareness and attention on maternal mortality, especially efforts to correct racial disparities: Black women are three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications as white women.

But many of these same advocates for better maternal care say they are dismayed by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision eradicating the federal right to abortion; restrictions around reproductive health care, they say, will erode the gains.

Since states like Texas began banning abortions earlier in pregnancy and making fewer exceptions for cases in which the pregnant person’s health is endangered, some women are finding it harder to get emergency care for a miscarriage.

States are also prohibiting abortions — even in cases of rape or incest — for young girls, who face much higher risks of complications or death from carrying a pregnancy to term.

“More and more women and other birthing individuals are receiving messages that ‘You don’t have ownership of your body,'” said Jameta Nicole Barlow, an assistant professor of writing, health policy, and management at George Washington University. “Whether it’s through policy, whether it’s through your doctor who has to adhere to policy, whether it’s through your daily work experience, there’s this acknowledgment that ‘I don’t own my body.'”

This will only exacerbate the mental health struggles women experience around pregnancy, Barlow said, especially Black women who are also coping with a long, intergenerational history of slavery and forced pregnancy. She suspects the maternal mortality numbers will get worse before they get better, because of the way politics, policy, and psychology are intertwined.

“Until we address what’s happening politically,” she said, “we’re not going to help what’s happening psychologically.”


This story is part of a partnership that includes KQEDNPR, and KHN.

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.

Population growth, climate change create an ‘Anthropocene engine’ that’s changing the planet

At first glance, the connections between the world’s growing population and climate change seem obvious. The more people we have on this planet, the larger their collective impact on the climate.

However, a closer look with a longer time horizon reveals relationships between population size and climate change that can help us better understand both humanity’s predicament as the global population nears 8 billion people — a milestone the United Nations expects the world to hit on about Nov. 15, 2022.

Looking back to the Stone Age

For much of human evolution, our ancestors were exposed to large climatic fluctuations between ice ages and intermittent warmer periods. The last of these ice ages ended about 10,000 years ago.

Before the ice sheets melted, sea levels were about 400 feet (120 meters) lower than today. That allowed humans to migrate around the world. Everywhere they went, our ancestors reshaped landscapes, first by clearing forests and then through early agricultural practices that emerged in a number of regions starting just as the last ice age ended.

Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has suggested that these early actions — cutting down trees and expanding farming — caused a small initial rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That contributed to a stable climate over the past 10,000 years by counteracting trends of declining carbon dioxide levels that might have triggered another glaciation event.

By reshaping landscapes, our ancestors actively constructed the niches they inhabited. This process is an important aspect of evolutionary change, creating important feedback dynamics between evolving species and their environment.

As humans evolved, the demands of the growing population, associated knowledge creation and energy use created a feedback cycle my colleagues and I call the Anthropocene engine. That engine has transformed the planet.

Revving up the Anthropocene engine

The Anthropocene engine has been running for at least 8,000 years. It led to the rise of modern civilizations and ultimately to the environmental challenges we face today, including climate change.

How does the Anthropocene engine work?

First, populations had to reach a critical number of people to successfully create enough knowledge about their environments that they could begin to actively and purposefully transform the niches they lived in.

Successful agriculture was the product of such knowledge. In turn, agriculture increased the amount of energy available to these early societies.

More energy supports more people. More people led to early settlements and, later, to cities. This allowed for task specialization and division of labor, which, in turn, accelerated the creation of more knowledge, which increased available energy and allowed population size to grow as well. And so on, and so on.

While the details of this process differ around the world, they are all driven by the same Anthropocene engine.

The problem of exponential growth

As an evolutionary biologist and historian of science, I have studied the evolution of knowledge and complexity for over three decades and have been developing mathematical models with colleagues to help explain these processes. Using the universality of the underlying processes driving the Anthropocene engine, we can capture these dynamics in the form of a growth equation, which includes links between population growth and increasing energy use.

One consequence of positive feedback cycles in dynamical systems is that they lead to exponential growth.

Exponential growth can start very slowly and be barely noticeable for quite some time. But eventually it will have dramatic consequences wherever resources are limited.

Driven by the Anthropocene engine, human population has grown exponentially, and individual societies have approached collapse multiple times over the past 8,000 years. The disappearance of the Easter Island civilization and the collapse of the Mayan empire, for example, have been linked to the depletion of environmental resources as populations rose. The dramatic decline of the European population during the Black Death in the 1300s was a direct consequence of crowded and unsanitary living conditions that facilitated the spread of Yersenia pestis, or plague.

Biologist Paul Ehrlich warned about unchecked growth in his 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” predicting growing global demand for limited resources would lead to societal collapse without changes in human consumption.

But globally, humanity has always found a way to avoid doom. Knowledge-based innovations, such as the Green Revolution — the broad-scale effects of which Ehrlich did not foresee — have enabled people to reset the clock, leading to more cycles of innovation and (almost) collapse.

One example is the sequence of energy regimes. It started with wood and animal power. Then came coal, oil and gas.

Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution, and with it, greater wealth and advances in health care. But the age of fossil fuels has had dramatic consequences. It almost doubled the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in less than 300 years, causing the unprecedented speed of global warming that humanity is experiencing today.

At the same time, inequality has become endemic. Poorer nations that contributed little to climate change are suffering the most from global warming, while just 20 wealthier countries are responsible for about 80% of emissions.

The next energy transition to avoid collapse is underway now with the rise of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. But studies — including a report released ahead of the 2022 U.N. Climate Change Conference in November — show humans aren’t evolving their energy use fast enough to keep climate change in check.

Using knowledge to reset the cycle again

Every species, if left unchecked, would grow exponentially. But species are subject to constraints — or negative feedback mechanisms — such as predators and limited food supplies.

The Anthropocene engine has allowed humans to emancipate ourselves from many of the negative feedback mechanisms that otherwise would have kept the population’s growth in check. We intensified food production, developed trade among regions and discovered medications to survive diseases.

Where does this leave humanity now? Are we approaching inevitable collapse from climate change of our own making, or can we transition again and discover innovations that reset the cycle?

Introducing negative feedback into our socioeconomic-technical systems – not as radical population control or war, but in the form of norms, values and regulations on excess greenhouse gas emissions – can help keep climate change in check.

Humanity can use knowledge to keep itself within its environmental boundaries.


Manfred Laubichler, Global Futures Professor and President’s Professor of Theoretical Biology and History of Biology, Arizona State University

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

Trump’s announcement proves it, again: Republicans aren’t tough — they’re a bunch of weenies

If one indisputable truth has emerged from the midterm elections, it’s that Donald Trump is the political equivalent of herpes. Sure, the MAGA base loves him, but mainly as a blight they can inflict upon liberals, since infecting all Democrats with literal herpes is a logistical impossibility. Everyone else despises Trump, so much so that Republican candidates, by aligning themselves too closely with Trump, surrendered a significant chunk of voters and lost a bunch of otherwise winnable elections. 

So for the past week, Republican talking heads have been lining up to declare that it’s finally time to abandon the tiny-fingered parasite who sucks voters out of the R column. As Salon’s Areeba Shah has documented, even some of the most shameless Trump sycophants, like Candace Owens of the Daily Wire and former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, have been out there imploring their onetime godhead to take a step back from another presidential campaign. The GOP chattering class has turned its lonely eyes to Florida Gov. Ron “Don’t Say Gay” DeSantis as the next-level Trump challenger, in the hope that he can be evil enough to satisfy the MAGA base, while tricking normie voters into thinking he’s not quite as bad as the Bad Orange Man. 


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


After spending six years playing Renfield to their pumpkin-colored Dracula, you’d think Republicans would better understand that even the mildest criticism of their psychotic-narcissistic nominal leader is bound to backfire. Any Republican who asks Trump to humble himself might as well wear a sign that says, “Please beat me into submission, sir.” Trump already had plenty of reasons to run for office, such as his immense ego and the hopes that an official campaign may keep him out of prison. Now he has one more motivation: Reminding other Republicans that he’s the boss and compelling them to line up to lick his boots. Which they, despite an oh-so-exciting week of feigned independence, will be doing in short order.

In his rambling, conspiracy theory-laden speech announcing his presidential run from his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, Trump employed the sleepy but sing-songy tone he uses when he’s trying to appear “serious.” Despite his claims that this campaign would “bring people together,” Trump failed to hide the terminal narcissism fueling this run. He griped that the “fake news” was failing to report his supposedly fantastic “endorsement success rate.” The speech was so long-winded and whiny that CNN only lasted a few minutes before cutting away, a dramatic departure from the 2016 coverage Trump received, in which his ratings-grabbing stemwinders would often be aired without commentary on cable news in their entirety. 

The air does feel like it’s deflated from Trump’s surly tires. It makes no matter. Republicans may hate themselves for it, but they will fall in line. 

The elite Republican failure to fathom Trump’s entirely predictable behavior is perhaps understandable. After all, it’s a group of people who don’t know themselves very well, which is why they spent a week laboring under the delusion that they’re just about ready to stand up to Trump, in recognition of all the damage he’s done to them or their party. But if there is one thing as inevitable as Trump’s Tuesday announcement, it’s that the Republican establishment will come crawling back to him, each supposed leader more eager than the last to prostrate themselves before a man who views them with utter and undisguised contempt. 

We know this because the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. For more than six years, Republican leaders have shown there’s nothing Trump can say or do that will result in their turning on him. Does he call a Republican rival’s wife ugly, and accuse the rival’s late father of assassinating JFK? Ask Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who endured all that and more only to abase himself as one of Trump’s most loyal lapdogs. 


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


After Trump defended the neo-Nazis who rioted in Charlottesville in 2017, Republicans responded by embracing a more overt form of racism. After Trump led Republicans to heavy losses in the 2018 midterms, they doubled down by running even more overtly MAGA candidates. After Trump was impeached for trying to extort the president of Ukraine, a major U.S. ally, Republicans refused to convict him. When Trump started pressuring Republicans to risk prison to help him steal the 2020 election, they made excuses for him. When Trump sent a murderous crowd after his vice president and members of Congress on Jan. 6, Republicans shielded him from consequences. If they can’t turn their back on the man for attempted murder-by-MAGA-goons, then there’s really nothing that will make them rethink their allegiance to President Drink Bleach

To be fair, part of the reason the GOP elite cannot quit Trump is rational. As Heather Digby Parton notes, “40% or so of the party faithful” still worship Trump, and any serious attempt to run Trump out of the party will result in the base turning on Republican leaders, not on Trump. Witness, after all, how Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming saw her career in Congress end because she took a stand against Trump. (As did the careers of nearly every other House Republican who voted to impeach him.) Trump metaphorically hung her head on the castle walls as a warning to others, and they got the message. It’s important to understand that Trump’s voters hate the Republican elite almost as much as they hate liberals. Watching Trump push around GOP bigwigs in D.C. is nearly as sweet to the MAGA faithful as watching him own the libs. That’s especially true when it comes to the 4chan losers who turn out to vote for Trump but otherwise tend to skip elections

Plus, if he doesn’t get the nomination, he’s bound to go on the warpath against whoever does, convincing QAnoners, Alex Jones fans, and other assorted dirtbags to not vote for the Republican who did get the nomination. It’s a hostage-taking situation, and Trump has all the leverage. 

But truly, the inability to disentangle themselves from Trump is about something even deeper in the Republican psyche: Right-wingers are born bootlickers. Hierarchal thinking and a near-erotic obsession with power and domination define the conservative mentality, especially in the era of rising authoritarianism. While Republicans love to play-act as independent-minded, freedom-loving pioneers, they not-so-secretly cannot wait to kneel before the biggest, loudest bully in the room. 

Yet they’re also embarrassed about this, which is no doubt why so many of them are making noises about rejecting Trump in favor of DeSantis — despite the fact that the Sunshine State governor exhibits an unhealthy fixation on Dear Orange Leader that led him to change the way he looks, moves and dresses to appear ever more Trumpy, like he’s Jennifer Jason Leigh in “Single White Female.” But authoritarians cannot help but give into their desire to fall in line behind a leader whose main attribute is how thoroughly he demeans them. Trump himself, as much as he likes to act like a strongman, has the same mentality. When he’s around dictators he views as more dominant than himself, like Russian President Vladimir Putin or North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Trump flops on his back, begging them for tummy rubs and baby talk about what a good and obedient boy he is. 

Trump’s clownish conduct only makes total submission to him more humiliating, and therefore more irresistible, to the Republican leadership. It’s a mentality that’s largely foreign to liberals, except perhaps in the controlled environment of the bedroom or the sex club. But this kind of willful subjugation is a 24/7 way of life for conservatives, whose entire worldview is about power and pecking orders. They had their fun pretending to resist Trump, but now he’s pulled out the whip and yanked the chain. As they have a hundred times before, they’ll fall on their knees, begging for a chance to serve the fake-tanned fraud they’ve made their master. 

“We’re not a cult,” Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said on “Meet the Press” over the weekend. “We’re not like, ‘OK, there’s one person who leads our party.”

But of course that’s what everyone in a cult says. Cassidy also wouldn’t say whether he’d vote for Trump if he runs again in 2024. Nor did he need to. That’s OK, senator: We all know the answer.