Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Newt throwback! GOP’s death wish is back — they want another government shutdown

In the 1994 midterms, halfway through Bill Clinton’s first term Democrats lost both the House and Senate, giving the GOP the House majority for the first time since 1954. Conventional wisdom had it that Republicans won because they nationalized the race six weeks before election day with their “Contract With America,” written by soon-to-be House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and his right-hand man, Rep. Dick Armey of Texas. Whether that was really responsible for the victory is open to interpretation — Clinton was very unpopular at the time — but it was a novel strategic approach and the political media ate it up, lending the contract an almost mythic status.

It was an interesting document, based in part on Ronald Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union address and made up of various culture-war slogans and longstanding conservative policy goals. The GOP promised to implement a slew of procedural changes to how the House would be run, from changing seniority rules to cutting committees. After 40 years of uninterrupted control, it was like a political earthquake.

But the Republicans’ contract featured much more than that. They promised floor votes on 10 major policy changes within the first 100 days, a list that included all our favorite right-wing policies of yesteryear: tax cuts (of course), term limits, a balanced budget requirement, tort “reform,” welfare “reform” and the biggie, “entitlement reform.” Most of those things didn’t pass the Congress in any case, or were vetoed by Clinton, but that was beside the point. It was the beginning of the right’s “performative politics,” which continues to this day.

Their most audacious performance came when Gingrich decided that his best bet to ensure Clinton would lose re-election in 1996 would be to shut down the government and blame the president for it. This wasn’t the first time the government had been shut down over budgetary matters. It had happened several times since the 1970s over various policy differences — but this one was deliberately engineered for strictly political purposes. Gingrich and the Republicans sent Clinton a budget that committed the federal government to balance the budget within seven years and drastically cut environmental regulations. They purposefully stepped on the third rail of American politics by proposing to raise Medicare premiums. Clinton vetoed it, of course, and the standoff began.

After a couple of false starts and failed negotiations, nearly the entire federal workforce was furloughed from Dec. 16, 1995, to Jan. 6, 1996, the longest shutdown in history up until that point. Reports of national parks being closed, government offices being shuttered and thousands going without pay at Christmas took their toll. But the most damning story of all came from Gingrich himself. NPR reported:

According to the polls Republicans quickly bore the blame for shutting the government down. Their hand was weakened when Gingrich told reporters he had forced a shutdown in part because the president made him exit Air Force One by the back door after returning from the funeral of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

That poorly thought-out comment resulted in this famous front page.

Clinton easily won the election in 1996 (over Sen. Bob Dole, by contemporary standards an entirely “mainstream” Republican) largely because the GOP had been tainted by such shenanigans.

Did Republicans learn from that debacle? They did not. They shut down the government under Barack Obama in a 2013 standoff over raising the debt ceiling, risking a default on government debt and the potential destruction of the government’s credit rating, this time over the Affordable Care Act. That did not work either. The New York Times reported at the time that “the shutdown sent Republican poll ratings plunging, cost the government billions of dollars and damaged the nation’s international credibility.” Yet another award-winning performance by the Republicans.


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


Fast forward to December 2018, and this time it was a Republican president, after having decisively lost the House in that November’s midterms, who engineered the longest government shutdown in history with his petulant demand that Congress fund his ridiculous border wall or else. Democrats refused and the GOP lost that one too.

I guess they just love losing. Republicans are already planning to do it again if they take the majority in November. Rep. Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who hopes to be the next chair of the Ways and Means Committee, told Axios that Republicans plan to demand that President Biden reverse all his “radical” policies or they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling. “If Republicans are trying to cut spending, surely [Biden] wouldn’t try to default,” Smith said. “If we were trying to bring down inflation… trying to secure our border, surely he wouldn’t default.”

Other equally radical Republican leaders think the nation is eager to take on that old perennial: “entitlements.” The Republican Study Committee has a plan to raise the retirement age to 70, punish those who retired early and, you guessed it, start on the path to privatizing Social Security. I guess it’s time to roll that out again. It’s been 16 years since they last got their asses handed to them for trying.

Why do Republicans think the public will fall for this pathetic gambit this time around? Maybe they just don’t care: Most of them have totally lost the plot and just want to blow stuff up.

I don’t know why they think the public will blame the Democrats this time when voters never have fallen for this pathetic gambit before. I also suspect they really don’t care anymore. Most of them have totally lost the plot and just want to blow stuff up. But assuming they don’t succeed in causing a global economic meltdown with their silly game, they will have to face the voters again in 2024 on a record of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare, something that their “favorite president” — the one who still hopes to get back to the White House, despite his legal problems — was savvy enough to avoid.

Even so, Democrats need to nip this in the bud. The world economy is already unstable and teetering on the brink of recession, and this debt-ceiling ploy is dangerous even in the best of times. If Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress in November, they must raise the debt ceiling in the lame duck session after that — and raise it enough so they don’t need to do it again anytime soon. In fact, the debt ceiling should really be eliminated altogether — it should not be a matter of negotiation whether or not the government pays its bills.Until that’s resolved, Republicans will continue to use this failed tactic, which apparently makes them feel good for some reason. They never gain from it politically, but at some point this stupid brinkmanship could tip over into a real disaster.

Donald Trump has been loudly demanding that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sabotage Biden’s agenda by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, so the ex-president is apparently all for going to DEFCON 1, even though that didn’t work for him the first time. But despite all the hand-wringing about Trump demolishing our norms and rules, this particular destructive tactic wasn’t his idea. It was weaponized long ago by those “normal” Republicans from back in the day, the ones who are now valorized as the loyal opposition who worked across the aisle in good faith for the good of the country. Trump wasn’t the first chaos agent by any means. He was just following their lead. 

“Utterly devastating”: Legal experts say DOJ filing “pulverizes all of Trump’s arguments” to SCOTUS

The Justice Department on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s appeal to have a special master review about 100 documents with classified markings that were seized from his Mar-a-Lago residence.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, last month named federal Judge Raymond Dearie as a special master to review documents seized from Mar-a-Lago and barred the DOJ from continuing its investigation into the 100 documents with classification markings. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her order blocking the DOJ from investigating the documents but Trump filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking that the documents first be reviewed by Dearie.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in a 34-page filing on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s request, calling Cannon’s initial ruling “an unprecedented order by the district court restricting the Executive Branch’s use of its own highly classified records in an ongoing criminal investigation and directing the dissemination of those records outside the Executive Branch for a special-master review.”

“The district court appointed the special master to review claims of privilege and for the return of personal property, but [Trump] has no plausible claim of privilege in or ownership of government records bearing classification markings,” Prelogar wrote. “As the court of appeals recognized, [Trump] thus has no basis to demand special-master review of those records.”

Trump’s lawyers in his appeal argued that the 11th Circuit “lacked jurisdiction to review the special master order, which authorized the review of all materials seized from President Trump’s residence, including documents bearing classification markings.”

“Moreover, any limit on the comprehensive and transparent review of materials seized in the extraordinary raid of a president’s home erodes public confidence in our system of justice,” Trump’s team wrote.

But Prelogar argued that Trump’s lawyers never addressed the 11th Circuit’s conclusion that Cannon’s initial order “was a serious and unwarranted intrusion on the Executive Branch’s authority to control the use and distribution of extraordinarily sensitive government records.”

The 11th Circuit in its decision said that it “cannot discern why [Trump] would have an individual interest in or need for any of the 100 documents with classification markings.”

The appeals court also pushed back on Trump’s public claims that he may have declassified some of the documents he took home, writing that “the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified.”

“In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal,” a three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees wrote. “So even if we assumed that [Trump] did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.”

Trump’s lawyers in their Supreme Court appeal referred to the documents as “purportedly classified” and insisted that as president he had “absolute authority” to declassify materials.

Prelogar in the Tuesday filing called the argument “wrong and irrelevant,” noting that Trump “has never represented in any of his multiple legal filings in multiple courts that he in fact declassified any documents — much less supported such a representation with competent evidence.”

Trump, the filing said, “has no plausible claims of ownership of or privilege in the documents bearing classification markings,” and will “suffer no harm at all from a temporary stay of the special master’s review of those materials while the government’s appeal proceeds.”


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


Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said on Twitter that the DOJ filing is “utterly devastating” for Trump’s case.

“It pulverizes all of Trump’s arguments and leaves none standing,” he wrote.

Trump’s appeal only seeks a special master review of the 100 documents but doesn’t ask to reimpose the initial order halting the DOJ’s criminal probe.

“Why would they want to do that while permitting the criminal investigation to proceed? Well, it seems likely that they’re still trying to figure out what was in those documents,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance told MSNBC. “They want visibility on what the government has managed to reclaim from Trump. And there’s a very inside baseball argument about jurisdiction, but the government most likely has the better part of that argument.”

Lisa Rubin, a former attorney and MSNBC legal analyst, noted that the DOJ filing repeatedly took swipes at Trump’s public arguments regarding classification, executive privilege and his authority to possess the documents.

“A clear, highly competent brief,” Rubin tweeted, “that feels like a veteran kindergarten teacher calmly correcting a naughty kid.”

Fake justice from the puppet-masters: The persecution of Julian Assange

WASHINGTON — Merrick Garland and those who work in the Department of Justice are the puppets, not the puppet masters. They are the façade, the fiction, that the longstanding persecution of Julian Assange has something to do with justice. Like the High Court in London, they carry out an elaborate judicial pantomime. They debate arcane legal nuances to distract from the Dickensian farce where a man who has not committed a crime, who is not a U.S. citizen, can be extradited under the Espionage Act and sentenced to life in prison for the most courageous and consequential journalism of our generation.

The engine driving the lynching of Julian is not here on Pennsylvania Avenue. It is in Langley, Virginia, located at a complex we will never be allowed to surround: the Central Intelligence Agency. It is driven by a secretive inner state, one where we do not count in the mad pursuit of empire and ruthless exploitation. Because the machine of this modern leviathan was exposed by Julian and WikiLeaks, the machine demands revenge. 

The United States has undergone a corporate coup-d’état in slow motion. It is no longer a functioning democracy. The real centers of power, in the corporate, military and national security sectors, were humiliated and embarrassed by WikiLeaks. Their war crimes, lies, conspiracies to crush the democratic aspirations of the vulnerable and the poor, and rampant corruption, here and around the globe, were laid bare in troves of leaked documents.  

We cannot fight on behalf of Julian unless we are clear about whom we are fighting against. It is far worse than a corrupt judiciary. The global billionaire class, who have orchestrated a social inequality rivaled by pharaonic Egypt, has internally seized all the levers of power and made us the most spied upon, monitored, watched and photographed population in human history. When the government watches you 24 hours a day, you cannot use the word liberty. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. Julian was long a target, of course, but when WikiLeaks published the documents known as Vault 7, which exposed the hacking tools the CIA uses to monitor our phones, televisions and even cars, he — and journalism itself — was condemned to crucifixion. The object is to shut down any investigations into the inner workings of power that might hold the ruling class accountable for its crimes, eradicate public opinion and replace it with the cant fed to the mob.

I spent two decades as a foreign correspondent on the outer reaches of empire in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. I am acutely aware of the savagery of empire, how the brutal tools of repression are first tested on those Frantz Fanon called “the wretched of the earth.” Wholesale surveillance. Torture. Coups. Black sites. Black propaganda. Militarized police. Militarized drones. Assassinations. Wars. Once perfected on people of color overseas, these tools migrate back to the homeland. By hollowing out our country from the inside through deindustrialization, austerity, deregulation, wage stagnation, the abolition of unions, massive expenditures on war and intelligence, a refusal to address the climate emergency and a virtual tax boycott for the richest individuals and corporations, these predators intend to keep us in bondage, victims of a corporate neo-feudalism. And they have perfected their instruments of Orwellian control. The tyranny imposed on others is imposed on us.

I am acutely aware of the savagery of empire, how the brutal tools of repression are first tested on those Frantz Fanon called “the wretched of the earth” — and then migrate back to the homeland.

From its inception, the CIA carried out assassinations, coups, torture and illegal spying and abuse, including that of U.S. citizens, activities exposed in 1975 by the Church Committee hearings in the Senate and the Pike Committee hearings in the House. All these crimes, especially after the attacks of 9/11, have returned with a vengeance. The CIA is a rogue and unaccountable paramilitary organization with its own armed units and drone program, death squads and a vast archipelago of global black sites where kidnapped victims are tortured and disappeared. 

The U.S. allocates a secret black budget of about $50 billion a year to hide multiple types of clandestine projects carried out by the National Security Agency, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, usually beyond the scrutiny of Congress. The CIA has a well-oiled apparatus to kidnap, torture and assassinate targets around the globe, which is why, since it had already set up a system of 24-hour video surveillance of Julian in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, it quite naturally discussed kidnapping and assassinating him. That is its business. Sen. Frank Church — after examining the heavily redacted CIA documents released to his committee — defined the CIA’s “covert activity” as “a semantic disguise for murder, coercion, blackmail, bribery, the spreading of lies and consorting with known torturers and international terrorists.”

All despotisms mask state persecution with sham court proceedings. The show trials and troikas in Stalin’s Soviet Union. The raving Nazi judges in fascist Germany. The Denunciation rallies in Mao’s China. State crime is cloaked in a faux legality, a judicial farce.


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


If Julian is extradited and sentenced — and, given the Lubyanka-like proclivities of the Eastern District of Virginia, this is a near certainty — it means that those of us who have published classified material, as I did when I worked for the New York Times, will become criminals. It means that an iron curtain will be pulled down to mask abuses of power. It means that the state, which, through Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs, anti-terrorism laws and the Espionage Act that have created our homegrown version of Stalin’s Article 58, can imprison anyone anywhere in the world who dares commit the crime of telling the truth.

We are here to fight for Julian. But we are also here to fight against powerful subterranean forces that, in demanding Julian’s extradition and life imprisonment, have declared war on journalism. 

We are here to fight for Julian. But we are also here to fight for the restoration of the rule of law and democracy. 

We are here to fight for Julian. But we are also here to dismantle the wholesale Stasi-like state surveillance erected across the West. 

We are here to fight for Julian. But we are also here to overthrow — and let me repeat that word for the benefit of those in the FBI and Homeland Security who have come here to monitor us — overthrow the corporate state and create a government of the people, by the people and for the people, that will cherish, rather than persecute, the best among us.

You can see my interview with Julian’s father, John Shipton, here.

Instead of freaking out about nuclear war, let’s do something to prevent it

This is an emergency. 

Right now, we’re closer to a cataclysmic nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. One assessment after another has said the current situation may be even more dangerous.

Yet few members of Congress are advocating for any steps that the U.S. government could take to decrease the dangers of a nuclear conflagration. The silences and muted statements on Capitol Hill are evading the reality of what’s hanging in the balance — the destruction of almost all human life on Earth. “The end of civilization.”

Public passivity is helping elected officials to sleepwalk toward unfathomable catastrophe for all of humanity. If senators and House members are to be roused out of their timid refusal to urgently address — and work to reduce — the present high risks of nuclear war, they need to be confronted. Nonviolently, but emphatically.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made thinly veiled, extremely reckless statements about possibly using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war. At the same time, some of the U.S. government’s policies make nuclear war more likely. Changing them is imperative.

For the last few months, I’ve been working with people in many states who aren’t just worried about the spiking dangers of nuclear war — they’re also determined to take action to help prevent it. That resolve has resulted in organizing more than 35 picket lines this Friday, Oct. 14, at local offices of Senate and House members around the country. (To find out about picketing in your area, go here.)


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


What could the U.S. government do to lessen the chances of global nuclear annihilation? The Defuse Nuclear War campaign, which is coordinating those picket lines, has identified key needed actions. Such as:

  • Rejoin nuclear-weapons treaties the U.S. has withdrawn from.

President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002. Under Donald Trump, the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019. Both pacts significantly reduced the chances of nuclear war.

  • Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

Four hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are armed and ready for launch from underground silos in five states. Because they’re land-based, those missiles are vulnerable to attack and thus are on hair-trigger alert — allowing only minutes to determine whether indications of an incoming attack are real or a false alarm.

  • End the policy of “first use.”

Both Russia and the United States have so far refused to pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

  • Support congressional action to avert nuclear war.

In the House, H.Res. 1185 includes a call for the U.S. to “lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war.”

The single overarching need is for senators and representatives to insist that U.S. participation in nuclear brinkmanship is unacceptable. As our Defuse Nuclear War team says, “Grassroots activism will be essential to pressure members of Congress to publicly acknowledge the dangers of nuclear war and strongly advocate specific steps for reducing them.”

Is that really too much to ask? Or even to demand?

Abuse in women’s pro soccer was an “open secret”: Why did so few speak out?

An investigation has found that widespread abuse of players in U.S. women’s professional soccer existed despite some of the behavior of coaches being “an open secret.”

Based on more than 200 interviews, the report – led by former acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates – highlighted systemic verbal and emotional abuse against players, and sexual misconduct by coaches.

The allegations open a number of important questions regarding how such behavior was allowed to continue in a post-#MeToo society and after high-profile instances of abuse in other U.S. sports, notably women’s gymnastics.

However, as social scientists who study sexuality and violence, we have another question: What are the barriers preventing people from reporting instances of abuse?

The role of bystanders

The report into women’s soccer notes that although certain players did “doggedly” report misconduct, others were hesitant to come forward. Many players mentioned structural barriers to reporting. For example, some said that even if they had wanted to report misconduct, “they did not know how or where to make their report.” Others thought it was “futile” to report misconduct, given the failure by teams and the league to address the issue. These statements indicate serious structural issues within women’s soccer that need to be addressed by those in power.

Still, some players did not feel a sense of responsibility for taking action. These players said they thought it was “not their story to tell” or they did not want to act on “rumors.”

This reflects what the research tells us about a phenomenon known as the “bystander effect.”

Over 50 years of research has documented a bystander effect in which witnesses fail to intervene, often because they assume someone else will take action. Research applying the bystander effect specifically to sexual assault and misconduct has revealed that witnesses fail to intervene for a number of common reasons: they do not notice the misconduct; do not believe it is their responsibility to intervene; do not believe they have the skills to intervene; or are inhibited by the belief that those around them will negatively judge them for intervening.


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


Witnesses to sexual misconduct often fail to intervene for one or more of those reasons.

The report on women’s soccer found that players often didn’t think it was their responsibility to report, or they feared retaliation if they did – often through unfavorable trades to other teams.

What is clear from the report is that some sort of “bystander training” is needed in women’s soccer to help stop further abuse. Such training has proved to be effective with other populations, such as college students.

Bystander training programs strive to sensitize people to the warning signs of sexual assault and misconduct – like a young man leading a young woman into an isolated place – and provide them with skills so that they will know how to intervene when necessary. For example, these programs might teach participants to speak up when hearing sexist jokes or witnessing sexual harassment, walk a friend home when he or she has had too much to drink, start a conversation with a young woman who appears to be uncomfortable with her date, or call the police.

Bystander training appears to help

We were curious about the effects these bystander programs have on the behavior of witnesses to sexual misconduct. So in a 2018 study, we analyzed data from over 6,000 college students across the United States and found that programs designed to prevent sexual assault by increasing onlookers’ interventions do have a meaningful effect on bystander behavior. Compared to peers who did not participate in a bystander program, college students who did participate reported a greater ability to intervene and greater intentions to intervene, should a situation require it.

Most important, those who participated in a bystander program reported actually engaging in more bystander intervention behaviors than those who did not participate in a program. On average, these participants reported two more instances of bystander intervention in the months following the bystander program than their peers who did not attend a bystander program. Simply put, bystander programs are successful at encouraging bystanders to intervene when witnessing sexual misconduct or its warning signs.

Although we looked specifically at college students, we believe the findings apply to other populations.

The report of widespread abuse in women’s soccer reminds us that sexual misconduct is common in society and that its prevention is a communal responsibility.

As researchers who study sexuality, violence and prosocial behavior, we believe that bystanders need to keep their eyes open and speak up on behalf of potential victims. Our research demonstrates that having been educated about bystander strategies leads to greater intervention. As a society, we should strive to become better bystanders by noticing warning signs, knowing strategies to intervene and remembering that we have a collective responsibility to prevent sexual misconduct and assault.

Editor’s note: Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article published on Oct. 5, 2018.The Conversation

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

Peter Thiel funds GOP scheme to push MAGA propaganda disguised as fake newspapers: report

In the past, billionaire venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was described by many pundits as a libertarian. But in the 2022 midterms, the far-right U.S. Senate candidates he has been promoting — from “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance in Ohio to Blake Masters in Arizona — are decidedly MAGA, pushing a severe social conservatism that is far removed from libertarianism.

Steve Bannon, host of the “War Room” podcast and former White House chief strategist in the Trump Administration, has praised the 54-year-old Thiel for trying to make Congress as MAGA as possible.

One of the tricks that Thiel and his Republican allies are using in the midterms, according to Daily Beast reporter Kelly Weill, is sending out “newspapers” that are meant to look like regular publications but are pushing MAGA candidates. In Arizona, Weill reports in an article published on October 11, such a publication is the Grand Canyon Times — which is promoting Masters, the MAGA Republican trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly.

“It was as if the Grand Canyon Times’ sports section had put a list of local football stars in a blender and printed the results,” Weill explains. “A brief profile on star running back Bijan Robinson was topped with a picture of tight end Aaron Greene, whose own biography showed a professional headshot of long snapper Ethan Nguyen. Other athletes’ profile pictures and biographical details also appeared randomized in the full-page spread on ‘former area high school football players.’ The rest of the paper—which was shared online by bemused Arizona sports fans — was chock-full of conservative political content, particularly articles championing Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters.”

The Grand Canyon Times, Weill emphasizes, “isn’t a traditional newspaper,” but rather, is “part of an opaque media organization that recycles right-wing news articles across a network of hyperlocal-sounding news websites, which are padded out with press releases.”

“As the 2022 midterm elections approach, conservative campaigns have tapped the network to send realistic-looking, and unsolicited, newspapers to voters in critical districts,” Weill reports. “In publications like the Grand Canyon Times, the line between newspaper and political advertisement can be porous. At least two print editions of the paper, reviewed by The Daily Beast, contained disclaimers that described the contents as ‘paid for by the Saving Arizona PAC.’ The PAC, which supports Masters’ Senate campaign, has received more than $13 million from conservative billionaire Peter Thiel.”

The Grand Canyon Times, according to Weill, is “an affiliate of Metric Media, a network of conservative websites tailored to look like local news outlets.” Metric, Weill reports, is “run by Brian Timpone, a former news anchor turned political spokesman.”

Weill points out that Metric Media’s publications can be sloppy and “error-ridden.”

An October 4 article in the Grand Canyon Times, for example, referred to “Virginia Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.” Of course, Sinema represents Arizona, not Virginia, in the U.S. Senate; her name has long been synonymous with Arizona politics, whether she was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives via Arizona or, before that, serving in the Arizona State Legislature.

“Metric Media runs at least 15 other local-sounding outlets in Arizona, including the North Pima News and the Tucson Standard,” Weill notes. “All promote a curious blend of conservative talking points and reprinted press releases.”

The education and disillusionment of a young reporter in D.C. “should worry every American”

Thursday was once my favorite day in Washington.

From my perch answering phones in U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s front office, I eagerly awaited the email that came in around 6 p.m. each Thursday: “wheels up.”

It meant the senator was on her way back home to Texas, a relay exercise in which the state-based staff took over the heavy lifting of running a Senate operation. But for me, a lonely extrovert, “wheels up” meant one thing: poker night.

I budgeted $20 for my weekly gambling adventure, as a pack of her staffers decamped to whoever’s apartment was large enough for a dining room table and hours of, appropriately, Texas Hold ‘Em. I usually lost it all, even though as a nanny I’d obsessively watched “Celebrity Poker Showdown” during afternoon nap time.

I intended to move to Los Angeles to write soap operas after college, but an ACL injury from intramural softball my last semester at the University of Texas at Austin kept me in town for an extra year. In that span, my precocious high school love for Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” morphed into an obsession. And a Maureen Dowd lecture at the LBJ School sealed the deal: I was moving to Washington instead.

As I looked for jobs, I got a call from the senator’s office. They appreciated it when I said that I wanted to serve my home state and that I understood my place in the hierarchy. Even so, I was hesitant. Part of my decision to move to Washington was my anger over the Iraq War, which she supported. On the other hand, I voted for her in my first-ever election. (I was a ticket-splitter, in case anyone is wondering.) More crucially, I respected her.

Starting out

I came into town on a Sunday flight with two suitcases. It was April 2006, and I was 23. Some older Texas girls had an extra room in a Georgetown townhouse for me. On Monday morning, I put on my new Ann Taylor suit and took the D.C. Circulator bus across town to work in the Russell Senate Office Building.

My social life was small. As a newcomer, I toured the sites, watched movies, explored neighborhoods, all on my own. Money was tight, but I didn’t mind because I was so eager to learn.

There was pride in working for Hutchison. She expected a lot from us, but she got things done for Texas.

Her staff was like an alumni roster of the old Southwest Conference: the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, Baylor, Rice, Texas Tech and smaller colleges across the state. Some staffers were hyperconservative; others were pragmatic and moderate. We were proud of her and proud of Texas, and we knew everything we did reflected on both institutions. To cause embarrassment in any way would be to utterly fail as a staffer. Such a sentiment is the first thing anyone learns when starting a career in Washington.

I worked in that office for only nine months, but they were formative. During a brown-bag lunch with the junior staff, the senator stressed the importance of having an apolitical career before running for public office. “Your adversary today could be your ally tomorrow,” she told us. The subtext: Think long and hard about the people back home who will get hurt if you burn that bridge with a colleague.

During the day, I was a staff assistant, the grunt of Capitol Hill. I listened to every constituent concern under the sun: Solve the immigration problem! Ban horse slaughter! Help me with my gallstone!

It was a tough job for an empath. I knew that neither I nor the senator could solve most of these problems. But the least I could do was listen. And so I did, cradling the receiver between my ear and shoulder as I carried out my other great responsibility: flags.

Every member of Congress has a staffer devoted to flying flags over the Capitol for constituents. It was a mundane task, one that had me asking, “I went to college for this?” But I later realized that doing small tasks with care usually translates to bigger opportunities. Besides, it was kind of fun.

Even in 2006, the process to get flags flown was archaic, involving checks and cash — no credit cards — and filling out carbon-paper forms by hand. Often, I would format keepsake certificates celebrating life’s achievements: an Eagle Scout ceremony, a service academy graduation, a military retirement, a golden anniversary.

Within a few weeks, I was an expert. I could recommend the perfect size for any occasion. I knew that nylon flags were for outdoors, cotton flags for ceremonies. I even began purchasing flags as wedding gifts. Once a week (and twice or even three times a week during the lead-up to the Fourth of July), I went into a closet in the front office, pulled out a dolly and had my run of the Capitol’s basement tunnels. Leaving Russell, I purchased the boxed flags in another Senate office building, then stacked them on the dolly and wheeled them into the Capitol. I believe the first time I stepped foot inside the Capitol was on a flag run, wearing heels and one of the three suits I rotated every few days.

Eventually, I dropped them off in the underground flag office inside the Capitol terrace. On the way to the office was a U.S. Capitol Police hangout. The men and women who were there to protect us took their breaks there. I eyed their guns and armor and thought, This is the safest spot I could possibly ever be in.

Such was a day in the life of a Capitol Hill pledge.

But at poker night, I was an equal, as long as I had an ante and a willingness to listen. I was often outnumbered 6 to 1 by older men, who generously explained how legislation moved, who was up and who was down in the Senate, the art of harmless gossip, how the Hill worked, how to avoid trouble, and how to drink Scotch.

In short, poker nights taught me how to function as an adult in Washington.

The only problem for me in that office was that I was not a partisan, nor did I have any interest in working in politics. I only wanted to be just like Tim Russert.

Eventually, I got the call from his deputy at NBC, and it was time to leave.

Russert’s army

The NBC Washington bureau back then functioned much like the world’s healthiest cult of personality. Everyone there worked there because of Russert. He was both moderator of “Meet the Press” and the bureau chief. But he was also the center of Washington, in a way that I think would be impossible now.

He had the best lineup of correspondents and producers and crew. I was there for the entire 2008 campaign and had a keen awareness, as I watched the world come in and out of the bureau, that we were the Yankees, and everyone else was struggling to keep up with us. We even had a name: Russert’s Army.

Working for Tim was not complicated: People worked day and night to live up to his ideals of fairness, accuracy and decency. He treated everyone with respect and expected the rest of us to do the same.

I was down the hall when he collapsed in 2008 while preparing for “Meet the Press.” I understood immediately how serious the situation was and spent moments at my desk that felt like hours bracing for the worst.

I got the confirmation of his death when a producer asked me for guidance on Tim’s most consequential moment in that year’s presidential campaign.

“Hillary. Driver’s licenses,” I blurted it out, referring to a contentious exchange involving then-Sen. Hillary Clinton that Russert set off during an MSNBC primary debate on Oct. 30, 2007, in Philadelphia. It was the beginning of the end of her frontrunner status for the Democratic nomination for president.

The producer told me to pull the tape. I sat down, took a breath and asked, “Am I working on an obituary?”

I was a mere 25, but I knew nothing would ever be the same again for me or for Washington.

The call of the Hill

Eventually, I moved on from NBC. I did a stint at National Journal’s The Hotline, and then a longer one at CNN. My Russert training kicked in on a Sunday night in May 2011, when I hounded a friend at a rival news organization about her failure to respond to my offer of baseball tickets the next night.

She wrote back, “I don’t know if anyone is going to a baseball game tomorrow night.”

For a moment, I wondered if we were under nuclear attack. When I pressed her, she wrote back three simple letters: “UBL.”

I had no idea what a UBL was. But after a quick Google search, I deduced that something was going down with Osama bin Laden.

I shook off my hangover from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner the night before and took a late evening cab to the CNN bureau. That was my old NBC training: Don’t wait for somebody to ask you to come in during breaking news. Just get in.

That night, a correspondent asked me to listen to a White House briefing about the Navy SEAL Team 6 raid in Abbottabad. It was the most anxious night of my career, as I kept in mind the singular reach of CNN and the disastrous potential of getting even a single word wrong. I watched her read my notes, word for word, to CNN’s global audience. I nailed the details, but I was too high-strung to sleep that night.

I also recognized a trend as the story played out over several hours: Most of the reporters who broke the story worked or had worked on Capitol Hill. I would later come to learn that on events such as this one, the president is required to notify congressional leaders. And Congress leaks news like Spindletop.

And that was yet another Russert lesson: You can’t be very good at anything in Washington unless you spend time on the Hill.

So, I quit CNN and went to a small newspaper devoted to the Capitol, Roll Call. I made my home under the dome.

Covering the Capitol became the unexpected great love of my career. It’s a small community, and you have to show up, to look members in the eye to build trust — and also to hold them accountable with questions they may not want to answer.

With every political figure I ever encountered, I started from the position that most members were trying to do the right thing for the people they represented, and I operated with that assumption until proven otherwise.

In joining The Texas Tribune, I only had one condition: that I get to be a bureau chief — even if it was just a bureau of me — just like Tim Russert. In that role, I covered everything from the political rise of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to my final major story, the Jack-be-nimble, Jack-be-quick dealmaking on the part of U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who defied the skeptics and his own party to get the first major federal gun bill passed in decades.

In my 15-year Washington journalism career, I attended five national conventions, covered scores of campaigns, chronicled two impeachment trials, spoke to thousands of sources and voters, roamed obscure pockets of America, and got to know every inch of my home state.

But after a decade covering the Capitol, I had to leave this year. My faith had failed me.

Shattered faith

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, Capitol Hill reporters worked out a deal to reduce risk. Reporters from the largest news organizations continued to report in the Capitol, while those of us from smaller newsrooms kept our germs out of the building. In exchange, the big kids were generous in sharing their reporting with us.

The Capitol Hill press corps is fairly young — it’s a physically demanding job that requires standing for hours at a time, and sometimes chasing around members on marble floors and up and down stairwells. Most of us were fairly certain we could handle the virus, but the greater concern was for our older colleagues.

So I stayed out of my beloved Capitol for 15 straight months.

That period included the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which I watched on TV from my childhood home in Fort Worth. I found myself yelling in horror when my parents came home and I told them what had happened. I received texts from members, staffers and colleagues in the building who were in hiding and, for some, preparing to die.

The terror crested for me that following Sunday, when photos emerged of one of the rioters roaming the Senate observation gallery with plastic zip ties. That is the area where reporters observe the Senate. Had there been no pandemic, I would have been there covering Cruz that day as he questioned the legitimacy of President Joe Biden’s election.

Those zip ties could have been intended for me.

Once vaccinated, in June 2021, I returned to a different Capitol. It was a twilight zone: Everything looked the same, but nothing was.

Some of the most brilliant, thoughtful people I have ever met are members of Congress. But this is a degraded profession. Backbenchers, long ignored by the press corps, discovered they could get on TV or pick up Twitter followers by publicly attacking colleagues over an innocent miscommunication or, more often, out of transparently bad faith. Tracking Congress began to feel like keeping up with the latest from the mean girls in my sixth grade cafeteria. That first day back, I saw members wandering around the Rotunda, livestreaming themselves in the middle of the workday, rather than attending committee hearings or meeting with constituents or, hell, even lobbyists. It finally dawned on me that what had once been an unhealthy trend had now hit critical mass: Becoming internet famous was now the entire point of serving in Congress.

Meanwhile, post-traumatic stress disorder was everywhere. Some friends no longer left their houses after the insurrection. Other friends kept coming to the Capitol, quietly struggling to get through each day. Magnetometers sit outside the U.S. House chamber, a daily reminder that lawmakers fear that even their colleagues might take up arms.

Until my last day at the Capitol, I walked the place feeling anxious and haunted, as I sometimes had at the University of Texas, when I compulsively thought about where I would hide if a sniper returned to the Tower. But mostly, the terror hit when I could place a horrific Jan. 6 photo or video with real life. A rioter brandished a Confederate flag where I frequently staked out Cornyn outside the Senate chamber. Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman saved lives on the same landing where I exited each day.

A few months later, I went down to the basement to find U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, a Houston Democrat, for an interview. Her caucus meeting ran late, so I wandered around until it occurred to me that I was standing in a tunnel where attackers savagely beat and injured dozens of officers.

I realized it was the same police hangout hallway where I had felt so safe 15 years earlier.

I knew I was done. I was only 38.

Letting go

Most Republicans in Congress will not acknowledge the damage done that day or do anything to prevent it from happening again. They ignore the trauma of their staffers, who barricaded themselves in their offices on Jan. 6. They similarly dismiss the Capitol Police, who still guard them even as they put their lives on the line for the very members who discount the officers’ emotional and physical wounds. Two years later, most Republicans still will not accept the results of a free and fair election, the root cause of the death and mayhem.

Things have been rough in Washington for awhile, going back to the 2017 shooting at a congressional Republican men’s baseball practice that left then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise gravely injured. What frightens me is: What’s next? Washington is not built to sustain political violence.

Increasingly, serious Democrats are engaging in dangerous rhetoric and getting in on the cheap fun. Just last month, U.S. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a McAllen Democrat, falsely stated that his opponent, U.S. Rep. Mayra Flores, “stole that election,” referring to a special election held in June with no significant irregularities. He appeared to be referring to the scale of Republican spending on a longtime Democratic district, but in politics, diction matters. And over the summer, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, the only Democrat holding statewide office in Florida and an unsuccessful candidate for governor, responded to unflattering coverage by baselessly accusing reporters of accepting bribes.

While the threats from the two parties are not equivalent in severity or scale, any statement that undermines confidence in the rule of law, in institutions and in our elections — including the statements of our ex-president — does grave damage to an increasingly fragile political system.

When I announced I was leaving my job, calls and texts demanding to know my next-big-step grand plans rolled in. Some people assumed I was cashing out. Some people were jerks, clearly unnerved that I was rocking the boat in Washington. A few people all-knowingly informed me that my decision was surely a part of a long-expected return to Texas, where I have roots going back seven generations. (It was not.)

But mostly, I heard from dozens and dozens of people who sent me texts saying, “I get it.”

They opened up, conceding the private stress of finding their own paths through whatever it is this country is going through. Other friends are planning their own exits.

Workhorses constituted most of this latter group. These are lesser-known reporters and producers who work without much credit, and the largely anonymous congressional staffers who keep the government running. They came to Washington out of patriotism and wanted to devote whatever God-given gifts they had to the country’s business. They don’t make the big salaries or receive the kinds of validation that make the terrible days manageable.

And the fact that so many of them are at the end of their rope should worry every American about what comes next.

What am I doing? I still don’t know. The only thing I can relate to right now is Jerry Maguire singing “Free Fallin’.”

Last month, I went to bed for the first time in my new apartment in New York City. I scanned Twitter one last time that night and saw a story that caught my eye: U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, an East Texas Republican, had presented a flag that had flown over the Capitol as a gift to a Jan. 6 rioter after her release from federal prison.

For the first time in a long while, I did not have to think about this story as a reporter. So I let my brain wander back to a more innocent time, when I was just a new kid in town with all of her belongings stuffed into two suitcases.

My thoughts landed on the young staffer who once ran that flag, now in the possession of an insurrectionist. What did the certificate say? Was that flag mixed in with flags for Eagle Scouts and pillars of local communities? Was it nylon or cotton?

But mostly I wondered: Exactly what kind of example was just set for that new kid in town?

 

Abby Livingston was the Washington bureau chief for The Texas Tribune from 2014-22.

Disclosure: Baylor University, Google, Rice University, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/11/abby-livingston-toxic-washington-disillusionment/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Good faith of partisan election officials used to be enough to ensure trust in voting. Not anymore

As the U.S. moves closer to the 2022 midterm elections, a sizable number of Americans express a lack of confidence in the accuracy of the vote count.

That distrust is built largely on the widespread – and false – assertion that Donald Trump was re-elected in the 2020 presidential election, and that Joe Biden’s win was based on fraud. Despite the 2020 election being the most secure in American history, and the courts and U.S. Department of Justice uncovering no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome, consistently about 70% of Republican voters suspect election fraud, and overall mistrust in the neutrality of the election process remains high.

In some states, this has prompted the passage of voting restrictions and legislation aimed at interfering with the administration of elections. Legislation passed in various states has changed rules on how voters cast ballots, reduced the role of state chief election officials and shifted some aspects of election administration to partisan bodies.

As a scholar of public governance and a former local government official, I believe that there’s trouble ahead for the bedrock institution of U.S. democracy: elections. U.S. elections long relied on the good faith of the public, the nonpartisan behavior of election officials, as well as a two-party system of political checks and balances to ensure the legitimacy of results. Now, the public’s mistrust of elections is combining with changes to election law and a major voter shift away from party affiliation to endanger the integrity of those elections.

50 ways to run an election

The administration of elections in the U.S. is a decentralized and complex system that gives considerable authority to state and local officials.

At the local level, election administrators determine who can vote, where they vote and how they vote. At the state level, election administration covers a range of logistics, including maintaining the statewide voter registration file and ensuring state and federal election laws are followed.

The result is that no state administers elections in exactly the same way, and there is variation even within states.

Additionally, the U.S. is one of the few democracies in which partisans run the election administration system.

That partisan system largely worked until now because, in essence, each party checked the other party’s ability to influence election outcomes. As long as states were politically diverse, members of the two major parties acted in good faith, and this model functioned – albeit imperfectly.

In my new book, “The Independent Voter,” my colleagues Jacqueline Salit, Omar Ali and I explore this U.S. partisan election system, whose nature has changed now that 25% to 50% of the voting population in each state is not affiliated with a major political party. That means one quarter to one half of the voting population in each state is shut out from playing a role in, or being represented by, any aspect of election administration.

This puts election administration into the hands of an increasingly partisan set of officials.

Public trust has eroded

The U.S. is the only democracy in the world that elects its election officials, and one of the very few to allow high-ranking party members to lead election administration.

The selection process for each state’s chief election officials can itself undermine trust in our election system. Most state chief election officers, known as secretaries of state, are chosen through explicitly partisan processes, such as partisan elections or political appointment. They conduct highly partisan and polarizing election campaigns.

Then, if they win election, they are expected to be seen by the public as trusted, neutral arbiters of election information and the electoral process.

A new threat to the integrity of elections comes with the recent moves to exploit these partisan models. This is being done explicitly by attempting to assign supporters, poll workers and observers to disrupt voting centers, tamper with equipment or call voting procedures into question.

Further underscoring this partisan system, the research I co-authored with Jeremy Gruber, John Opdycke and Jacqueline Salit, in which we reviewed 30 states with partisan voter registration, found that 27 states gave preferential treatment to partisans wanting to serve on election boards or as poll workers. Additionally, nearly half gave preference to partisans wanting to serve as election judges.

The partisan control of election administration in the states now serves to erode public trust and intensify partisan gamesmanship, which in turn further erodes public trust.

Who’s going to run elections?

Another hurdle to ensuring the integrity of U.S. elections has emerged recently as a result of the retirement or resignation of election personnel, in part due to violent threats and related personal safety concerns.

Approximately 35% of local election officials are eligible to retire by the 2024 election. A recent study found that 1 in 3 election officials feel unsafe because of their job in election administration, and nearly 1 in 5 indicated their lives had been threatened. Another poll found 1 in 5 local election officials say they are likely to resign before the 2024 presidential election.

Add the heavy workload and relatively low pay for many election officials to the harassment many are now experiencing, and it is unclear whether there will be an adequate pool of qualified talent available to replace them by the next presidential election. Job qualification and duties vary significantly across state and local election offices, with many of these positions requiring college degrees.

Lies undermine trust

Lastly, widespread misinformation and disinformation on election administration is hobbling the ability of election officials to do their job and has created fertile ground for mistrust.

Former President Trump and other high-profile individuals have exacerbated this by continuing to promote false claims regarding the 2020 presidential election results. State and local election offices have launched efforts to counter inaccurate information; however, these efforts often fail to reach or convince many audiences.

Social media companies have often been slow in identifying these false claims on their platforms. And local election offices have minimal or no presence on these popular social media sites such as Facebook, TikTok and Twitter, missing the opportunity to correct misinformation and amplify accurate information to the large number of people who use these sources to get news and information.

 

Thom Reilly, Professor & Co-Director, Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University

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

This weeknight-friendly kale and three-cheese pizza beats delivery any night

As noted many a time, pizza is an unimpeachable victor of the food world. No matter the iteration, the topping, the crust, the cheese choice (or lack thereof), pizza retains a placement in the gastronomic popularity matrix to which nary another food comes close. While a classic pie is untouchable, there are times when a more experimental pie can “hit the spot.” This variation was born when I had some extra pizza dough on hand, along with some varying ingredients in the fridge that I thought would lend themselves well as pizza toppings. 

As a chill fills the air and the leaves begin to turn, I find that heavier, richer pizzas are an amazing option. Equal parts filling and warming, the customizability of the specialty pizza allows for every member of the family to mix-and-match as they see fit. Here, a deeply braised kale is mixed with the ground protein of your choosing before topping a garlic oil-brushed crust, which is then covered in a wealth of cheeses

Feel free to use whatever ground protein or plant-based “crumble” you hand on hand. This recipe can make one large pizza or conversely, a few small “personal pie” sized ones. If you find that amount of cheese called for is overzealous (I do love cheese!), use half. If you prefer spinach or chard to kale, opt for that. If you’re not a fan of vegan crumbles, but you don’t eat animal products, just omit that component.

One of my big ‘kitchen philosophies’ is that it is your kitchen, so make these decisions as you wish. This is meant to be a road map of sorts, some general suggestions that might help to get you to the promised land that is pizza. Take what you like, ignore what you don’t, tweak as you see fit, and I hope your autumn pizza night is all that you imagined and more. 

Kale and fontina pizza
Yields
1 large pizza (or 2 to 3 small)
Prep Time
20 minutes
Cook Time
30 hours minutes

 

Ingredients

1 cup extra virgin olive oil

1 head of garlic, crushed (no need to peel)

Ball of pizza dough (totally up to you – homemade, store-bought, purchased from your favorite pizzeria — whatever is best/most convenient)

1/2 red onion or 2 large shallots, diced

1/2 pound ground pork, bulk sausage, ground poultry, or plant-based ‘crumbles’,

1/2 bunch kale, thinly sliced into ribbons

3/4 cup stock of your choosing

3/4 cup fontina, shredded

1/4 cup mozzarella, shredded

Parmigiano Regianno, grated, for topping

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 500 degrees.
  2. In a small pot, heat oil and garlic cloves over low heat until aromatic. Drain in a fine-mesh sieve, discarding garlic clove peels/skins, and reserve oil. (You can hold onto the actual garlic for other uses.)
  3. Heat garlic oil in medium skillet over medium-low heat. Sauté onions or shallot, season with salt and pepper, and cook until translucent.
  4. Add protein or vegan crumble of your choice, break up with wooden spoon, and cook until deeply, deeply browned. You’re going to need to cook this for longer than you think, so be patient.
  5. When pork starts to take on color, add kale and cook for 3-5 minutes until it begins to wilt. Add stock, turn heat to medium-high, and cook until it’s reduced. Season to taste. The mixture should be relatively dry, the kale should be tender and less verdant, and the pork should have taken on lots of color.
  6. Roll out pizza dough to desired size/shape. Brush with garlic oil, top with fontina and mozzarella, add pork-kale mixture, and top with however much parmesan your heart desires.
  7. Put in oven and cook until the crust is crisp and the cheese is melted, about 15 minutes (ovens differ, so keep an eye on it because it can burn quickly).
  8. Remove from oven, top with more Parm, slice, and serve.

 

Mangia!

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission. 

Hummus, peanut butter and sour cream: The “butter board” trend has officially gone too far

Occasionally, I see writing prompts that urge people to write a letter imparting advice to a younger version of themselves as a way to reflect on their current values. For the longest time, I thought my advice would be simple: “Generally, don’t yuck someone else’s yum.”

I think most of us, in one way or another, go through that sardonic phase where we’re armed with pithy barbs or withering looks ready to be leveled against anything deemed too mainstream or basic. As a child of the suburbs, I had a particularly polarized relationship with the trappings of both middle-class housewives and “Jersey Shore”-inspired mall rats — frothy pop music, pink Starbucks drinks, the heady patchouli-plum scent of Ed Hardy’s “Love & Luck” perfume.

If I were writing to my younger self, I’d tell her that while it’s all well and good to think critically about stuff other than hard news (and her future work would actually hinge on an ability to do so), it’s not something that has to extend into one’s personal life — especially if you’re going to be a self-satisfied jerk about it. In fact, it’s freeing to let most of that cynicism go.

I’d tell her that she would grow up and like some stuff that is not objectively hip or cutting-edge, such as deep-fried ravioli, a jokey network series about mini-golf called “Holey Moley” and the entirety of Billy Joel’s catalog. I’d recount the story of the waiter who embarrassed me (us?) at dinner because I ordered a glass of Malbec, a choice he sneeringly derided as “so two years ago.” I’d tell her to read “Tacky: Love Letters to the Worst Culture We have to Offer” by Rax King.

Basically, up until recently, I thought I’d have concluded the letter by saying as long as something that someone enjoys isn’t hurting other people, let it be. That is, until I received another butter board-themed email.

For the uninitiated, butter boards are almost exactly what they sound like: wooden or marble boards smeared with butter. Sometimes, the butter is flavored or decorated with caramelized cloves, garlic or delicate edible flowers. Other times, it’s just a sea of milky yellow meant to be eaten with toast tips or crackers.


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


Initially, I wasn’t opposed to the trend. Salon Food readers know how much I love good butter and compound butters — especially miso butter. In some ways, it felt like a natural extension of the charcuterie board trend, which has already been pushed to the absolute outer bounds of its definition. If there can be French fry boards and waffle boards, why not a butter board?

Well, it’s because of what comes after.

Last week, within hours of the New York Times running the article “Butter Boards Are In. Spread the Word,” I received my first non-butter board pitch from an eager PR professional who informed me that if I like butter boards, a hummus board would absolutely delight me. Another company promised me that peanut butter — smeared across a marble tile and topped with various jams — was the next big thing.

When I received an email about a sour cream and salsa board, I was reminded of the popular subreddit r/WeWantPlates. Users of the forum post ridiculous, real-life ways in which their food has been plated by a restaurant. A quick scan of their “Hall of Fame” gives you a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about: fried ravioli hung on a miniature clothesline, nachos served in a tableside sink, pizza balanced on a tire. The most infamous preparations are those that sacrifice the taste or texture of the food itself, such as smashing French fries into the bottom of a wide-mouth goblet and covering them with steaming hamburger sliders so that any crispness they may have had promptly turns flaccid.

I don’t want to scrape hummus or peanut butter from a board like a snowplow tackling an expansive winter street.

I don’t want to scrape hummus or peanut butter from a board like a snowplow tackling an expansive winter street. I’m not a stickler for tradition, but those foods aren’t typically eaten that way for a reason. Hummus is best when a little creamy and drizzled with good olive oil (the kind that would run right off that board). Peanut butter is tastier anywhere than when served on a slab of wood. Want a way to serve sour cream and salsa? Companies ranging from Crate and Barrel to Guzzini have you covered.

Looking for something even cuter? Simply Google “little bowls.” Spoon all manner of things into them to your heart’s content.

That being said, I’m still not here to shame anyone for enjoying the butter/not-butter board trend. You just probably won’t catch me participating. As for the advice I’d offer my younger self, I’d have to update it thusly: “Generally, don’t yuck other people’s yum (but don’t be afraid to personally find something more delicious).”

This writing originally appeared in The Bite, Salon’s food newsletter. Each weekend, we publish unique stories, essays and recipes, as well as beautiful pieces from our archive. All you have to do to sign up is click this link.

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission.

Why it matters that Velma has come out, and how it’s different from Dumbledore

Happy National Coming Out Day! Velma Dinkley was a few days early.

Velma, the bespectacled, orange-turtleneck-wearing smarty of the Scooby-Doo gang, is apparently queer, at least in the new, direct-to-digital and DVD film “Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo!” But creators of Scooby-Doo stories have long wanted the character to be openly queer, and wrote her as implicitly so for years. Why does it matter that Velma is gay, and how is this different from late gay characters such as Dumbledore of “Harry Potter”?

Allegedly, Scooby-Doo was developed in response to excessively violent Saturday morning action cartoons. “Scooby-Doo, Where are You!” premiered on TV in 1969, a Hanna-Barbera cartoon about four teens and a dog named Scooby-Doo who solve mysteries, many of them of the paranormal variety, at least initially. So many times, ghosts on the show are unmasked as a ruse, so much so, I really thought fake ghosts would be a larger part of adulthood.  

In keeping with the times, the kids drive around in a van, turquoise and bright green with flower spots, called the Mystery Machine; one of the characters, Shaggy, is a hippie always jonesing, like Great Dane Scooby himself, for Scooby snacks. Oh, to have a snack named after you, one you can share, if you’re a dog.

She’s the Paris Geller of unmasking pirate ghosts.

From the beginning, there was Velma. The smartest of the meddling kids, Velma is frequently the first to solve the mystery. Her signature phrase is “Jinkies!” She often loses her thick glasses. In the 2002 movie version, which stars Sarah Michelle Gellar, Linda Cardellini (“Dead to Me”) portrays Velma with a snort laugh. Her pageboy haircut is Dorothy Hamill tight and her uniform is a shapeless orange sweater, a pleated or A-line skirt and knee socks. Velma is well-read, interested in the sciences and has specific, encyclopedic knowledge — of Norse, for example — which always comes in handy. She’s the Paris Geller of unmasking pirate ghosts, and as Variety wrote, “It’s long been an open secret among fans and ‘Scooby-Doo’ creatives that Velma is gay.”

“Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo!” (Warner Bros.)James Gunn, the writer of the 2002 “Scooby-Doo” film and its 2004 sequel, responded to a fan in a now-deleted Twitter post, reported by Indiewire and others, “In 2001 Velma was explicitly gay in my initial script. But the studio just kept watering it down and watering it down, becoming ambiguous (the version shot), then nothing (the released version), and finally having a boyfriend (the sequel).”

That boyfriend would be the character of Patrick, played by none other than Seth Green. Velma also has an uneasy, romantic relationship with Shaggy in the series “Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated” which ran from 2010-13. And Scooby does not approve. Maybe he knows something we don’t? 

Tony Cervone, who served as supervising producer on the “Mystery Incorporated” series, also expressed his public support of and belief in Velma’s character being queer. He posted an image on Instagram of Velma standing smiling with another character in front of a rainbow, labeled PRIDE, with this caption: “I obviously don’t represent every version of Velma Dinkley, but I am one of the key people that represents this one. We made our intentions as clear as we could ten years ago. Most of our fans got it. To those that didn’t, I suggest you look closer. There’s no new news here.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCAB5kPDDqG/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=8b7b6b9e-b819-4af8-be3c-b854b711d876

In the new “Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo!” Velma appears to physically swoon over the smart and glamorous female character Coco Diablo. She’s a super villain, of course, with glasses and a cat. Velma’s famous glasses fog over, and she says, breathlessly, when she meets Coco, “Jinkies.”

Velma also goes googly-eyed when Coco calls her “the cute one” with a lingering hand on Velma’s shoulder.

How is this different from the retconning of Dumbledore’s character, for instance, when writer J.K. Rowling famously said, well after the publication of the “Harry Potter” series, that Dumbledore was gay?

Over the years, Velma set gaydars buzzing with her characterization. 

There isn’t much evidence of the wizard being gay in the actual texts themselves. Given the outspoken transphobic stance of the writer, it’s hard not to view Dumbledore’s latent sexuality as a marketing ploy, meant to appease the masses without supporting any real queer people.

But over the years, Velma set gaydars buzzing with her characterization and actions throughout various portrayals. She’s the smartest of the group, but she also has her own interests. She’s not concerned with dating like Daphne is, though she does consistently worry about Daphne’s safety. She doesn’t care about boys. She doesn’t check off any of the heteronormative boxes.

When word of Velma’s attraction to the female character of Coco in “Trick or Treat Scooby Doo!” came out, the messaging was that Velma was explicitly gay, not bisexual. This has understandably led some fans to call out bisexual erasure. Velma did date men before and now seems to be attracted to a woman. Whether this is simply being bisexual or conforming to the standards of the time, when you can’t be who you truly are in order to stay safe, remains to be seen. But at least in some portrayals, according to Cervone, “I’ve said this before, but Velma in ‘Mystery Incorporated’ is not bi. She’s gay.”

“Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo!” (Warner Bros.)Audie Harrison, the director of “Trick or Treat, Scooby Doo!” did not explicitly confirm whether Velma’s bi or gay in the new film, just that she’s attracted to Coco. And although he’s proud to be bringing queerness openly to the franchise, “It honestly did not occur to [me] that we were doing something so groundbreaking until right now,” he told NPR. “I actually thought it was a bigger deal for Velma’s character that she is in love with the villain of the movie. The fact that she is a girl is just . . . well, a fact.”


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


Everything is coming up Scooby-Doo, as another, different adaptation is in the works, a series from HBO Max. But as The Gamer wrote, in the HBO Max show, “Velma has a ‘secret crush’ on Fred – not Daphne. This has fans mourning the short life of Velma’s canonical lesbian identity, as it seems that the new show won’t be interested in exploring this side of her.” The only one worse for smart Velma to date than Shaggy might be the decidedly unintellectual, conspiracy theory-believing Fred.

Bi or gay, just please don’t put Velma back in the closet. Jinkies, it’s dark in there.

“Trick or Treat, Scooby Do!” is now streaming on Amazon Prime and other digital platforms. Watch a trailer via YouTube below.

 

Climate reparations are on the agenda at COP27 — whether wealthy nations like it or not

Sumi Akter was at a crossroads. She could either stay in her farming village in western Bangladesh where her husband couldn’t find work or move five hours northeast to Dhaka, the country’s capital. Moving meant leaving behind her extended family and the only place she’d known in her life. But staying meant economic peril for her and her two daughters.

Akter’s hometown, Nasirpur, sits near the banks of the Kobadak River, which frequently swells with the ocean’s tides, sending rushing water through farms and homes. As a child, Akter, who goes by the daak name Bethi, would watch as cyclones flattened Nasirpur’s kutcha houses, made of mud and straw. Her father planted rice, jute, and vegetables on their modest plot of land only for the harvest to be washed away. 

As the years passed, Nasirpur residents also began contending with declining snowmelt from the Himalayas and rising sea levels. These climate change-fueled phenomena made the area’s river system saltier — a disaster for the farmers who depended on reliable freshwater flows. By the time Bethi was contemplating her move in 2018, many residents had already fled to bigger cities in search of work. The region’s population had been declining, with one study finding 5.5 migrants from the area for every 1,000 people

As Bethi weighed her options, she reached out to the Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Center and spoke to a staffer at the front desk. The center is responsible for implementing the climate programs of another nongovernmental organization, Helvetas Bangladesh. Both groups work to reduce disaster risks by increasing coordination between various state and local governments, as well as funding skills training to ensure climate migrants succeed when they move. They offered Bethi a third alternative that she hadn’t yet thought of: enroll in a training program and start a business.

Helvetas would pay for Bethi to attend a three-month beautician training course. After that, she could set up her own salon. Bethi, who had never worked outside the home, liked the idea but had many hurdles to overcome — including convincing her conservative family to let her work and securing 130,000 taka (roughly $1,300) in capital loans. She persuaded her family that working would help secure her kids’ future, and found three groups willing to loan her the money. 

Her perseverance paid off. Today Bethi owns and runs Boishakhi Beauty Parlour, named after her eldest daughter, just 10 minutes from Nasirpur. She has almost paid off her loans and has her sights set on expanding the salon’s offerings — perhaps even one day starting a beauty school.

“I couldn’t have imagined that I’d ever be fortunate enough to be able to get here,” she told Grist, speaking in Bengali through a translator over Zoom. “I’d never imagined this life for myself, that I’d be able to stand on my own two feet, that I’d be able to transform myself in this way.”

Bethi is one of millions of people worldwide whose lives have been indelibly altered by climate change. The planet has warmed by an average 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times, enough to accelerate or intensify an onslaught of cyclonesheatwavesdroughts, sea-level rise, and other natural disasters. The countries most vulnerable to climate change claim they have lost a fifth of their wealth due to climate change-driven increases in temperature and inconsistent rainfall patterns over the last 20 years. 

The result is a widespread loss of livelihood and displacement that’s only accelerating as temperatures rise. What’s more, these losses are primarily suffered by low- and middle-income nations that were late to industrialize, and therefore did little to contribute to global warming historically. According to the World Meteorological Organization, natural disasters caused 2 million deaths worldwide between 1970 and 2019; more than 90 percent were in developing countries.

In international negotiations, these climate-related outcomes are grouped under the compact moniker “loss and damage.” The origin of the phrase can be traced to 1991, four years before the first United Nations conference of parties, or COP, on climate change. Vanuatu, a small island nation in the Pacific, submitted a proposal to a UN General Assembly committee that year, arguing for an insurance scheme to “compensate small island states along with low-lying developing countries for loss and damage resulting from the consequences of sea level rise.”

The proposal didn’t go anywhere, but the term slowly took on a life of its own. By 2007, COP formally recognized the need for “means to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries.” Loss and damage became known as the third pillar of the Paris Agreement that was signed in 2016, when the world’s countries agreed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The other two pillars, adaptation and mitigation, refer to efforts taken to protect communities from the future effects of climate change and actions taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions, respectively. If mitigation and adaptation entail avoiding temperature rise and its consequences, loss and damage tackles the unavoidable pitfalls of a warming planet. 

In the years since, the clamor in favor of acknowledging loss and damage, and funding restitution for it, has grown louder. Increasingly, climate advocates and developing nations have framed loss and damage funding as a form of reparations. Since late-industrializing countries — which run the gamut from major international players like India and Brazil to small island nations like Vanuatu — have done little historically to cause climate change, they argue that it’s unfair they now have to shoulder the burden of its deadliest effects. 

Convincing early-industrializing countries like the U.S. to fund organizations like the one that helped Bethi could be one aspect of a global loss and damage program. The groundwork for this is already being laid: Helvetas Bangladesh is expanding its work with the help of a $250,000 grant from the Climate Justice Resilience Fund, a Washington D.C.-based philanthropy tasked with distributing money allocated during last year’s COP in Glasgow, Scotland.

Loss and damage is expected to take center stage at the 27th United Nations climate change conference, or COP27, in Egypt next month. Famine-level drought in Somalia and devastating floods that left one-third of Pakistan, a country responsible for less than 1 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, underwater have only added urgency to the issue.

Activists and developing nations hope to leave COP27 with a sustainable system for funding loss and damage restitution over the long term. In the past, countries have pledged funds to pay for climate projects in poor countries, with the assistance of the United Nations. The most prominent of these is the Green Climate Fund, which was established in 2010 with the goal of raising $100 billion per year to help developing nations respond to climate change. The fund does not cover loss and damage, and developed nations have only raised roughly $80 billion in loans and grants. Accessing money from the fund has also been a frustrating process plagued by bureaucratic delays for vulnerable countries.

Climate justice advocates hope to learn lessons from this failure as they try to establish a new mechanism to collect and distribute funding for loss and damage. The issue has been included for discussion in a provisional agenda, and they hope to see it formally adopted to the official COP agenda for the first time in the conference’s history. And since the conference is being held in a developing country for the first time in six years, advocates hope to leverage media attention to make the moral case for loss and damage funding. In a recent interview with Bloomberg, India’s environment minister Bhupender Yadav said that the focus on mitigation at last year’s COP “caused disappointment among the smaller countries over the lack of discussion on loss and damages.” He noted that India is working with other industrializing nations to demand compensation. 

On the other hand, developed nations including the U.S. continue to sidestep the issue, fearing that acknowledging it would open up a Pandora’s box of litigation and lead to unlimited financial liability. Last month, in response to a question about whether the U.S. plans to direct funding to pay for loss and damage in poor countries, climate envoy John Kerry said that “the most important thing that we can do is stop, mitigate enough that we prevent loss and damage. And the next most important thing we can do is help people adapt to the damage that’s already there.” In a nod to the gargantuan costs of the climate crisis so far, Kerry added: “You tell me the government in the world that has trillions of dollars, cause that’s what it costs.” Some estimates put the price tag on loss and damage anywhere between $290 and $580 billion per year by 2030.

But while the U.S. and most other industrialized nations continue to punt on funding loss and damage restitution, some smaller rich countries have been stepping up. Earlier this year, Denmark became the first independent country to officially fund loss and damage compensation, setting aside $13 million for the cause. Denmark was following in the footsteps of Scotland, which provided a major breakthrough at COP26 last year.

The first week of the conference, Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged that the country’s industrial past produced carbon emissions that built its wealth at the expense of nations now suffering the worst effects of climate change. More significantly, Scotland pledged £2 million (or about $2.3 million) toward loss and damage funding, becoming the first nation to put money on the table to compensate for loss and damage. It was a groundbreaking investment in keeping with the country’s progressive positions on climate change: Scotland established a climate justice fund in 2012 to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to climate change, and it has an ambitious goal of reducing carbon emissions by 75 percent by 2030. 

Although the monetary contributions were small compared to the need, it was a giant symbolic victory in the eyes of loss and damage advocates. “The biggest contribution of Scotland was de-tabooing the issue,” said Harjeet Singh, the head of global political strategy at the Climate Action Network, an international coalition of more than 1,800 environmental groups. “No developed-country government was even agreeing to talk about loss and damage at that level. The biggest breakthrough was a government coming forward and saying, ‘loss and damage is an issue, and I’m willing to put money behind it. It’s a matter of justice.'”

Advocates hoped Scotland’s commitment, which was announced early in the COP26 conference, would shift the conversation. “I was super excited and hopeful,” said Eva Peace Mukayiranga, a climate activist from Kigali, Rwanda. “I thought now there would be no more blocking [from developed countries]. Surely, there would be no more blocking.”

But Mukayiranga returned from Glasgow disappointed. For much of the conference, loss and damage advocates found themselves shut out of negotiations, leading some to later declare the proceedings “the most exclusionary COP ever.”

Lorenzo Raplili,​​ a policy officer at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network, was one of just a handful of Vanuatu citizens who managed to clear the various COVID-19 travel restrictions and make the two-day trek to Glasgow. A small island nation home to about 300,000 people, Vanuatu was recovering from Cyclone Harold which made landfall in 2020 and caused about $600 million in damages — 60 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Despite Vanuatu’s position on the front lines of climate change, Raplili found that he and other advocates were not allowed to enter negotiation rooms where loss and damage was being discussed, even though the conference typically allows community groups and civil society representatives to observe COP proceedings.

“We were blocked by the security not to enter the COP negotiation,” Raplili said. “We were surprised, and we were saddened to see that our agenda and our demands for COP26 were put aside. We were neglected.”

Inside the negotiation room, representatives of developing nations initially proposed provisions that would support creating a funding mechanism for loss and damage. But in the final days of the conference, many of the provisions were watered down at the behest of the U.S. and European Union. Instead of a clear definition and a process for moving money to vulnerable countries, developing nations had to settle for a section of the final pact called the “Glasgow Dialogue.” It acknowledged that climate change has already and will continue to cause loss and damage globally, and urged developed countries to “provide enhanced and additional support” to address impacts in countries vulnerable to climate change. It said nothing about how such measures should be funded.

Ultimately, the Scottish’s government’s path-breaking announcement didn’t move the conversation “as we hoped for,” Mukayiranga said. Her goal to establish a financing mechanism for loss and damage remains unmet. Thanks to contributions from a few philanthropic organizations and the governments of Wallonia, Scotland, and Denmark, the tally for financing loss and damage now stands at a paltry $19.5 million — a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars in damages that developing nations face each year as climate-fueled flooding, hurricanes, and other disasters wallop vulnerable populations.

Mukayiranga is now looking ahead to COP27 in November. “I’m prepared for a fight,” she told Grist. “They can’t ignore anymore that we are facing loss and damage impacts, and we need loss and damage finance which is new and additional.”

A number of roadblocks stand in the way of Mukayiranga and other loss and damage advocates. Despite the breakthrough in Glasgow, getting loss and damage on the COP27 provisional agenda has once again been an uphill climb — a struggle that advocates blame on continued evasion by the U.S. and other developed nations. The ongoing pandemic, food crises, and fears of an impending global recession are also bound to make the conversation harder. Finally, the demand for additional funding comes even as rich countries still haven’t met their 2015 promise to funnel $100 billion a year to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

Despite all the hurdles, Singh framed the issue as a moral imperative. “Climate is a justice issue,” he said. “A bunch of countries and corporations are responsible for the mess. They have to bloody clean it up. As simple as that.” 

* * *

There is no official definition of loss and damage, and the lines between adaptation measures, humanitarian aid after natural disasters, and loss and damage funding can be blurry. It may be difficult, for example, to distinguish between interventions that help people adapt to climate change versus those that address losses they’ve already experienced. Not only that, but many climate-related phenomena, such as sea-level rise and the loss of culture that can be a consequence of migration, occur over decades and are hard to quantify. 

These are some of the challenges that advocates face as they gear up to push for a funding mechanism at COP27. Among the open questions are: What is the true scale of loss and damage? How should non-economic impacts, such as loss of language or culture, be addressed? And what are potential sources of funding, given that developed nations have blown past the 2020 deadline they set in Paris to provide $100 billion per year in climate-related financing to countries in need?

One analysis conducted by researchers at the Basque Centre for Climate Change in Spain estimated that global warming will cause between $290 billion and $580 billion per year in damages in 2030. That figure, the analysis found, is set to balloon to $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion per year in 2050. The estimates do not include non-economic losses due to displacement. Island nations and communities that live on the coasts, for instance, are increasingly having to move inland. The dispersion of these communities can lead to the loss of languages. With rising sea levels, burial sites in these communities are also underwater. Some argue that it is too difficult to put a monetary value on such losses, and that they should be addressed separately. (For example, language loss could be addressed through the support of archival work to document and preserve artifacts of the language in question.)

The massive scale of funding required could come from a number of sources. Taxes on fossil fuel sales, a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies, a tax on international airfares, and debt cancellation for vulnerable countries could help fund the climate compensation package for developing nations.

“There are many ways of raising money if you have political will,” said Singh. “How could we raise trillions when it comes to COVID response? How could we raise trillions when we were faced by a financial crisis, or when we have to now mobilize money to support Ukraine?” 

Singh and others advocates want to see a funding mechanism for loss and damage established and operationalized in the next three years. This year, they want countries to agree to establish a fund and define its function. By COP29, they want funds mobilized and channeled to developing countries. 

It’s an ambitious timeline. Whether it’ll be met depends very much on the talks in November. In an exclusive interview with Grist, Rania A. Al-Mashat, Egypt’s minister of international cooperation, noted that the African continent’s contributions to global emissions are miniscule compared to the harms it suffers as a result of climate change. Nevertheless, she demurred on questions about the country’s position on loss and damage.

“Egypt, as president of COP, has very clearly said we take an impartial role,” she said, “but Egypt has been a very key player in the negotiations from the very start.”

The Egyptian COP president, Sameh Shoukry, has said that loss and damage is a priority for the country in November, alongside mitigation and other issues related to climate finance. Last month, Shoukry convened a meeting of the heads of delegations to exclusively discuss loss and damage — a first for a COP presidency. Al-Mashat said that the gap between the money available and the funds needed to finance a global green transition is “very, very big.”

“It’s on the negotiators at COP to really assess how much of that needs to be generated,” she told Grist.

In the last year, wealthy nations have moved away from some of their hardline positions on loss and damage. Civil society groups in the European Union believe Ireland could follow in Scotland and Denmark’s footsteps. Australia, which has historically obstructed progress in climate negotiations, also looks set to change its tune with the election of a new and more progressive government

One reason for the shift may be that the conversation around compensation liability is not emphasized as much as it was in the past. In order to assuage wealthy nations’ fear that they will be on the hook for some unlimited amount in damages, developing nations and climate justice groups have consciously moved away from emphasizing compensation liability and instead have set their targets on an account of loss and damage that does not necessarily imply complicity. Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, for instance, explicitly states that the agreement recognizes loss and damage, but does not “provide a basis for any liability or compensation.” 

Some advocates have also pointed out that refusing to fund loss and damage could actually increase the threat of litigation. For instance, Vanuatu, the island nation with a population of about 300,000, is currently seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal implications of climate change. An advisory opinion is not binding, but it can help developing countries and small island nations understand the legal arguments they could make and understand their chances of success in court. Vanuatu needs to secure a majority of UN countries’ support for its proposal to compel the court to issue an opinion. 

“You can’t just hide under the carpet,” said Singh, of the Climate Action Network. “If they really want to avoid litigation and unlimited liability, they should come to the table and find ways of supporting communities who are facing this crisis. That’s the only way.”

Po Bhattacharyya assisted with translation.

Microplastics found in human breast milk for the first time

Microplastics, the shed microscopic particles of larger plastic goods, are both invisible and everywhere. Because synthetic plastic polymers are used to make thousands of commonly used products, there are trillions of these tiny plastic particles — known as microplastics — on our planet. They are in the ocean and embedded in our soil. They irritate our bowels and shoot through our bloodstream.

Now, they’ve been sighted in one part of the body they had never been observed before: in human breast milk. 

“In fact, the chemicals possibly contained in foods, beverages, and personal care products consumed by breastfeeding mothers may be transferred to the offspring, potentially exerting a toxic effect.”

Indeed, a recent study in the scientific journal Polymers, conducted by Italian scientists, analyzed breast milk taken from 34 healthy mothers one week after they gave birth in Rome. The researchers then analyzed the breast milk to determine if there were microplastics present — and, in 75% of the cases, there were. When combined with the knowledge that microplastics have been found in human placentas, the authors argue, these results should raise a red flag.

While adults are already developed and grown, infants are a far more vulnerable population — and it is unknown the effect that ingesting such contaminants might cause in them, the authors note. “In fact, the chemicals possibly contained in foods, beverages, and personal care products consumed by breastfeeding mothers may be transferred to the offspring, potentially exerting a toxic effect,” they continue. 


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


While the appearance of microplastics in breast milk is alarming, it should not discourage mothers from breastfeeding. Notably, microplastics are apt to appear in the bottles and other plastic products from which baby formula is sold, so it is not like a breast milk substitute will necessarily be better. More important, though, is the fact that there are natural advantages to breastfeeding.

“It must be stressed that the advantages of breastfeeding are much greater than the disadvantages caused by the presence of polluting microplastics,” Dr Valentina Notarstefano at the Università Politecnica delle Marche, one of the study’s co-authors, told The Guardian. “Studies like ours must not reduce breastfeeding of children, but instead raise public awareness to pressure politicians to promote laws that reduce pollution.”

The recent study adds to the considerable body of research on the ways in which microplastics have squirreled their way into the human body, often with studied detrimental effects. Plastics often contain chemicals known as phthalates, which has been linked to cancer in children, and bisphenols, which are linked to reproductive health issues. The average American consumes roughly one credit card worth of plastic each week because of microplastics, and experts like environmental health scientist Dr. Shanna Swan have linked plastic pollution to decline sperm counts.

When scientists realized that plastic pollution had made it into the human bloodstream, they said that this means it is not being eliminated through the kidneys, liver and other organs that would normally slow the rate of absorption for foreign particles like this. In turn, that means that microplastics could reach any organ — and do unpredictable amounts of damage.

“If plastic particles present in the bloodstream are indeed being carried by immune cells, the question also arises, can such exposures potentially affect immune regulation or the predisposition to diseases with an immunological base?” the authors of that study asked.

Because microplastics are particularly prevalent in our waterways, this means they are also will disproportionately impact the economic lives of people who depend on our oceans.

“We also know that we have these areas, where a lot of this plastic waste is persisting and collecting, in coastal communities, right at the ends of waterways entering our oceans, and those are areas where you have a lot of communities that depend highly on fishing for their livelihoods and food,” Erin Simon, head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), told Salon last year. “And because of the increase of plastic rates, they’re having to travel further off shore. It costs them more in fuel and it means they may make less money. They may not be able to provide that for their family.”

Bullseye! NASA’s DART test was a smashing success, altering the orbit of the asteroid Dimorphos

After NASA and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory deliberately crashed a space probe into an asteroid two weeks ago, astronomers anxiously monitored the distant space rock to see if the mission was a triumph or a failure to launch. This afternoon, NASA announced the suicide mission was a huge success, making great strides for the future of planetary defense missions.

The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), which was launched late last year, was designed to test our ability to deflect an asteroid from hitting Earth. Such an impact could wipe out most life on Earth, just like the giant space rock that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Fortunately, asteroids, even large ones, are not particularly difficult to deflect, particularly if you get to them early: a tiny change in velocity years in advance can turn an extinction-event-causing asteroid into one that misses Earth entirely.

Such tiny changes in trajectory can be achieved by nudging said bodies with other objects at high speeds — akin to how a billiards ball collision can shift the trajectory of balls already in motion. Indeed, while DART’s engineering was novel, the science was not, and involves well-established Newtonian physical principles related to kinetics and momentum that are hundreds of years old. 

The 1,320-pound (600 kilogram) DART spacecraft was sent to intercept Dimorphos, a small asteroid that is technically a moonlet (meaning a tiny moon) of 65803 Didymos, a much larger asteroid half a mile wide. The two rocks are about 6.8 million miles from Earth. Dimorphos is about the height of the Washington Monument, with a diameter of 160 meters (530 feet). DART crashed into the moonlet at 14,000 mph, or just under four miles per second.

DART livestreamed its own demise, dispatching closer and closer images of the surface of Dimorphos as it crashed. Then, the feed went dark. It took much longer to see the collision from another angle. But once more images came in, the results were astonishing.

A global constellation of telescopes called the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System Project caught a glimpse of the impact. Dimorphos, appearing like a little white snowball against a backdrop of stars, suddenly puffs with dust. The resulting plume of rocks and dirt was later measured by the Southern Astrophysical Research Telescope in Chile, pegging it at about 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometers) long.

These were some impressive pictures of debris, but they didn’t necessarily verify that the impact was a success: to do that, the mission team needed evidence that Dimorphos’ orbit had actually been altered as a result of the impact. Today, NASA confirmed that the impact altered Dimorphos’ orbit around Didymos by about 32 minutes. It normally took the asteroid 11 hours and 55 minutes to spin around its parent; now, it’s just 11 hours and 23 minutes. That means that the impact significantly changed the moonlet’s orbital velocity. 

“The recoil from this blast of debris substantially enhanced DART’s push against Dimorphos — a little like a jet of air streaming out of a balloon sends the balloon in the opposite direction.”

“This mission shows that NASA is trying to be ready for whatever the universe throws at us,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement. “NASA has proven we are serious as a defender of the planet. This is a watershed moment for planetary defense and all of humanity, demonstrating commitment from NASA’s exceptional team and partners from around the world.”

The margin for success was relatively small compared to the result. If the impact had only shifted the orbit by 73 seconds, it would have been enough. But according to NASA, “DART surpassed this minimum benchmark by more than 25 times,” adding that “the recoil from this blast of debris substantially enhanced DART’s push against Dimorphos — a little like a jet of air streaming out of a balloon sends the balloon in the opposite direction.”

“This result is one important step toward understanding the full effect of DART’s impact with its target asteroid,” Lori Glaze, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, said in the same statement. “As new data come in each day, astronomers will be able to better assess whether, and how, a mission like DART could be used in the future to help protect Earth from a collision with an asteroid if we ever discover one headed our way.”


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


Astronomers still have a lot more data to collect. Meanwhile, the European Space Agency’s Hera Project will fly by the two asteroids in about four years to more precisely measure both Dimorphos and Didymos, with particular attention on the crater DART left behind.

Don’t worry — this mission didn’t somehow send Dimorphos in our direction. The asteroids never posed a threat to Earth and we still have little to fear from this interstellar experiment.

However, another asteroid or comet could come careening toward us, spelling doom for the planet. In fact, it is not a matter of if, but when, as such collisions are inevitable in the long run and have happened repeatedly throughout Earth’s history. If an Earth-bound asteroid were detected, it could take several years for NASA or another space agency to formulate an effective defense plan. (Notably, pummeling such an asteroid with nukes would likely backfire, despite what audiences may have learned from ‘Armageddon.’)

But assuming humans are given sufficient warning, the DART mission has made the possibility of planetary defense much more feasible. Projects like DART may come with a hefty price tag — around $324.5 million, around the same cost as a USDA grant for farmers or a new high school learning center in Massachusetts  — but that seems like a small cost for safeguarding life on Earth.

“All of us have a responsibility to protect our home planet. After all, it’s the only one we have,” Nelson said.

Legal experts: Russia link to Trump documents means it’s a matter of “when, not if” he is indicted

Former President Donald Trump sought to cut a deal with the National Archives to trade records he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago late last year for “sensitive” documents about the FBI investigation of his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia, according to The New York Times.

The exchange never happened but Trump floated the idea to his aides. The National Archives had pressed Trump to return the documents stored at his Florida estate, but Trump spent a year and a half delaying their requests. He was upset with the National Archives’ unwillingness to hand over the documents that ostensibly backed his claims in the Russia probe, per the Times. 

Upon entering the White House, Trump formed a habit of bringing documents back to his bedroom, according to the report. Halfway through his term, tracking files in the White House became an obstacle and, by his third year, some documents ended up in places where they should not have been, according to individuals familiar with the situation who spoke with the Times.

At the end of his presidency, White House counsel Pat Cipollone called for Trump to return documents that “had piled up in boxes in the White House,” according to archives officials the Times reported. 

The top lawyer for the National Archives, Gary Stern, also demanded that Trump return the classified files from Mar-a-Lago in a letter in 2021. 

“It is also our understanding that roughly two dozen boxes of original presidential records were kept in the residence of the White House over the course of President Trump’s last year in office and have not been transferred to NARA, despite a determination by Pat Cipollone in the final days of the administration that they need to be,” Stern wrote.

Throughout the year, Stern continued to press Trump’s team to have him hand over the boxes. He even spoke with the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and three lawyers who worked in the White House counsel’s Office.

At the end of last year, as Stern pushed for Trump to return the documents, Trump told Meadows that the boxes he took from the White House merely contained newspaper clippings and personal items. 

Even such documents seen by Trump while in office were considered presidential records, the Archives informed Trump’s team. Still, Trump did not return any boxes. 

Ex-White House advisor Eric Herschmann also told Trump near the end of last year that he could encounter “significant legal problems” if he didn’t return the records, according to the Times.

Trump repeatedly told his advisors that the boxes were “mine” but ultimately agreed to go through the files in December 2021, per the Times. Stern was later told the boxes were ready to be retrieved 


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


Trump’s representatives had not informed Stern that the boxes included classified files. When the Archives’ personnel started opening the boxes in a room that was not suitable for handling secret material, they quickly moved the boxes to specially secured areas, according to the Times. 

Soon after, the agency informed the Justice Department that classified materials may have been mishandled, which led federal authorities to open an investigation into the former president.

Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen reacted to the New York Times report describing the whole issue as “absolutely crazy” on MSNBC on Sunday.

“The fact that we have to sit there, and play this game with a former president of the United States? ‘I want my documents back?’ He’s not entitled to them,” Cohen said. The longtime Trump fixer argued that anyone else would be in jail “in 24 hours” if they did what Trump is accused of.

“He’s playing the art of the deal, where he says ‘I will trade you this for that,’ — this is beyond unheard of,” he said.

Former U.S. attorney Joyce White Vance told MSNBC that the report strengthens the DOJ’s case for a possible indictment.

“Whether it’s technically extortion, whether it is some other misconduct, nothing about this is seemly for a former president,” she said. “He’s not entitled to engage in a back-and-forth court to get materials he wants but is not entitled to. This deserves the highest level of scrutiny from the Justice Department and, increasingly its more an issue of when, not if, there will be a prosecution.”

New York University Law Professor Ryan Goodman tweeted that the report will “significantly strengthen the criminal case — and are the type of aggravating factors that push DOJ toward indictment.”

Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, agreed that the report was “damning” evidence against the former president.

“Those are incredibly damning statements that go directly to knowledge and intent,” he told MSNBC. “And you can be sure that the DOJ prosecutors are doing what I’m doing, which is listening to this. This is making it that much easier to prove the only element that could pose any real difficulty for the Department of Justice in bringing a case [against] the Mar-a-Lago documents.”

Former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks called the former president “delusional” for thinking he could exchange the Mar-a-Lago documents for the information on the Russia probe.

“My suspicion is they do not exist,” she told MSNBC on Monday. “So, let’s take that first. Secondly, you cannot steal something to barter. It does go back to what happened in Ukraine where he was trying to say, okay, I’ll give you what you’re legally entitled to, the funding, if you do this terrible thing for me and make up something about Joe Biden. That is not how America is supposed to be doing business. That is illegal in every aspect.”

Trump, who has long called the Department of Justice’s investigation into his campaign ties to Russia a “hoax”, is now under a different investigation by the department. This time, the DOJ is looking into whether Trump broke three federal laws including the Espionage Act when it comes to his handling of classified information.

Trump PAC begs GOP donors to help struggling Republicans — but spends more on his legal bills

new report from the Washington Post claims that former President Donald Trump’s “Save America” leadership PAC is spending big on paying his legal bills, even as Republican congressional candidates struggle to raise money.

According to the Post’s analysis of financial disclosures, the PAC “has spent more money since he left office on lawyers representing the former president and a pair of nonprofits staffed by former Cabinet members than it has on Republican congressional campaigns.”

This is despite the fact that the PAC regularly spams supporters with emails and texts telling them that their donations are essential for Republicans to “win BIG in November,” and the Post notes that Trump’s legal expenses are only expected to climb as he faces multiple threats from investigations related to his allegedly fraudulent business practices, his role in inciting a deadly riot at the United States Capitol, and his decision to stash top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

In fact, the Post has found that the PAC cut its biggest check recently to hire a big-name lawyer that Trump brought in to defend him in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

“Available filings, which disclose payments only through the end of August, show Save America sent its single biggest check in the last 20 months not to a Trump-backed candidate or to advertising aimed at swing-state voters,” the paper writes. “Instead, the $3-million payment went to a Florida law firm representing the former president in the Justice Department’s investigation of his handling of government documents at Mar-a-Lago and its probe of the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, aimed at keeping Trump in power.”

America’s most effective fascism enforcers are bored boomers, not youthful brawlers

According to the media and the House committee investigating January 6, the face of rising fascism has been a young one. Or young-ish, anyway, especially in a graying country like the United States. A lot of attention has been paid to the incel and 4chan communities, or other places where young men in their teens and early 20s are being radicalized. The 2017 “Unite the Right” riot in Charlottesville, Virginia crystallized the image of modern fascists as college-aged men with floppy haircuts and polo shirts. A number of authoritarian groups have grown up under Trump, but by far the most attention has been paid to the Proud Boys, whose name and manner of dress cast an image of youthful streetfighters. In the American imagination, “fascists” are young men, such as Hitler’s Brownshirts, who are believed to have the energy and stomach for the skull-cracking necessary to impose their will to power. 

As demonstrated by January 6 and the years of street fights in Portland, Oregon, this threat of relatively youthful violence should not be ignored. But there’s a quieter, more pernicious threat to democracy: Older, retiree-aged Trump fanatics. 

To understand the threat, it’s crucial to look at how elections are being undermined in 2022 and ahead to 2024. As January 6 showed, violence may make a big splash, but it’s harder to actually hijack elections that way in the high-tech 21st century. For that, you need systematic breakdowns. The GOP has long used red tape regulations to gerrymander and suppress voter turnout. Even Trump, despite his fascination with violence, first tried to get the courts to steal the 2020 election for him, before resorting to inciting the Capitol riot. Even then, the violence of January 6 ultimately revolved paperwork: Preventing electoral votes from being counted in hopes of invalidating the election. 


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


What you need, in other words, are people who have the time and resources to engage in bureaucratic meddling. Trump is very fortunate in that regard — by far his largest and most robust vein of support comes from people of retirement age. (People over 65 turned out for Trump in greater numbers than any other group of voters.) A veritable army of Fox News-drunk grandparents is forming, ready to interfere every step of the way with the systems that turn out, collect and count votes. 

Last week, in a segment for the “Fever Dreams” podcast, Daily Beast journalist Will Sommer reported that the popular Trumpist website Gateway Pundit has put together a surprisingly intense 11-page “how to” guide for jamming up elections on a local level. Of course, the guide doesn’t admit that’s the goal; it claims to be designed for taking “proactive” steps to “prevent Democrats from cheating and stealing elections.” 

Reading the guide, however, clarifies that the goal is to hinder the ability of election workers to do their jobs. The guide tells readers to insist they “be stationed at major ballot transfer locations,” which includes every post office, “loading dock at the central tabulation centers, and possibly at the print vendors.” The guide instructs readers to routinely demand “investigations” of any box of ballots at any point in time and to throw fits if their unreasonable intrusions are rebuffed. Instructions are included for various ways to slow down the process, challenge the counting of ballots and otherwise make it difficult, if not impossible, for ballot counting to move smoothly and efficiently. The guide recommends readers “rent a motor home for the very problematic tabulation centers” and “[p]ark it close to the facility as the command center” for teams of election meddlers to work from. (“Problematic” is unsubtly defined as “Democrat run facilities” — basically a way to direct their readers to districts where Democrats vote.)

The guide admits its elaborate plans for election obstruction would take a lot of time and energy to realize: “This is hard work so have some fun too!”

That’s why it matters that Trump’s allies have an army of retirees to draw on — the kind of people who have the motor homes to use as “command centers” and the time on their hands to spend harassing election workers.

Last month, the Washington Post reported election officials in various swing states are complaining about “an unprecedented wave of public records requests” that “may be intended to hinder their work and weaken an already strained system.” The requests often use the exact same wording. What appears to be happening is a campaign of copy-pasting from guides spreading online in right wing forums, much like the one published by Gateway Pundit. At least one surge of nuisance records requests has been traced back to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who explained on his pro-Trump podcast how his listeners could overwhelm election officials with these requests. 


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


Lindell claims he’s not trying to disrupt elections offices by overwhelming them with pointless busywork, but the timing and repetitiveness of the requests say otherwise. At the same time, many of those filing requests can’t explain, when asked, exactly what they’re looking for. It all points to the same goal, according to the Post: “[M]aking it more difficult to run smooth elections and giving critics new openings to attack the integrity of election administration.”

Mail-in ballots are being sent out, early voting has started and elections offices are gearing up for the final crunch time, and there’s every reason to worry this campaign will only ramp up. It’s hard to track the spread of these guides, but it’s reasonable to worry they are finding a significant audience through community spread, as Trump supporters share with each other through email forwards and on social media. Masses of Trump supporters, mostly retired, with plenty of time to badger and harass election officials could do a lot of damage by slowing down and perhaps stopping the collection and counting of ballots, all under the guise of fighting “fraud.” Imagine thousands of Ginni Thomases, drunk on conspiracy theorists and blessed with nothing but free time to act on them. 

The perennial organizing problem for fascists and other flavors of authoritarianism is that they are usually unpopular, rarely getting more than 25-30% of the public’s support. (Even the recent election of “post-fascist” Giorgia Meloni in Italy was accomplished with only 26% of the vote.) They win in part because the opposition is divided and distracted. But political success, for authoritarians, also means putting in the work hours necessary to overwhelm the will of the majority. Hitler’s Brownshirts were young, but they also had a lot of free time due to high levels of unemployment. With low unemployment, nearly everyone in the U.S. is too busy right now to give much time or energy to political organizing, except retirees. Retired right wingers could be the secret ingredient to making Trumpism succeed despite its unpopularity. 

Ron DeSantis blew up Black-held congressional districts — and may have broken Florida law

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

 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was incensed. Late last year, the state’s Republican legislature had drawn congressional maps that largely kept districts intact, leaving the GOP with only a modest electoral advantage.

DeSantis threw out the legislature’s work and redrew Florida’s congressional districts, making them far more favorable to Republicans. The plan was so aggressive that the Republican-controlled legislature balked and fought DeSantis for months. The governor overruled lawmakers and pushed his map through.

DeSantis’ office has publicly stressed that partisan considerations played no role and that partisan operatives were not involved in the new map.

A ProPublica examination of how that map was drawn — and who helped decide its new boundaries — reveals a much different origin story. The new details show that the governor’s office appears to have misled the public and the state legislature and may also have violated Florida law.

DeSantis aides worked behind the scenes with an attorney who serves as the national GOP’s top redistricting lawyer and other consultants tied to the national party apparatus, according to records and interviews.

Florida’s constitution was amended in 2010 to prohibit partisan-driven redistricting, a landmark effort in the growing movement to end gerrymandering as an inescapable feature of American politics.

Barbara Pariente, a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court who retired in 2019, told ProPublica that DeSantis’ collaboration with people connected to the national GOP would constitute “significant evidence of a violation of the constitutional amendment.”

“If that evidence was offered in a trial, the fact that DeSantis was getting input from someone working with the Republican Party and who’s also working in other states — that would be very powerful,” said Pariente, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Democrat Lawton Chiles.

A meeting invite obtained by ProPublica shows that on Jan. 5, top DeSantis aides had a “Florida Redistricting Kick-off Call” with out-of-state operatives. Those outsiders had also been working with states across the country to help the Republican Party create a favorable election map. In the days after the call, the key GOP law firm working for DeSantis logged dozens of hours on the effort, invoices show. The firm has since billed the state more than $450,000 for its work on redistricting.

A week and a half after the call, DeSantis unveiled his new map. No Florida governor had ever pushed their own district lines before. His plan wiped away half of the state’s Black-dominated congressional districts, dramatically curtailing Black voting power in America’s largest swing state.

One of the districts, held by Democrat Al Lawson, had been created by the Florida Supreme Court just seven years before. Stretching along a swath of north Florida once dominated by tobacco and cotton plantations, it had drawn together Black communities largely populated by the descendants of sharecroppers and slaves. DeSantis shattered it, breaking the district into four pieces. He then tucked each fragment away in a majority-white, heavily Republican district.

DeSantis’ strong-arming of his Republican allies was covered extensively by the Florida press. But until now, little has emerged about how the governor crafted his bold move and who his office worked with. To reconstruct DeSantis’ groundbreaking undertaking, ProPublica interviewed dozens of consultants, legislators and political operatives and reviewed thousands of pages of documents obtained through public records requests and from the nonpartisan watchdog group American Oversight.

DeSantis’ office did not respond to detailed questions for this story.

“Florida’s Governor fought for a legal map — unlike the gerrymandered plan the Governor rightly vetoed,” Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, whose top lawyer was hired by DeSantis’ office, said in an email to ProPublica. “If Governor DeSantis retained some of the best redistricting lawyers and experts in the country to advise him then that speaks to the good judgment of the Governor, not some alleged partisan motive.”

In four years as governor, DeSantis has championed an array of controversial policies and repeatedly used his power to punish his political opponents. A presumptive candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, he has often made moves that seemed tailored to attract headlines, such as his recent stunt sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. But it’s the governor’s less flashy commandeering of the redistricting process that may ultimately have the most long-lasting consequences.

Analysts predict that DeSantis’ map will give the GOP four more members of Congress from Florida, the largest gain by either party in any state. If the forecasts hold, Republicans will win 20 of Florida’s 28 seats in the upcoming midterms — meaning that Republicans would control more than 70% of the House delegation in a state where Trump won just over half of the vote.

The reverberations of DeSantis’ effort could go beyond Florida in another way. His erasure of Lawson’s seat broke long-held norms and invited racial discrimination lawsuits, experts said. Six political scientists and law professors who study voting rights told ProPublica it’s the first instance they’re aware of where a state so thoroughly dismantled a Black-dominated district. If the governor prevails against suits challenging his map, he will have forged a path for Republicans all over the country to take aim at Black-held districts.

“To the extent that this is successful, it’s going to be replicated in other states. There’s no question,” said Michael Latner, a political science professor at California Polytechnic State University who studies redistricting. “The repercussions are so broad that it’s kind of terrifying.”

 

Al Lawson’s district, now wiped away by DeSantis, had been created in response to an earlier episode of surreptitious gerrymandering in Florida.

Twelve years ago, Florida became one of the first states to outlaw partisan gerrymandering. Through a ballot initiative that passed with 63% of the vote, Florida citizens enshrined the so-called Fair Districts amendment in the state constitution. The amendment prohibited drawing maps with “the intent to favor or disfavor a political party.” It also created new protections for minority communities, in a state that’s 17% Black, forming a backstop as the U.S. Supreme Court chipped away at the federal Voting Rights Act.

Florida elected its first Black member of Congress, a former slave named Josiah Walls, in 1870, shortly after the end of the Civil War. But Florida rapidly enacted new voter suppression laws, and Walls soon lost his office as Reconstruction gave way to the era of Jim Crow.

Thanks to distorted maps, Florida did not elect a second Black representative to Congress until 1992. That year, a federal court created three plurality-Black districts in Florida — and then three Black politicians won seats in the U.S. House.

After the Fair Districts amendment became law in 2010, state legislators promised to conduct what one called “the most transparent, open, and interactive redistricting process in America.” Policymakers went on tour across the state, hosting public hearings where their constituents could learn about the legislature’s decision-making and voice their concerns.

The hearings also served a more nefarious purpose, a judge would later rule. They were instrumental in what state circuit judge Terry Lewis described as “a conspiracy to influence and manipulate the Legislature into a violation of its constitutional duty.”

For months, a team of state-level Republican operatives worked in secret to craft maps that favored the GOP, coordinating with both statehouse leadership and the Republican National Committee. Then they recruited civilians to attend the hearings and submit the maps as their own.

An email detailed the advice the operatives gave their recruits. “Do NOT identify oneself orally or in writing,” it read, “as a part of the Republican party. It is more than OK to represent oneself as just a citizen.”

It took years of litigation for the details of the scheme to come to light. But in 2015, the Florida Supreme Court responded with force. In a series of rulings that ultimately rejected the Republicans’ efforts, the court laid out the stringent new requirements under Fair Districts, making clear that partisan “practices that have been acceptable in the past” were now illegal in the state of Florida.

After ruling that the legislature’s process was unconstitutional, the court threw out the Republicans’ congressional district lines and imposed a map of their own. That is how Lawson’s district came to be.

“It was important,” Pariente, who authored the key opinions, told ProPublica, “to make sure the amendment had teeth and was enforceable.”

The amendment took on even greater significance in 2019, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on redistricting.

The court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause barred federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said it was not an issue for the federal judiciary to decide, but emphasized the ruling did not “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void.”

In fact, the issue was being actively addressed at the state level, Roberts wrote. He cited Florida’s amendment and one of Pariente’s opinions. Responding to liberal justices who wanted to reject Rucho’s map as an unconstitutional gerrymander, Roberts wrote they could not because “there is no ‘Fair Districts Amendment’ to the Federal Constitution.”

In 2021, state legislative leaders were more careful.

The senate instructed its members to “insulate themselves from partisan-funded organizations” and others who might harbor partisan motivations, reminding legislators that a court could see conversations with outsiders as evidence of unconstitutional intent. The legislature imposed stringent transparency requirements, like publishing emails that it received from constituents. And they ordered their staff to base their decisions exclusively on the criteria “adopted by the citizens of Florida.”

The Senate leadership “explained to us at the beginning of the session that because of what happened last cycle, everything had to go through the process,” Sen. Joe Gruters, who is also chairman of the Florida Republican Party, told ProPublica.

In November, the state senate proposed maps that largely stuck to the status quo. Analysts predicted they would give Republicans 16 seats in Congress and Democrats 12.

“Were they the fairest maps you could draw? No,” said Ellen Freidin, leader of the anti-gerrymandering advocacy group FairDistricts Now. “But they weren’t bad Republican gerrymanders.”

 

DeSantis wasn’t satisfied. “The governor’s office was very pissed off about the map. They thought it was weak,” said a well-connected Florida Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could be candid. “They thought it was ridiculous to not even try to make it as advantageous as possible.”

In early January, DeSantis’ deputy chief of staff, Alex Kelly, was quietly assigned to oversee a small team that would devise an alternative proposal, according to Kelly’s later testimony.

State employees often spend years preparing for the redistricting process — time that DeSantis did not have. As Kelly and his colleagues set to work, they brought in critical help from the D.C. suburbs: Jason Torchinsky, a Republican election attorney and one of the leading GOP strategists for redistricting nationwide.

On Jan. 5, Kelly and two other top DeSantis aides had the redistricting “kick-off call,” according to the meeting invite, which was provided to ProPublica by American Oversight. The invitation included Torchinsky and another guest from out of state: Thomas Bryan, a redistricting specialist.

In an interview with ProPublica, Bryan explained the connection between the national Republican Party and his work with DeSantis. “There’s a core group of attorneys that works with the party and then they work with specific states,” he said. “It’s not a coincidence that I worked on Texas, Florida, Virginia, Kansas, Michigan, Alabama.”

He added that the main lawyer he works with is Torchinsky: “Jason will say, ‘I want you to work on this state.'”

A top partner at a conservative law firm, Torchinsky has represented the RNC, the Republican Party of Florida and many of America’s most influential right-wing groups, such as the Koch network’s Americans for Prosperity.

He also occupies a central role in the Republican Party’s efforts to swing Congress in its favor in 2022. Torchinsky is the general counsel and senior advisor to the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the entity the Republican National Committee helped set up to manage the party’s redistricting operations.

The NRRT boasts millions of dollars in funding and a roster of prominent advisors that includes Mike Pompeo and Karl Rove. Earlier this year, Kincaid, the trust’s executive director, summarized its objective bluntly: “Take vulnerable incumbents off the board, go on offense and create an opportunity to take and hold the House for the decade.”

In a statement to ProPublica, Kincaid said that the trust is one of Torchinsky’s many clients and that the lawyer’s work in Florida was separate: “When I would ask Jason what was happening in Florida, he would tell me his conversations were privileged.” Kincaid added that he personally did not speak with anyone in the DeSantis administration “during this redistricting cycle.”

Torchinsky’s involvement in the creation of DeSantis’ map has not been previously reported. His role in the process appears to have been intimate and extensive, though the specifics of his contributions are largely unclear. He spent more than 100 hours working for the DeSantis administration on redistricting, according to invoices sent to the Florida Department of State.

Torchinsky held repeated meetings with DeSantis’ team as the group crafted maps and navigated the ensuing political battles, according to documents obtained by ProPublica. And he brought in other operatives who’d worked around the country in priority states for the national GOP.

A week after the kickoff meeting, Torchinsky scheduled a Zoom call between Kelly, Bryan and a second consultant, Adam Foltz.

 

Foltz and Bryan arrived in Florida just as they were becoming go-to mapmakers for the GOP. They appeared together in multiple states where the NRRT was directly involved last year, generating controversy in their wake.

In Texas, Foltz, Bryan and the NRRT’s leader, Kincaid, all worked behind the scenes helping draw maps, court records show. After they finished, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, contending that the map violated the Voting Rights Act and illegally diluted Black and Latino votes. The case is still pending.

Last fall in Virginia, each party submitted three candidates to the state supreme court to guide the state’s redistricting process. The Democrats put forward three professors. Republicans submitted Bryan, Foltz and Kincaid. The court’s conservative majority rejected all three Republican nominees, citing conflicts of interest and “concerns about the ability” of the men to carry out the job neutrally.

In a statement, Kincaid said Foltz and Bryan are not partisan operatives and “the Virginia Supreme Court erred” in rejecting them. He also downplayed his own relationship to the consultants, saying they are not “employees or retained consultants” for his group.

“Adam and Tom are two of the best political demographers in the country,” Kincaid wrote. “It would only make sense that states looking for redistricting experts would retain them.”

Until last year, Foltz had spent his entire career working in Wisconsin politics, on state GOP campaigns and for Republican state legislators, according to court records. He was introduced to redistricting a decade ago when he spent months helping craft maps that became notoriously effective Republican gerrymanders. When he testified under oath that partisanship played no role in the Wisconsin process, a three-judge panel dismissed his claim as “almost laughable.”

Bryan was also a new figure on the national stage. Before 2020, he was a “bit player” in the redistricting industry, he said, running a small consulting company based in Virginia. He’d drawn maps for school districts and for local elections, but never for Congress, and he held a second job in consumer analytics at a large tobacco conglomerate.

“In 2020, my phone started going off the hook, with states either asking to retain me as an expert or to actually draw the lines,” Bryan told ProPublica. “I get phone calls from random places, and I’m on the phone with a governor.” While he mostly worked with Republicans, he was also retained by Illinois Democrats this cycle, according to court records.

Foltz and Bryan’s rapid ascension culminated in Florida. On Jan. 14, Torchinsky set up a third call with Foltz and Kelly. Then two days later, DeSantis released his map.

According to Kelly’s subsequent testimony, Foltz drew the map himself.

“I was completely blindsided,” said Rep. Geraldine Thompson, a Democrat on the House redistricting committee. “That is the purview of the legislature.”

Foltz declined an interview when reached by phone and did not respond to subsequent requests for comment. Kelly and Torchinsky, who went on to defend DeSantis in a lawsuit against the redistricting, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

The House redistricting subcommittee later brought Kelly in to answer questions about DeSantis’ proposals. Before the deputy chief of staff testified, the Democrats’ ranking member moved to place him under oath. Republican legislators blocked the committee from swearing Kelly in.

In his opening statement, Kelly took pains to emphasize that the governor’s office colored within the lines of the Florida constitution.

“I can confirm that I’ve had no discussions with any political consultant,” he testified. “No partisan operative. No political party official.”

This appears to have been misleading. By the time he testified, Kelly had been personally invited to at least five calls to discuss redistricting with Torchinsky, Bryan or Foltz, records show.

Kelly mentioned Foltz only briefly in his testimony. Torchinsky and Bryan’s names didn’t come up.

 

DeSantis holds as much sway in Tallahassee as any governor in recent memory. But even after he publicly weighed in with a map of his own, Republicans in the legislature didn’t bow down. The state Senate refused to even consider the governor’s version. In late January, they passed their original plan.

DeSantis’ aides argued that Lawson’s district was an “unconstitutional gerrymander,” extending recent precedent that limits states’ ability to deliberately protect Black voting power.

Florida Republicans were skeptical. House Speaker Chris Sprowls told reporters that DeSantis was relying on a “novel legal argument” that lawmakers were unlikely to adopt.

“In the absence of legal precedent,” Sprowls said, “we are going to follow the law.”

On Feb. 11, DeSantis ratcheted up the pressure. He held a press conference reiterating his opposition to Lawson’s district. He vowed to veto any map that left it intact. But he still needed to win over Republican policymakers. Again, DeSantis’ top aides turned to Torchinsky.

In February, Torchinsky helped DeSantis’ staff pick out an expert witness to sell the governor’s vision to the legislature, according to emails provided to ProPublica by American Oversight. Once the group chose an expert, Torchinsky had a call with him in advance of his appearance.

With a deadline to prepare for the November midterms looming, the legislature moved toward compromise. In early March, it passed a new bill that was much closer to DeSantis’ version — but still kept a Democrat-leaning district with a large Black population in North Florida.

The governor’s attempts at persuasion were over.

On Mar. 28, Foltz and Kelly had another call, along with a partner at Torchinsky’s law firm. The next day, DeSantis vetoed the compromise plan.

Democrats were outraged; many Republicans were shocked. “A veto of a bill as significant as that was definitely surprising,” Gruters, the state senator and chair of the Florida GOP, told ProPublica.

Kelly soon submitted a slightly modified version of Foltz’s map to the legislature. This time, the legislature took DeSantis’ proposal and ran with it.

On Apr. 20, Rep. Thomas Leek, the Republican chair of the House redistricting committee, formally presented DeSantis’ plan before the general assembly. When his colleagues asked him who the governor’s staff consulted while drawing the map, Leek told them that he didn’t know.

“I can’t speak to the governor’s entire process,” Leek said. “I can only tell you what Mr. Kelly said.”

The legislature had required everyone submitting a map to file a disclosure form listing the “name of every person(s), group(s), or organization(s) you collaborated with.” Kelly left the form blank.

The legislature voted on party lines and passed DeSantis’ proposal the next day. Anticipating litigation, they also allocated $1 million to defend the map in court.

Before DeSantis even signed the bill into law, a coalition of advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging the map in state court.

They soon scored a major victory. Circuit Court Judge J. Layne Smith, a DeSantis appointee, imposed a temporary injunction that would keep Lawson’s district intact through the midterm elections.

“This case is one of fundamental public importance, involving fundamental constitutional rights,” Smith wrote. His ruling cited the lengthy history of Black voter suppression in North Florida and across the state.

That victory was short-lived. Torchinsky’s firm quickly filed an appeal on DeSantis’ behalf. Then, in a unanimous decision in late May, the appellate court allowed DeSantis’ map to move ahead.

The higher court’s opinion was authored by Adam Tanenbaum, a familiar face in Tallahassee. Until DeSantis appointed him to the court in 2019, Tanenbaum was the Florida House’s general counsel, and before that he was general counsel to the Florida Department of State — both of which were parties to the case.

The very day Tanenbaum issued the opinion, he completed an application to fill a vacancy on the Florida Supreme Court, records show. In Florida, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, in this case DeSantis.

Tanenbaum was not chosen for the position. He didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The broader case is still pending and is expected to eventually be decided by the state supreme court. Every justice on Florida’s supreme court was appointed by Republicans. The majority of them were chosen by DeSantis.

The deeply conservative body has already demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent that’s only a few years old. DeSantis’ senior aides have indicated they hope it will do so here.

During his public testimony, Kelly was asked how Lawson’s district could be unconstitutional when it was recently created by Florida’s highest court.

Kelly responded tersely: “The court got it wrong.”

Republican blasts Tommy Tuberville’s “outrageous” reparations rant — and evangelicals who enable him

On Monday’s edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” former Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, broke down the racist rant by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., at former President Donald Trump’s Nevada rally this weekend, during which he appeared to equate criminal justice reform with slavery reparations and said Democrats are “pro-crime” because “they think the people who do the crime are owed that.”

Kasich, who bucked his party to support President Joe Biden in 2020, connected Tuberville’s remarks to the behavior of evangelical voters in the modern GOP — and how they are fracturing American Christianity for the sake of political power.

“What do you think?” asked anchor Wolf Blitzer.

“I think it was outrageous what he had to say. Totally outrageous,” said Kasich. “But one thing that bothers me. There is a split in the evangelical community in this country. And I saw where these evangelicals are washing everything away, because now somehow the control of the Senate matters so much.”

The pursuit of government control at the expense of Christian values, continued Kasich, is ripping Christian communities apart.

“I happen to be a Christian, okay, and I know the community is split,” said Kasich. “Frankly, the evangelical community ought to stay out of politics, and spend their time in the pulpit teaching the lessons and scripture and inviting people in and getting involved in politics and charging their people up. It’s a real shame. And yet, it’s going to change, and there is a fight inside of the evangelical community about the direction they should go, and politics is not where they belong.”

Watch below:

Covert operation? Globetrotting “con man” and “suspected spy” met with Trump at his golf resort

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 July 2018, President Donald Trump met at his New Jersey golf club with a Chinese businessman who should have never gotten anywhere near the most powerful man in the world.

Tao Liu had recently rented a luxurious apartment in Trump Tower in New York and boasted of joining the exclusive Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

But Liu was also a fugitive from Chinese justice. Media reports published overseas three years before the meeting had described him as the mastermind of a conspiracy that defrauded thousands of investors. He had ties to Chinese and Latin American organized crime. Perhaps most worrisome, the FBI was monitoring him because of suspicions that he was working with Chinese spies on a covert operation to buy access to U.S. political figures.

Yet there he sat with Trump at a table covered with sandwiches and soft drinks, the tall windows behind them looking onto a green landscape.

A longtime Trump associate who accompanied Liu was vague about what was discussed, telling ProPublica that they talked about the golf club, among other things.

“He was a climber,” said the associate, Joseph Cinque. “He wanted to meet Trump. He wanted to meet high rollers, people of importance.”

Documented by photos and interviews, the previously unreported sit-down reveals the workings of a Chinese underworld where crime, business, politics and espionage blur together. It also raises new questions about whether the Trump administration weakened the government’s system for protecting the president against national security risks.

For years, Liu had caromed around the globe a step ahead of the law. He changed names, homes and scams the way most people change shoes. In Mexico, he befriended a Chinese American gangster named Xizhi Li, aiding Li’s rise as a top cartel money launderer, according to prosecution documents and interviews with former national security officials.

“I’ve been doing illegal business for over 10 years,” Liu said in a conversation recorded by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2020. “Which country haven’t I done it in?”

Liu surfaced in the U.S. political scene after Trump took office. In early 2018, he launched a high-rolling quest for influence in New York. He courted political figures at gatherings fueled by Taittinger champagne and Macanudo cigars, at meals in Michelin-starred restaurants and in offices in Rockefeller Center. He may have made at least one illegal donation to the GOP, according to interviews.

By the summer, Liu had achieved his fervent goal of meeting Trump. Two months later, he met the president again at Bedminster.

On both occasions, Liu apparently found a loophole in a phalanx of defenses designed to protect the president. The Secret Service screens all presidential visitors on official business, subjecting foreigners to intense scrutiny. In addition to their top priority of detecting physical threats, agents check databases for people with ties to espionage or crime who could pose a risk to national security or a president’s reputation.

Asked about Liu’s encounters with the president, the Secret Service’s chief of communications, Anthony Guglielmi, said, “There were no protective or safety concerns associated with these dates. The Bedminster Club is a private facility, and you will have to refer to organizers when it comes to who may have been allowed access to their facilities.”

The Secret Service does not have a record of Liu meeting Trump on the president’s official schedule, a Secret Service official said. Instead, the encounters apparently occurred during periods when the president did not have official business, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. While staying at his clubs at Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster as president, Trump often left his living quarters to mingle with members and their guests in public areas. The Secret Service screened those people for weapons, but did not do background checks on them, current and former officials said.

“Did the Secret Service know every name involved?” the Secret Service official said. “No. Those are called ‘off-the-record movements,’ and we are worried about physical safety in those situations. We don’t have the time to do workups on everybody in that environment.”

As a member or a member’s guest, Liu could have entered the club without showing identification to the Secret Service and met with Trump, the official said. It appears, in short, that Liu avoided Secret Service background screening.

During both visits, Liu accompanied Cinque, with whom he had cultivated a friendship and explored business ventures. Cinque said that he and his guests had easy access to the president at Bedminster.

“I just go in every time I want,” Cinque said in an interview with ProPublica. “I’m with Donald 44 years. … The Secret Service, they trust me. Because I got a great relation with the Secret Service and I’m not gonna bring anybody bad next to Trump.”

But Cinque now regrets ever having met Liu.

“He’s a professional con man,” Cinque said. “There was a lot of flimflam with him. He conned me pretty good.”

Cinque has given conflicting accounts about the July 2018 meeting. In an interview with a Chinese media outlet that year, he said Liu had spent three hours with the president. Last week, though, he told ProPublica that he had exaggerated the length of the conversation and Liu’s role in it.

A spokesperson for Trump and officials at the Trump Organization and Bedminster club did not respond to requests for comment. The Chinese embassy also did not respond to a request for comment.

Liu’s case is one of several incidents in which Chinese nationals sought access to Trump in murky circumstances, raising concerns in Congress, law enforcement and the media about espionage and illegal campaign financing.

Liu did catch the attention of other federal agencies. His political activity in New York caused FBI counterintelligence agents to begin monitoring him in 2018, ProPublica has learned, before his encounters with Trump at Bedminster. His meetings with the president only heightened their interest, national security sources said.

Then, in early 2020, DEA agents came across Liu as they dismantled the global money laundering network of his friend Li. Reconstructing Liu’s trail, the DEA grew to suspect he was a kind of spy: an ostentatious criminal who made himself useful to Chinese intelligence agencies in exchange for protection.

The DEA agents thought Liu could answer big questions: What was he doing with the president? Was he conducting an operation on behalf of Chinese intelligence? And what did he know about the murky alliance between Chinese organized crime and the Chinese state?

But the DEA clashed with the FBI over strategy. And by the time DEA agents zeroed in on Liu, he had holed up in Hong Kong. The pandemic had shut down travel.

If the agents wanted to solve the walking mystery that was Tao Liu, they would have to figure out a way to go get him.

This account is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former national security officials based in the U.S. and overseas, as well as lawyers, associates of Liu and others. ProPublica also reviewed court documents, social media, press accounts and other sources. ProPublica granted anonymity to some sources because they did not have authorization to speak to the press or because of concerns about their safety and the sensitivity of the topic.

Prowling the World

Liu grew up in comfort and privilege.

Born in 1975 in Zhejiang province, he studied business in Shanghai and began prowling the world. He accumulated wealth and left behind a trail of dubious ventures, failed romances and children, according to court documents, associates and former national security officials. He lived in Poland and Hong Kong before moving in 2011 to Mexico City, where he dabbled in the gambling and entertainment fields.

Soon he met Li, the Chinese American money launderer, who also sold fraudulent identity documents. Liu bought fraudulent Guatemalan and Surinamese documents from Li and acquired a Mexican passport, according to prosecution documents and interviews. He played a crucial early role helping Li build his criminal empire, according to former investigators.

Both men had links to the 14K triad, a powerful Chinese criminal syndicate, according to former investigators and law enforcement documents. Moving between Mexico and Guatemala, they were on the vanguard of the Chinese takeover of the underworld that launders money for the cartels.

But in 2014, Liu embarked on a caper in China. He touted a cryptocurrency with an ex-convict, Du Ling, known as the “queen of underground banking,” according to interviews, media reports and Chinese court documents.

It was all a fraud, authorities said. Chinese courts convicted the banking queen and others on charges of swindling more than 34,000 investors from whom they raised over $200 million.

Although accused of being the mastermind, Liu eluded arrest, according to court documents, associates and other sources. He popped up in Fiji as a private company executive promising infrastructure projects inspired by President Xi Jinping’s visit months earlier to promote China’s development initiative, according to news reports and interviews. Liu even hosted a reception for the Chinese ambassador, according to news reports.

Liu’s activities in Fiji fit a pattern of Chinese criminals aligning themselves with China’s foreign development efforts for mutual benefit, national security veterans say. Liu claims corrupt Chinese officials were his partners in Fiji, “but then they threw him under the bus,” said his lawyer, Jonathan Simms.

After allegations surfaced about his role in the cryptocurrency scandal in China, Liu fled to Australia. Airport police there downloaded his phone and found discussions about fraudulent passports from countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, according to Simms and other sources.

In 2016, Liu returned to Mexico. He soon obtained a U.S. business/tourist visa by making false statements to U.S. authorities about whether he was involved in crime, prosecution documents say.

Now known as Antony Liu, he was ready to make a name for himself.

Money and Politics

Yuxiang Min is an entrepreneur in Manhattan’s Chinatown. For years, he has nurtured a “Chinese American dream”: to prosper in the herbal medicine industry by planting 16,000 acres of licorice in a desert in China’s Gansu province.

After meeting Min in early 2018, Liu promised to make the dream a reality, Min said.

“He made me believe he was very well-connected in China,” Min said. “And I think he was. He showed me photos of himself with top Chinese officials.”

Min said one photo appeared to show Liu with Xi, China’s president, before he took office. Between 2002 and 2007, Xi served in senior government positions in two places where Liu had lived, Zhejiang and Shanghai. But Min said he did not have the photo, and ProPublica has not confirmed its existence.

Liu rented Chinatown offices from Min, who said he helped the wealthy newcomer buy a top-of-the-line BMW and find a translator. Despite his weak English, Liu was charismatic and persuasive, associates said. He bankrolled dinners, a concert, an outing on a yacht; he flaunted the flashy details on his social media. He founded Blue Ocean Capital, an investment firm that did little actual business, according to associates, former national security officials and court documents.

He even gained access to the United Nations diplomatic community, sharing his office suite in Rockefeller Center with the Foundation for the Support of the United Nations. The foundation’s website says it is a nongovernmental organization founded in 1988 and that it is affiliated with the UN. A UN spokesperson confirmed that the foundation had “consultative status,” which gave its representatives entry to UN premises and activities.

Liu became a financial benefactor of the foundation and was named its “honorary vice chairman.” Through the foundation, he was able to organize a conference at UN headquarters with speakers including publishing executive Steve Forbes and former Mexican President Felipe Calderón, according to interviews, photos and media accounts.

The Bulgarian mission to the UN helped secure the venue for the event, and ambassadors from seven countries attended, according to online posts and interviews. The mission did not respond to a request for comment.

Although it is startling that someone with Liu’s background could play a role in hosting an event at the UN, it is not unprecedented. In past cases, wealthy Chinese nationals suspected of links to crime and Chinese intelligence have infiltrated UN-affiliated organizations as part of alleged bribery and influence operations.

Janet Salazar, the president of the foundation, did not respond to phone calls, texts or emails. Efforts to reach foundation board members were unsuccessful. Emails to Salazar and the foundation in New York bounced back.

UN officials did not respond to queries from ProPublica about what vetting Liu received, if any.

“We are not aware of the story of Mr. Tao Liu,” the UN spokesperson said.

Calderón said in an email that he was invited through a speakers bureau to give a talk on sustainable development. The event included Asian participants who did not appear to speak English, Calderón said, and he had little interaction with them other than posing for photos.

Forbes’ staff did not respond to requests for comment.

Liu also met U.S. political figures through his latest romantic partner: a Chinese immigrant with contacts of her own. She introduced him to Félix W. Ortiz, then the assistant speaker of the New York State Assembly, who socialized with the couple on several occasions.

Ortiz, a Democrat who formerly represented Brooklyn, did not respond to requests for comment.

Because Liu was not a legal resident, U.S. law barred him from contributing to political campaigns. But he attended political events, according to photos, social media and associates. He also met with two veteran GOP fundraisers in the Asian community, Daniel Lou and Jimmy Chue.

“He was interested in political donations and fundraising,” Lou said in an interview. “He wanted to participate. He was willing to help politicians here. That’s for sure.”

Lou said he did not engage in fundraising with Liu. In an email, Chue said he knew of “no illegal activities” related to Liu. He declined to comment further.

On April 27, 2018, Liu’s friend Min contributed $5,000 to the New York Republican Federal Campaign Committee, campaign records show. In reality, Liu told Min to make the donation and paid him back, Min said in an interview.

Min said he received the money in cash and did not have evidence of the alleged reimbursement. But if his account is true, it appears that Liu funneled a political donation illegally through Min, a U.S. citizen.

The New York GOP did not respond to emails, phone calls, or a fax seeking comment.

A Sit-Down With the President

As he built his profile in Manhattan, Liu made it clear to associates that he was eager to meet Trump. For help, he turned to Cinque, the longtime Trump associate, according to interviews, photos and social media posts.

Cinque, 86, heads the American Academy of Hospitality Sciences, which gives international awards to hotels, restaurants and other entities. It has given at least 22 awards to Trump ventures, including the Bedminster club, and it once billed Trump as its Ambassador Extraordinaire.

Cinque has a colorful past. In 1990, he pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, a valuable art collection, according to press reports. A profile in New York Magazine in 1995 quoted him discussing his interactions with “wiseguys” and a shooting that left him with three bullet wounds.

In 2016, Trump told the Associated Press that he didn’t know Cinque well and was unaware of his criminal record. In an article in Buzzfeed, Cinque’s lawyer said his client had no connection to the mob.

Liu dined with Cinque in May 2018 and they hit it off, according to photos and Liu’s associates. Cinque said he could make an introduction to the president, a close associate of Liu said.

Cinque told ProPublica that people in the Chinese American community introduced him to Liu, describing him as a wealthy entrepreneur and a “good person.” Liu impressed Cinque with his luxury car and entrepreneurial energy. He said they could make a lot of money by pursuing a lucrative cryptocurrency venture, Cinque said.

Liu and Cinque got together more than a dozen times, according to social media photos and interviews. At a June gala at the Harvard Club to launch Liu’s company, Cinque gave him a Six Star Diamond Award for lifetime achievement — an award he had previously bestowed on Trump.

“He was gonna pay me big money for giving him the award,” Cinque said. “So I did an award. I didn’t check his background, I’m not gonna lie to you.”

Liu indicated he would pay as much as $50,000 for the honor, but he never actually paid up, Cinque said.

Liu followed a familiar playbook for well-heeled foreigners seeking access to Trump, according to national security officials: pour money into his properties.

In July, Cinque helped Liu rent a one-bedroom apartment above the 50th floor in Trump Tower by providing a credit report to the landlord as a guarantor, according to Cinque, a person involved in the rental and documents viewed by ProPublica. Liu paid a year’s worth of the $6,000 monthly rent upfront. Cinque believes Liu chose Trump Tower in an effort to gain favor with the president.

Liu also told friends he joined the Bedminster golf club, three associates said. Liu told Min he paid $190,000 for a VIP membership, Min said.

But Cinque doesn’t think Liu genuinely became a member. In fact, he said he brought Liu to Bedminster partly because Cinque hoped to impress Trump by persuading his well-heeled new friend to join the club.

“I was trying to get him to join, where I look good in Trump’s eyes if he joined,” Cinque said. But he said Liu “never gave 5 cents. He was a deadbeat.”

On July 20, CNBC aired an interview with Trump in which he complained about the trade deficit with China.

“We have been ripped off by China for a long time,” Trump said.

By the next day, Liu’s efforts to gain access to the president had paid off. He met Trump at Bedminster, according to interviews and photos obtained by ProPublica.

The images show the president with Liu and Cinque at a table covered with food, drinks and papers. Three other men are at the table. Trump also posed for photos with Liu and Cinque.

Liu was discreet about the conversation, according to Min. Cinque did most of the talking because of Liu’s limited English, Liu’s close associate said.

ProPublica found a few details in an interview of Cinque by SINA Finance, a Chinese media outlet. In the video posted that September, Cinque and a manager of his company announced a business partnership with Liu involving blockchain technology and the hospitality industry. And then Cinque said he had introduced Liu to the president at Bedminster.

“Antony Liu played a big role,” Cinque told the SINA interviewer. “Donald met him, and he wound up staying with him for three hours, just enjoying every moment.”

The video displayed a photo of the president with Liu and Cinque during the visit.

Cinque and Liu’s companies posted a shorter version of the interview on their social media pages. That video omitted the reference to Liu meeting Trump and the photo of the three of them.

In the interview with ProPublica, Cinque gave a distinctly different version than the one he gave to the Chinese outlet. He said he brought Liu along because Liu implored him for the opportunity of a meeting and photo with Trump. Cinque also said he “exaggerated the truth” when he said Liu spent three hours with the president.

The meeting lasted “maybe twenty minutes, a half hour,” Cinque said.

Cinque was vague about the topic of the conversation with the president, indicating it had to do with the golf club and the awards he gives.

Changing his account once again, he insisted that Liu did not say much.

“He just sat there,” said Cinque, who also denied discussing Liu’s business deals with Trump. “How I could tell anything good to Donald about him where he’s gonna do a deal? First I wanted to see if I could earn anything with him.”

Liu and Cinque met the president again that Sept. 22 during an event at Bedminster, according to interviews and photos. One photo shows Trump smiling with Liu, Cinque and three men who, according to a close associate, were visiting Liu from China for the occasion.

The photos appeared on the Chinese website of the Long Innovations International Group, also known as the Longchuang International Group. The consulting firm owned by Lou, the GOP fundraiser, has organized events allowing Chinese elites to meet U.S. leaders. A caption with the photos said: “Longchuang Group and Blue Ocean expert consultant team Trump luncheon.”

But Lou insists he didn’t know anything about such an event. He said colleagues in China controlled his company’s Chinese website.

“I categorically deny I was involved in this,” Lou said. “I was not there. I did not know about it. Tao Liu did offer to me at one point: You are the pro-Trump leader in the community. How about organizing an event at Bedminster? … But I did not.”

Cinque, meanwhile, said he brought Liu and his visitors to the club. He disagreed with the company website’s description of an event with the president.

“There’s no political — it’s a golf situation there,” he said. “And people love being in [Trump’s] company.”

Although Cinque denied receiving money from Liu for himself or the president, he said he didn’t know if other visitors paid Liu for the chance to meet Trump, or if Liu made campaign donations through others.

Much about the two Bedminster meetings remains unclear. Did Liu arrange a political event for Trump in September? Or did he bring a group of visitors to the club and manage to encounter the president? Either scenario raises once again the question of vetting.

The Secret Service screens all official presidential visitors for weapons and, along with White House staff, checks them in law enforcement and intelligence databases. Foreign nationals require added scrutiny that can include reviewing raw intelligence from overseas. If questions arise, the Secret Service can consult with the FBI and other agencies, said a former acting undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, John Cohen, who worked on presidential protection issues.

It is not clear if databases available to the Secret Service held information about the charges against Liu in China and his other alleged illicit activities. But by 2018, Chinese media reports and court documents had described the fraud case complete with photos of Liu. English-language press had also detailed his troubles in the South Pacific and China. Despite Liu’s use of different first names, a diligent web search could have found some of that information.

But Liu apparently avoided background screening altogether, according to Secret Service officials, Cinque and other sources. Although visitors cannot schedule an official meeting with the president without being vetted, it is possible that they could communicate through the private club to set up an informal meeting, Secret Service officials said. Cinque said he took Liu to Bedminster on days he knew Trump would be there.

The case is another example, national security veterans said, of unique vulnerabilities caused by the freewheeling atmosphere at Trump’s clubs.

“Trump has chosen to reside in places that are open to the public,” Cohen said. “He has provided an opportunity to people who join these clubs to get access to him. We have seen that the president enjoys making himself available to people in these settings. A top priority for foreign intelligence is that kind of setting: infiltrating, gaining access. If the former president decides to allow access to criminals and spies, there is not much the Secret Service can do.”

A week after the Bedminster visit, Liu accompanied the Chinese American GOP fundraisers to West Virginia to see Trump speak at a rally. Liu sat in the VIP section.

In the Fall

A year later, Liu’s American spree was in shambles.

His romantic partner had a child, but they broke up. Liu accumulated angry business associates, including Min, who says Liu owes him $83,000. Liu owed another $2 million in a legal settlement with an investor who sued him for fraud in New York over a cryptocurrency deal, according to court documents.

In the fall of 2019, Liu stopped paying rent at Trump Tower, according to associates and other sources. His family left behind a crib and a bronze statuette of Trump. Liu went to California and departed the country on foot via Tijuana, later saying he “snuck out” to travel with his Mexican passport, according to his associates, national security officials and court documents.

By early 2020, Liu was back in Hong Kong. He set himself up in a high-rise hotel with a waterfront view. Then the pandemic shut down the world.

Meanwhile, the DEA had filed charges against his friend Li. Agents scouring a trove of communications, photos and other data realized that Liu had been an important figure in Li’s criminal activity.

The agents believed that Liu could tell them more about the money laundering for Latin American drug cartels and the alleged alliance between Chinese organized crime and the Chinese state. And his U.S. political activity intrigued and baffled them. They suspected that he had been operating in a gray area where crime and espionage mix.

“The theory is he was gathering information and feeding it back to Chinese intelligence in order to keep him in good graces to allow him to do his criminality,” a former national security official said. “His currency was influence. And the Chinese would use him as necessary based on his influence. And he was a willing participant in that. The DEA thought it could use him to get at targets in mainland China.”

But the pandemic had prompted Hong Kong to close its borders, and the authorities there were generally obedient allies of Beijing.

The Special Operations Division of the DEA often goes overseas to capture desperados with elaborate undercover stings. In that tradition, the agents came up with a plan.

In April 2020, Liu received a phone call. The caller spoke Chinese. He said he was a money launderer in New York. He said he had gotten the number from Li, their mutual friend in Mexico, court documents say.

The name apparently did the trick.

“Tao is in his apartment on lockdown,” Simms said. “He can’t go anywhere. He’s bored, talkative. He just talks and talks.”

Liu talked about teaching Li the tricks of the money laundering trade, according to Simms and court documents. He reminisced about Li’s casino in Guatemala. He boasted about using five different passports to slip across borders.

Soon, his new phone friend made a proposal, court documents say. He knew a crooked State Department official with a precious commodity to sell: bona fide U.S. passports.

Agreeing to a price of $150,000 each, Liu requested passports for himself and associates, according to prosecution documents and former national security officials. One of the associates was linked to the 14K triad, the former national security officials said.

By July, Liu had wired a total of $10,000 in advance payments. He received a realistic mock-up of his passport. He showed it off during a video call to Min.

“I’ll be back in America soon,” Liu exulted, according to Min.

In reality, the phone friend was an undercover DEA agent. Liu had taken the bait. DEA agents recorded their phone conversations over six months, court documents say.

But a complication arose. The DEA learned that the FBI was conducting a separate investigation of Liu, national security sources told ProPublica.

FBI counterintelligence agents in New York became aware of him soon after he began spreading money around and cultivating political contacts in early 2018, national security sources said. Then his contact with Trump spurred an investigation to determine if Chinese intelligence was working with Liu to gain political access, the sources said.

His years as a fugitive gave credence to that idea. Although Chinese authorities had been pursuing him in relation to the cryptocurrency scandal since 2015, China did not issue an Interpol notice for him until 2020. Chinese authorities apparently made little effort to arrest him while he sheltered in Hong Kong for nearly a year.

The DEA and the FBI clashed over the imperatives of counterintelligence and law enforcement. FBI agents wanted to keep monitoring Liu to trace his contacts; DEA agents favored capturing him.

The DEA prevailed. That October, the undercover agent told Liu he had arranged for a private jet to pick him up in Hong Kong, according to court documents and former national security officials. It would take him to Australia, where they would seal the passport deal in person. Agents sent Liu a menu for the flight complete with a choice of cocktail. He thought that was “very high class,” his close associate said.

The stakes were high too. If Chinese authorities learned of the clandestine foray, a diplomatic uproar was likely.

On Oct. 13, the weather was warm and rainy. The DEA’s private jet landed in Hong Kong. Liu came aboard without hesitation, according to an associate and former national security officials.

Hours later, the plane touched down in Guam, which is a U.S. territory. DEA agents arrested Liu.

“He was surprised,” the close associate said. “So many police cars. He said it was like a 007 movie.”

Epilogue

On April 14 of last year, Liu pleaded guilty in a federal courtroom in Virginia to conspiracy to bribe a U.S. official in the passport sting and to conspiracy to commit money laundering. A judge sentenced him to seven years in prison.

But two explosive questions remain unanswered: why he had contact with Trump and other politicians, and whether he worked with Chinese spy agencies.

The government has kept most of the story secret. Liu’s public court file does not mention his political activity. The DEA and Justice Department declined to discuss Liu with ProPublica. An FBI spokesperson said the agency could not confirm or deny conducting specific investigations.

Liu, meanwhile, accepted an interview request. But the Bureau of Prisons refused to allow ProPublica to talk to him in person or by phone, citing “safety and security reasons.”

The FBI investigation of Liu apparently focused on political and counterintelligence matters. Last year, agents questioned Min and at least two other associates of Liu. The agents asked Min about Liu’s interactions with Cinque and former Assemblyman Ortiz, and if Liu gave them money. Min said he told the agents he did not know.

In an interview with the close associate of Liu, FBI agents asked about Liu’s contact with Trump, whether he raised money for Trump and Ortiz, his relationship with Cinque, and his contacts with politicians in China. They also asked about money laundering in Mexico, the close associate said.

“I think the FBI thought he was a spy,” the close associate said. “I don’t think he’s a spy. His English is very bad. He just wanted to show off to Chinese people. This is the way a lot of Chinese business guys operate. A lot of American business guys, too. Getting close to politicians, taking photos with them.”

Cinque said federal agents have not questioned him about Liu.

“I just think he was a fraudulent hustler,” Cinque said. “I don’t think he would do anything against the country, but then I could be wrong. Look, he did a lot of things.”

As often happens in counterintelligence cases, Liu remains an ambiguous figure: a con man, or a spy, or possibly both. People familiar with the case are suspicious about his ability to roam the world for years and his success at infiltrating high-level U.S. politics.

“Guys like this never do this kind of thing on their own,” a national security source said. “They always do it for someone else.”

Now Trump is openly challenging the feds to indict him: Just say yes, DOJ

After watching Donald Trump’s two back-to-back rallies this weekend, one in Nevada and another in Arizona, it’s hard to escape the idea that he must want to be prosecuted. It’s unimaginable that anyone who is under investigation by the FBI would say the things he said if he didn’t. Of course, most observers will simply say that it’s the usual Trump hyperbole, meant to convince his followers of his innocence — but he’s in the maw of the criminal justice system now, and it doesn’t work that way. Trump’s running commentary must have the leadership of the Department of Justice asking themselves if there will be still be such a thing as the rule of law if he gets away with it.

We learned a couple of weeks ago that Trump’s most competent attorney, Christopher Kise (who he paid $3 million up front, which is highly uncharacteristic) was advising him to shut his mouth and start thinking about ways to negotiate with the DOJ regarding the stolen documents. The Washington Post reported:

Turn down the temperature with the Department of Justice, Kise — a former Florida solicitor general — counseled his famously combative client, people familiar with the deliberations said. Federal authorities had searched Trump’s Florida residence and club because they badly wanted to retrieve the classified documents that remained there even after a federal subpoena, Kise argued, according to these people. With that material back in government hands, maybe prosecutors could be persuaded to resolve the whole issue quietly.

Justice Department officials would hear a former president out, even if he’d stolen numerous classified documents, because of the political sensitivity of the case even if an average American caught doing something like that would get the book thrown at them. In fact, federal prosecutors and the FBI have already handled Trump with excessive delicacy, first asking politely for months for him to return the materials, then resorting to a subpoena when they suspected he had lied to them (which would also land a regular citizen behind bars) and finally having to obtain a search warrant to reclaim the government documents he’d taken to Mar-a-Lago. I believe that Donald Trump is literally the only person in America who would be treated with such kid gloves.

Nonetheless, the man who has led countless “Lock her up” chants about Hillary Clinton and told her during a presidential debate that if he became president “you’d be in jail” is now whining like an injured child that he’s being unfairly persecuted. He is also admitting to committing crimes.

After complaining that the FBI or the National Archives had planted documents in his stash, claiming that Bill Clinton absconded with White House recordings by putting them in his socks, and bizarrely declaring that George H.W. Bush hid classified information in a Chinese restaurant (and/or bowling alley), he says that what he did was not a crime:

It’s difficult to know where he came up with these bizarre ideas about former presidents all stealing classified documents and keeping them in random locations (he has also claimed that Clinton stashed some in a used car lot in Arkansas) but that’s just fan service for his supporters’ consumption. Stealing classified documents is a crime, and people are prosecuted for it all the time. Despite Trump’s elaborate lies, no other former president has ever done anything like that.

No other president has refused to concede that he lost an election, attempted a coup and incited an insurrection and then stolen hundreds of government secrets on his way out the door. He always says there’s never been anyone like him, and it’s true.


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


It remains to be seen if the Jan. 6 investigations will lead to criminal charges against Trump. But this document theft is another story. As Just Security’s Ryan Goodman, an NYU law professor and former Defense Department special counsel, wrote recently on Twitter, “There is more than ample evidence to indict Trump for the crimes listed in the FBI search warrant. The question will come down to aggravating factors for Garland DOJ to consider.” He adds that Trump’s “outrageous, open defiance of the law” with his insistence that the documents he took from the White House are his property and must be given back, “must rank high among those factors.” Former Russia investigation prosecutor Andrew Weissmann similarly observed:

Up until now it was pretty much unthinkable that a former president would be indicted, not only because none of them were ever accused of criminal behavior (at least not since Ulysses S. Grant was cited in Washington for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage) but because democratic societies feel a natural squeamishness about criminalizing political behavior. An escalating cycle of revenge is the likely outcome, and the specter of the defeated opponents of tyrants around the world languishing in prison hangs heavily over any healthy political system. It’s crucial to tread carefully in this unexplored terrain.

Allowing Trump to skate will validate his fans’ belief that he is a superhero, untouchable and unstoppable. Sending the message that he’s above the law only makes his cult following more dangerous.

But this isn’t simply about abstract justice and punishing Trump for his evident crimes. His ongoing behavior presents a real threat to the rule of law. He is out there admitting that he did the crime while flagrantly lying about the law and trying to incite his followers into believing that he is being persecuted. He is openly promising pardons to the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and making no secret of his plans to destroy his political enemies if he gets back to the White House. He’s encouraging his followers to do everything they can to prevent free and fair elections. The threat is only escalating, not receding.

There can be good reasons for prosecutors to refrain from bringing charges, even where adequate proof exists. But the consequences of letting Donald Trump off the hook again are likely to be extreme. Rather than worrying about whether his supporters will become angry and lash out, authorities should be concerned that allowing Trump to skate will only validate his fans’ belief that he is a superhero, untouchable and unstoppable. Sending a clear message that this individual is above the law makes his cult following more dangerous, not less.

In a time when unequal justice is already at the forefront of many Americans’ concerns, seeing this man escape accountability again and again is fatally poisoning the culture. From his blithe confession about not paying taxes to his grotesque sexual assaults, corrupt business dealings and massive abuse of power of as president, Trump is demonstrating to the country and to the world that the rich and the powerful are exempt from the law no matter how blatantly they violate it. If Donald Trump gets away with stealing national security secrets, I’m not sure this country can recover. 

“Trump lawyers turning against each other”: Trump attorney throws colleagues under the bus to DOJ

Trump attorney Christina Bobb, who signed a document wrongly affirming that all sensitive records from Mar-a-Lago had been returned, spoke with federal investigators on Friday and pointed fingers at two other Trump lawyers, according to NBC News.

Bobb, a former OAN host who recently hired her own lawyer, signed a certification statement on June 3 stating that all sensitive materials taken by former President Donald Trump to Mar-a-Lago had been returned to the National Archives. But the claim was false and the FBI ultimately received more evidence that Trump still had sensitive documents after the fact. Agents found more than 100 documents marked classified in an August 8 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

Bobb, who served as Trump’s custodian of record, has said that she was not acting as Trump’s attorney at the time. During her interview with the DOJ on Friday, she pointed the finger at fellow Trump attorneys Evan Corcoran and Boris Epshteyn, according to NBC.

Bobb “did not draft the statement,” sources told NBC. She told investigators that Corcoran drafted it and told her to sign it. She also told investigators that Ephsteyn, whose phone was seized last month by the FBI, was also “minimally involved in discussions about the records,” according to the report.

Bobb told investigators that before signing the document she insisted it be rewritten to include a disclaimer that she was only certifying that Trump had returned all of the records “based upon the information that has been provided to me.” She identified Corcoran as the source of that “information,” according to NBC.

“She had to insist on that disclaimer twice before she signed it,” an unidentified source familiar with Bobb’s interview told the outlet.

The source added that Bobb spoke to the DOJ without an immunity deal. She spoke with investigators, not the grand jury investigating Trump, according to the report.

“She is not criminally liable,” the source said. “She is not going to be charged. She is not pointing fingers. She is simply a witness for the truth.”

The document signed by Bobb said that a “diligent search was conducted” for all of the records. The DOJ cited the statement in a court filing in August.

“That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter,” prosecutors wrote.

Legal experts have warned that the statement could put Bobb and Corcoran in legal trouble.

“People made [Bobb] the fall guy — or fall gal, for what it’s worth — and it’s wrong,” the unidentified source told NBC. “Yes, she signed the declaration. No one disputes that. But what she signed is technically accurate. … The people who told her to sign it should know better.”


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


Legal experts cast doubt on Bobb’s attempt to evade liability in the case.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance tweeted she does not buy “the notion that she has managed to immunize herself from criminal liability by carefully wording the false statement she signed. There are legal doctrines like willful blindness & other conduct at issue.”

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti highlighted the disclaimer that Bobb reportedly pushed to add to the statement.

“She will claim she believed Corcoran but wanted to be sure because she had no independent knowledge of the truth of the matter,” he wrote. “But if there is independent evidence that she knew it was false, that’s a problem for her.”

Mariotti added that he expects Corcoran to assert attorney-client privilege in the matter but warned that prosecutors will want to know why he directed Bobb to make a false statement and who the source of the false information was.

“Potentially, that was Trump,” he wrote.

New York University Law Professor Ryan Goodman said the report shows evidence of “Trump lawyers turning against each other” and could be bad news for Trump.

“When you’re the chief suspect and your lawyer becomes a witness against you … that’s nearing game over,” he tweeted.

“Bobb ratted out Corcoran,” wrote national security attorney Bradley Moss. “Guess who Corcoran will rat out?”

Ukraine’s victory “almost a done deal”: Military expert on how Russia’s invasion imploded

Eight months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, describing it as a “special military operation.” Most military analysts expected an easy victory. The Russians had a significant numerical advantage in personnel and equipment, much greater firepower, air and naval superiority and seemingly bottomless resources with which to impose its will. It was reasonable to believe that Russia would conquer Ukraine rapidly and then replace the existing government before declaring “victory”. 

Of course, that did not happen.

The Ukrainians had been preparing for this eventuality since at least 2014, when the Russian military and its allied forces invaded eastern Ukraine and illegally occupied and annexed Crimea. With the help of the U.S. and other Western allies, the Ukrainians put in place an extremely effective system of total resistance, in which nearly the entire society was mobilized to defend the nation

The Ukrainian military has greatly modernized its forces, tactics, strategy and style of leadership and command — again, with significant aid from the West. In contrast, despite the Russian military’s efforts at modernization, it remains largely guided by Stalin’s famous diktat that “quantity has a quality all its own.” That may have been true when it came to defending the Soviet Union against Hitler in 1941, but the realities of warfare in the 21st century have greatly complicated that statement.

Russia’s military has suffered numerous setbacks and been exposed as a hollow force, poorly equipped and even more poorly led. Russian forces have suffered heavy losses in Ukraine, with the Ukrainian government claiming that 50,000 Russian soldiers have died, although U.S. estimates are around half that number. Experts have concluded that it will take years to rebuild the Russian military.

After a brief period of initial successes that included the siege of Kyiv and rapid occupation of parts of southern and eastern Ukraine, Russian forces have been consistently pushed back. After a successful offensive several weeks ago in the northeast, Ukraine is now moving against Russian forces as part of an effort to recapture the strategically important city of Kherson.

Russian forces continue to retreat, abandoning vehicles, artillery, ammunition and other critical equipment and supplies. In a stark contrast, the U.S. and NATO allies are providing advanced weaponry, key intelligence and other assistance to the Ukrainians, which they are using to great effect.

Putin has now enacted a de facto draft intended to force 300,000 Russian men into military service, a move that is widely unpopular. There are even rumors that Putin’s rule may be imperiled because of the failures in Ukraine, a scenario that seemed unthinkable even a few weeks ago.

John Spencer is a retired U.S. Army major who is chair of urban warfare studies at the Madison Policy Forum. He also consults for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the UN and other military and national security organizations. Spencer’s essays and other writing have been featured by the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy and other leading publications.

His new book “Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership, and Social Connections in Modern War,” was published in July.

In this conversation, Spencer explains how and why the Ukrainian military has been so successful in its fight against the Russian invasion. Ukraine now holds the advantage, he argues, and the tide has turned against Putin and the Russian military. Despite Russia’s numerical advantage, Spencer argues, intangible factors such as the will to fight, love of country, trusted leadership and a belief in the justness of one’s cause have played important roles in Ukraine’s success. 

At the end of this conversation, Spencer draws on his own experiences in combat to explain how the average Ukrainian soldier and their Russian counterparts are likely feeling right now. He concludes that the Russian military is broken from the inside out and that the average Russian soldier — especially among the newest wave of “recruits” — has no heart for the fight in Ukraine and just wants it to end so he can just return home alive.

It has been about eight months since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, and matters have changed a great deal, both on the ground and in terms of the larger strategic picture. How do you assess the situation now? 

I think the world has woken up to the fact that not only could Ukraine win, but that victory is almost a done deal. If the war continues the way it has, Russia cannot win.

War is the true test of the human soul. We can compare militaries by their numbers, the amount of land they currently control and other metrics. But as we have seen with the war in Ukraine, numbers don’t tell the whole story. The Ukrainian military and other forces are not really the underdog anymore. In terms of quality of their forces, leadership, doctrine, how they deploy their weapons, morale and other measurements, they surpass Russia. Most importantly, the will of the Ukrainian soldiers and the population more generally to fight surpasses that of Russia. 

The only advantage Russia had in the beginning was in the number of soldiers and amount of equipment. Quality will trump quantity every time. We have seen that story play out in historic ways in Ukraine. Russia is a big bully and Ukraine has stood up to them. At the beginning of the war there was this huge question: How could Ukraine, with a much smaller military, defend itself against Russia, and for how long? I think the world has woken up to the fact that not only could Ukraine win, but that victory is almost a done deal. Ukraine cannot claim victory at this point because there is much more fighting to be done. But ultimately, if the war continues in the way it has these last few months, Russia cannot win. While American and Western assistance have been crucial for the Ukrainians in this war, in the end it is the Ukrainian soldiers who had to use that help effectively and do the fighting. 

As a military professional and warfighter, how do you reconcile the headlines in the major Western publications with what you have seen personally on the ground in Ukraine during your recent visit and also learned from your contacts? In addition, what are focusing on, with regard to this war, that most members of the public may have overlooked or not fully understood?

Of course we need reporters and journalists and the type of analysis and coverage they can provide. But what is happening in Ukraine, because of technology and how the internet has changed so many things, is that as a military analyst I can get real-time information about what is happening on the ground. 

We can see what is happening more or less right now in Ukraine on different fronts and then piece that information together. For example, the Ukrainians are weakening the Russian military, piece by piece, by attacking their supplies, such as ammunition depots, and by attacking logistical routes like bridges and railroads and other parts of the rear. There is sabotage way behind the Russian lines. [This interview was conducted before the apparent bombing that damaged the bridge connecting Crimea to mainland Russia.]

The Russians are losing the ability to support their forces in Ukraine. Russia is calling up reservists and basically instituting a draft, which is an acknowledgment of defeat. The Russians haven’t had to do such a thing since World War II. What the world is seeing with Russia in Ukraine is the dying breath of a giant. Ultimately, we are getting a view into the world of warfare unlike anything we have ever had in human history. We are watching the evolution of modern warfare right in front of our eyes. The headlines are important, but there is so much more going on. 

What did it feel like to be in Ukraine?

I’ve traveled the world and personally experienced war in places like Iraq. When I visited Ukraine, I felt the unity of their people. They are united in the pursuit of freedom. It is something amazing to experience and witness firsthand. I visited places like Kyiv and Bucha. I am a military professional, so of course I talked with soldiers there about tactics and what they personally experienced fighting the Russians. But it was the personal dimension that really impacted me. I heard so many stories from individual Ukrainians about their choice to fight back against the Russian invaders. 

For example, I spoke with a 60-year-old man who had served years ago in the military and decided to take up arms again the moment he heard Russia had invaded. The unity and cohesion of the Ukrainian people are an amazing force multiplier. Every person I met was involved in the fight in some way. That is what the Russian invaders are up against.

The Ukrainian government, with assistance from the U.S. and other allies, put in place a strategy called the “Resistance Operating Concept,” which has meant mobilizing almost the entire Ukrainian population to resist the invasion. Can you elaborate on how well that has worked?

The concept of total resistance is not new. War is a test of will and ideas. The Ukrainians are in a war for their survival and are resisting as a people. The Ukrainians have taught a masterclass on stoking the will to fight and keeping the momentum going. It is amazing to see how flexible they are in terms of messaging, using multimedia, creating videos and sharing their stories with the rest of the world. 

The Russians used to be viewed as the masters of information warfare. But it is the Ukrainians who are dominating that space right now. Ukraine has used the information domain to motivate their forces and maintain their morale by making this a global fight. As a soldier, I know that you need somebody to your left and right to push you forward to attack that hill. That’s how it works. War isn’t just about killing people. War is a battle of wills. The Ukrainian military and the country’s leaders are using information warfare to win that struggle. 

You’re speaking about the intangibles of war. Can an army really will itself to victory or defeat? When I look at the Russian military right now, I see a force that appears broken. To quote something John Kerry said years ago, who wants to be the last man to die in a war? 

These intangibles, by their very nature, are not easily measurable. Nonetheless their impact is undeniable.  We know from military science that an individual soldier’s or a unit’s motivation, morale and cohesion all equal their will to fight. You can arm and train anybody, but there is a science to maintaining their motivation to move forward in battle. You have to give soldiers a cause, something to believe in, to maintain their will to fight. War is a test of your soul. Why are you fighting? Soldiers fight for causes like their nation, their freedom, their family — and certainly for their fellow soldiers. When times get bad, it is those intangibles that will be the difference between victory and defeat. 

In many ways, the Russian military was defeated months ago. They are abandoning their positions. Units are refusing to fight.  Equipment is being abandoned. Without the motivation to fight, soldiers will literally not pull the trigger.

The war has strengthened the Ukrainians’ sense of national identity, which in turns creates a will to win on the battlefield. Compare that to the Russian military right now in Ukraine. The Russian military that the Ukrainians are defeating right now is not the same one that invaded seven months ago. In many ways, the Russian military was defeated months ago. They are abandoning their positions. Units are refusing to fight.  Equipment is being abandoned. If you don’t have the motivation, the leadership and the will to fight, then soldiers will literally not pull the trigger on their weapons. Sure, they may stand there, may be present and may even not run away, but they will not fight. 

There are all these images of the Russian military leaving behind vehicles and equipment en masse in response to the recent Ukrainian offensives, and also surrendering to the Ukrainians as well. It looks like an army in chaos.  

An orderly retreat is what Russia did in April. Overnight, they withdrew all their formations, collected all their equipment and used artillery to support their withdrawal. A rout is a chaotic abandonment that is not a proper military movement. Rout is almost a non-military term, but that is what’s happening in Ukraine where the Russians are experiencing the complete collapse of military discipline, military organization and military leadership. It is nearly like a chaotic crowd running in all directions. In response to the last Ukrainian offensive, the Russians are disorganized and trying to escape. The fact that the Russians are just abandoning equipment shows the depths of their problems and overall disorganization and how broken in many ways that force is. 

It looks as if Russian forces are not even bothering to destroy their equipment and vehicles, or otherwise make them unusable. They are also leaving behind high-end weapons systems, including some of their newest drones, electronic warfare equipment, tanks and other systems. 

We are seeing a window into the collapse of the Russian military. This is about much more than the loss of terrain. It is a given that terrain will change hands in a war. The way an army fights is a window into their status. The fact that the Russians have just abandoned so much equipment and supplies — including critical command and control equipment — offers real insight into their problems.

Of course you can’t destroy everything or otherwise render it not serviceable. You also can’t take everything with you. But when an army just abandons equipment that can literally be turned around by the attacking force and used against you, that is a huge sign of deep problems. The Russians left behind artillery and artillery rounds. They left food and uniforms. They left behind some of their best tanks. I am not being facetious: Russia is now one of the biggest providers of military aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine doesn’t have a shortage of motivated people to fight. Ukraine has a shortage of military supplies and equipment. Russia has the opposite problem. Moreover, Russia is now using 1950s-, 1960s- and 1970s-era tanks and other armored vehicles. The situation is that desperate. In the end, what Russia does not have is motivated soldiers — and those soldiers are now voting with their feet and retreating, surrendering and otherwise refusing to fight.  

One of the dominant narratives we are hearing is that the Ukrainian military’s recent offensive was “textbook” and “perfect.” Such terms make me suspicious. What does that actually mean? 

The oversimplification of war is dangerous. In military science we have concepts such as the operational art of war, the principles of war and so on. At a basic level, what the Ukrainians have done in their recent offensive was something that is taught at any war college. They are doing the right things in the application of military power in a theater. Of course there are people who want to fit what is happening in Ukraine into their own narrative. For example, some people in the United States military leadership are now using what we see in Ukraine as justification for the directions they want to go in terms of investments in new technologies and the like. 

The Russians left behind artillery and artillery rounds, food and uniforms, some of their best tanks. I am not being facetious in saying that Russia is now one of the biggest providers of military aid to Ukraine.

When the Ukrainians launched their offensive in Kherson, the Russians had to respond or they were going to lose 20,000 soldiers — which they still could. The Ukrainians had better intelligence. When the Russians attempted to move forces to save Kherson, they created a big weakness in the eastern areas of Ukraine where the Ukrainian military executed a second offensive, against Kharkiv. That was a well-planned attack with a combined arms formation that included tanks and other vehicles. When the Ukrainians pushed forward with their mechanized brigades and other forces the Russians were so incompetent that they fell apart. Their defenses were not adequate. 

I can highlight the great things that the Ukrainians did in terms of intelligence, planning, secrecy and speed. The speed was important: The Ukrainians even used wheeled vehicles to rapidly exploit openings in the Russian defenses and then to capitalize on them. So, yes, there were textbook aspects to Ukraine’s attack. But how much of the Ukrainian military’s success is also the result of how incompetent the Russians are? As the wisdom suggests, never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake. The collapse of the Russian military was a surprise to the Ukrainians, as much as it was to us. 

In terms of the operational art of war, what has Russia done wrong?

The Russians did not adopt a model of leadership and organization based on decentralization and empowering junior leaders. Their model is very officer-centric and centralized. Russia also did not develop an effective NCO [non-commissioned officer] corps. A modern military needs to empower its soldiers to take the initiative and by doing so to accomplish great things. 

Putin is exercising a great amount of operational control, down to the tactical level. There should be multiple levels of trusted individuals who are then allowed to go out and execute the operation. The other error Russia made was that when they invaded Ukraine they lacked a clear objective, so they did not prioritize the force that was going to achieve it. In the battle for Kyiv, the Russians attacked seven different areas at once. Any reasonably intelligent person who knows about these things would tell you that if your objective is regime change then you have to take the capital and rapidly cut off the heads of government. 

The Russian leadership was not stable. They switched out different senior officers in response to their failures. As a practical matter, they also lost a lot of senior officers, including some generals, to Ukrainian attacks, friendly fire and other things. The Russians have really lost the core of their leadership. There is also the much-discussed aspect of the Russian military’s failures in terms of logistics, supplies and equipment. Putin did not have the force that he thought he did. Putin does not have Stalin’s army, a massive force that can overcome their qualitative deficiencies. Putin does not have the Red Army of old, with its ability to apply mass and force across a wide front. Yet he is still trying to apply that doctrine to the small and now completely eroded and corroded force that he sent to Ukraine. 

What does Putin’s recent “mobilization” mean, as a practical matter? 

It’s a draft, which is a global recognition that they’re losing in Ukraine. These are not proper reserves, meaning a force that is kept competent on their military skills, as we see with the U.S. military or other Western forces. Putin is calling up people who may have served in the military at some point in their lives, and also calling up younger people who have likely never served.  They’re going to get two weeks of training. What can you teach somebody in two weeks? I don’t know. Now there are reports that some of them only get a few days of training. That’s nuts. Those recruits are getting sent directly to Ukraine where they will be added to existing units that are already diminished.. 

Putin does not have the Red Army of old, with its ability to apply mass and force across a wide front. Yet he is still trying to apply that doctrine to the completely eroded and corroded force he sent to Ukraine. 

Putin has lost the national infrastructure to build proper military formations, and has also lost many of his military trainers. The heart of Putin’s military has already been deployed to Ukraine. Now he is just putting untrained people, using their bodies to fill the gaps in his forces. This will not save him from defeat in Ukraine. In my opinion, Putin is now literally sending men off to die.  The forces he already has in Ukraine don’t have the will to fight. He is just adding more people who don’t want to fight to that already demoralized group. 

Russia’s problems in Ukraine are only going to get worse. Now there are just going to be more soldiers in Ukraine as part of an army that is losing ground and surrendering. 

What could or should the Russian military have done differently?  

Objectively, the Russian leadership could have put three times the amount of effort toward what should have been the only objective, which was taking Kyiv, the capital city. If a big enough force had attacked rapidly, they might have overwhelmed the Ukrainians and the city might have fallen in the first weeks of the war, as predicted. Russia’s goal would have been accomplished and Ukraine would not be a sovereign nation. Russia would likely then have had to fight one of the largest resistance movements in history, but Putin would have achieved his strategic goal. That is not what happened. I would have fired every person on their general staff, including Gen. Gerasimov [the highest-ranking military officer].

How is the average Ukrainian soldier feeling right now? And what about their Russian counterparts?

The Ukrainian soldier is extremely motivated right now. Their morale is at a high, probably the highest it has been in the war to this point. The Ukrainian soldier has the backing of their nation and the world. They have incredible momentum. They know they are accomplishing something great and are moving towards victory.

The Russians are feeling the opposite. Their morale is at the lowest possible point. Not only are they questioning why they are fighting in Ukraine, but they don’t even have any of the basic things — resources, supplies and, perhaps most important, good leadership — that could lift their morale. The Russians don’t even have stories about the great things they are accomplishing on the battlefield to lift their spirits. They know they are being defeated. 

January 6 was entirely predictable — it was planned in broad daylight

Everyone knows how the day unfolded: Trump’s speech in which he urged “if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”  Swarms of incensed rioters at the Capitol, police officers and rioters killed and injured, and so many other details of that day that will remain etched in the memory of those who lived through it. It was the ultimate, real-life manifestation of the Far Right 2.0’s uninterrupted online activity, with each corner of the movement represented in some way or another as they converged in D.C. There were shirts, flags and hats with QAnon mantras like “Trust the Plan” and emblems of militia movements like the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers. There were Confederate flags and rope nooses. Inside the Capitol building, a man with a shirt reading “CAMP AUSCHWITZ…WORK BRINGS FREEDOM” stormed through the halls beside another individual in a TRUMP 2020 hat, helping hold up a broken piece of a nameplate reading, “SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI.”

And with the United States still sifting through the rubble of that day, we watched the same maddeningly familiar script play out once more.

Many unanswered questions about the January 6 Capitol siege remain: Why were the Capitol Police so severely unprepared? Why was the National Guard so delayed in being deployed?

But one thing is certain: this didn’t come out of the blue. All the planning that went into the January 6 riot—the zip ties, the incitements, the movement-wide sense of direction, the coordination—happened in broad daylight on sites like TheDonald.win. As the Wall Street Journal reported in the siege’s aftermath, “The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist groups, sent more than two dozen alerts between Dec. 23 and Jan. 7 noting the rising risk of violence related to the coming gathering.”  Those alerts went to all of our law enforcement partners. And that was just from us; other monitors were also raising red flags. The government’s lack of preparation was not a failure of intelligence, as some said of 9-11 at the time. This was a failure to act on available intelligence—one far worse than any I’d seen in decades of sharing intelligence.

This was a failure to act on available intelligence—one far worse than any I’d seen in decades of sharing intelligence.

Sure, some coordination happened on apps like Facebook Messenger, but TheDonald.win, Parler, 8kun, and the like is where the real mobilization took place. Posts on TheDonald.win indicate that this was where many seemed to have found their way into the private chats to begin with.

It was the same story of an internet-fueled terrorist catastrophe we’d been following in recent years.  Only on a much larger scale.

On January 8, amid new public scrutiny on Parler’s role in the Capitol siege, both Apple and Google delivered ultimatums to the company for “moderation improvement” plans.

Parler CEO John Matze wasn’t having any of it.

“We will not cave to pressure from anti-competitive actors!” he wrote on the platform.  “We will and always have enforced our rules against violence and illegal activity. But we WONT cave to politically motivated companies and those authoritarians who hate free speech!”

The next day, Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores, citing an “ongoing and urgent public safety threat” and the company’s lack of “adequate measures” to address it.  The same day, Amazon Web Services announced it would be cutting off its services to Parler on January 10, claiming that the platform “cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety.”  It marked the first such move against Parler by Amazon, whose two years of hosting services to the platform reportedly evolved into a $300,000-a-month source of revenue.

 The Far Right 2.0 needed a new home: somewhere with appealing features and a proven track record of little to no moderation. You may have already guessed where I’m going with this.

“Telegram is the only viable alternative at the moment,” wrote popular white nationalist activist Nick Fuentes, known for starting the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), for which at least one banner was seen during the Capitol siege.  Far-right 4chan users likewise wrote the day after Parler’s removal, “COME TO TELEGRAM NOW” while listing far-right channels.  QAnon users said the same, writing that “patriots need to gather under one banner on Telegram.”

So began yet another mass-online migration to Telegram by users too extreme for other mainstream social media platforms. In November 2020, a Proud Boys-associated chat group had less than 2,000 members. But after branding itself as “Parler Lifeboat” when the platform was removed, the Telegram chat group reached well over 13,000 members by the end of January 2021. Similar surges were seen across all the Far Right 2.0’s overlapping submovements after Parler went down. A QAnon group chat with 468 members in late December 2020 similarly shot up to over 4,000 by late January. The overtly white nationalist Proud Boys: Uncensored Telegram channel went from 16,000 subscribers at the beginning of January to nearly 45,000 by the end of the month. With that, this increasingly influential channel directed fellow white nationalists to cater to these new Parler refugees pouring into Telegram:

“Parler being shut down has sent tens of thousands (or more) of people to telegram. All of them are seeking refuge and looking for answers since their Q-bullshit lied to them. Maga people are demoralized.

“Now is our opportunity to grab them by the hand and lead them toward ideological truth. Join their normie chats and show them love and unity…Introduce videos that will open their eyes (you know which ones).”


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


Neo-Nazis on Telegram also had their eyes on this new wave of recruitment prospects. Many circulated the lengthy “Comprehensive Redpill Guide,” detailing how to radicalize those energized by the Capitol siege and providing templates of how to reach out to such prospects without scaring them away with blatant anti-Semitism and racism. The guide concluded, “Big Tech made a serious mistake by banishing conservatives to the one place where we have unfettered access to them, and that’s a mistake they’ll come to regret!”

Like ISIS, the Far Right 2.0 was born and exists largely on the internet.

These developments didn’t seem to factor into many lawmakers’ responses to the Capitol siege, though. Congress began calling for hearings and investigations in the months that followed, with many Democrats seeking to scrutinize Parler for its role in the January 6 siege. Republicans, meanwhile, seemed to take more issue with Google, Apple, Amazon and other companies cutting off Parler.  None of it mattered, though, because Parler registered its site with Epik in January and by February was fully operational again. It even took the cyber security services of the Russia-based DDoSGuard, the same company that protected VanwaTech so that it could help provide servers for 8chan and a dozen QAnon sites.

Meanwhile, founders of TheDonald.win broke away from Williams, who was quickly distancing himself from the site he had cocreated. All that was connected to Williams was the domain registration, so to bring TheDonald.win back up, all the remaining unapologetic admins had to do was change the domain to “Patriots.win.” Upon doing so, these new admins boldly declared in a statement on the landing page, “The Donald has evolved to Patriots.win. Don’t worry, everything else is the same.”

Like ISIS, the Far Right 2.0 was born and exists largely on the internet. But by January 6, 2020, evolutionary paths of the Far Right and ISIS had diverged. Both of these global movements received enormously different treatments. One side was all but smothered to death online, while the other was able to survive long enough to inject itself into other extremist movements. One side was shunned by societies around the globe, while the other infused itself into mainstream political discussion. One side prompted consensus among governments, tech companies, and societies that it was a danger to the world, while the other found refuge with “free speech”–preaching companies that hardly seemed to apply the same rationale toward jihadi extremists.

One of my primary goals in recent years has been to show as vividly as possible the oxygen that keeps modern-day extremist movements like ISIS or the Far Right 2.0 alive and thriving. In 2007, I testified twice before Congress that the government could eliminate all the al-Qaeda leaders and training camps it wanted to, but if they didn’t address the online havens of these threats they would continue to grow, just as they had been doing so dramatically after 9/11. As I urged, “If I come with one thing, one theme, after my brief testimony, I hope that it will be that the internet is a crucial battleground in the war on terror that must be contested in a more effective way.”

Fifteen years later, I find even more relevance and urgency in my assertion.