Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Ex-FBI official: Trump may have hidden classified docs to use them as “leverage”

On Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s “The ReidOut,” former FBI agent Peter Strzok highlighted one of the most incriminating aspects of the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified information at his Mar-a-Lago country club in Palm Beach, Florida.

Specifically, Strzok argued that until the FBI obtained a warrant to seize the documents Trump refused to cooperate with the federal officials who were trying to recover them..

“We know he shares because this guy almost tweeted out major secrets,” said anchor Tiffany Cross. “I want to direct your attention to the Iran missile tweet … there was an image of the Iranian missile blowup, and it was exquisite intelligence, this is all according to a former official. And when they showed it to the president he said I’m tweeting it. And they essentially said, sir, we don’t want to do it because people will understand our capabilities. His response was, I’m the president, I can declassify anything. That blows my mind, and I do wonder what exactly was Merrick Garland mulling over, because we’ve seen how he’s been a threat to us for four years?”

“The president has the authority to classify and declassify things while he’s in office, and what’s critical, he’s no longer in office,” said Strzok. “He was not in office immediately following the inauguration on January 20th, so what you have to do is go back and look, and the biggest question in my mind is why did he have all the information? In the run-up you show former National Security Adviser John Bolton saying he thought it might be neat. In my mind, I would not be surprised, one, not just the material that the FBI recovered in the search warrant but those 15 boxes that the National Archives got much earlier in the year.”

Strzok made clear he didn’t buy that this was all simply down to Trump thinking it would be cool to have the information lying around at his resort.

“I think there’s going to be turn out to be, one, highly, highly classified information, but, two, things that aren’t just things he found neat,” said Strzok. “I would be surprised if there weren’t things that furthered his business interest, things he could use as leverage over people, things he could use to settle the scores. The biggest question in my mind is why on earth, having been told repeatedly by so many people, that he steadfastly refused to turn these things over and instead carried them all away. You know, I hope DOJ is content now with the FBI that they have recovered everything, but we’re talking about a massive amount of information.”

Watch below or at this link.

Texas school board purges dozens of books after Christian PAC funded right-wing takeover

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

 

Ahead of the first day of school, the Keller Independent School District is removing all books that were challenged last year within the school district, including the Bible, “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and a graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank’s “The Diary of Young Girl.”

“Attached is a list of all books that were challenged last year. By the end of today, I need all books pulled from the library and classrooms. Please collect these books and store them in a location. (book room, office, etc.),” Jennifer Price, executive director of Keller ISD’s curriculum and instruction, wrote in an email sent to principals, obtained by The Texas Tribune.

Attached to the email was a list of 41 book titles to be removed, including all versions of the Bible and “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” by Maia Kobabe, which depicts Kobabe’s journey of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The direction to remove all 41 books surprised some local residents because a school district committee made up of members of the public met last year and recommended that some of the books now being removed — including Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye” and “Anne Frank’s Diary” — remain in student libraries.

But since that committee met and recommended keeping some challenged books, three new conservative school board members, all recipients of a Christian political action committee’s donations, were elected to the district’s seven-member board of trustees. And according to the school district, all 41 challenged books are now to be reviewed again by campus staff and librarians to see if they meet a new board policy approved last week, according to Bryce Nieman, the Keller ISD spokesperson.

Nieman said the school board, with its three newest members elected last spring, unanimously approved a new policy for acquiring and reviewing books. The policies are, in part, based on the Texas Education Agency’s model policy released in April after calls from Gov. Greg Abbott to come up with a state standard for these procedures. This includes the school board members or someone appointed by them, having the power to accept or reject any materials.

The first day of school for Keller ISD is Wednesday.

Last year’s district book committee was formed after parents found Kobabe’s book in the district and had it removed. At the same time, state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, sent a list of some 850 books about race and sexuality — including Kobabe’s — to school districts asking for information about how many of those are available on their campuses.

Both Keller ISD and Krause kicked off a flurry of book challenges across the state over books that shared the perspectives of LGBTQ people and those that touched on the harsh reality of racism.

Both this Keller list and Krause’s share titles such as “Gender Queer” and “Out of Darkness” by Ashley Hope Pérez, which follows a love story between a teenage Mexican American girl and a teenage African American boy in 1930s East Texas, including the 1937 New London School explosion about 200 miles north of Houston.

This latest book removal follows May’s fiery school board elections that centered on how America’s history of racism should be taught in Texas public schools and which books kids should be able access on campuses.

During those school board campaigns, there was unprecedented heavy investing in more conservative candidates by Patriot Mobile, a Texas-based cellphone company that donates a portion of its customers’ phone bills to conservative, “Christian” causes.

The company’s political action committee, Patriot Mobile Action, raised more than $500,000 for political contributions to Keller and other Tarrant County school board candidates. Part of the money raised was spent on top political consulting firms that bolstered a platform against critical race theory, with flyers saying the candidates were “saving America.”

Laney Hawes, who has four children in the district and served on the Keller ISD book committee, said she believes the removal of these books is a result of the Patriot Mobile Action PAC money that helped pay for the campaigns of the three new school board members.

“I feel bad for students who, many of them, the only opportunity they’re going to have to learn about really, really difficult topics is in books,” Hawes said. “I feel bad for the most marginalized kids in our school district, the LGBTQ+ kids and also a lot of the kids of color. I’m sad. I’m disheartened and I’m frustrated and I’m angry.”

Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the free expression via literature, said in a statement that the Keller ISD directive “tramples” on the work committee members did over the last year to their list.

“The sweeping attempt to remove these titles from classrooms and libraries on the eve of a new school year is an appalling affront to students’ First Amendment rights. It is virtually impossible to run a school or a library that purges books in response to any complaint from any corner,” Friedman said.

Critical race theory, typically a university-level field of study is the idea that racism is embedded in legal systems and not limited to individuals. It is not taught in Texas’ public schools, but has been used by conservatives as a buzzword to include anything about race taught or discussed in public secondary schools.

All of the school board candidates were billed as ones who would eradicate “critical race theory” from classrooms and remove books discussing LGBTQ issues, which some parents have described as “pornographic.”

In the Keller school board races, Patriot Mobile Action backed Micah Young, Joni Shaw Smith and Sandi Walker. All of them won. Neither Young or Smith returned calls from The Texas Tribune for comment on Tuesday. Walker told the Tribune she did not have any information.

Since last year, state lawmakers including Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have criticized what they claim is the “indoctrination” of children in classrooms. The two top elected officials have also made parental rights a priority as they both seek reelection in November. Patrick has also vowed to push for a “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Texas, mirroring Florida’s conservative push to limit classroom discussions about LGBTQ people.

“Parents will be restored to their rightful place as the preeminent decision-maker for their children,” Abbott declared on Jan. 26 during a campaign event at a charter school in Lewisville.

Yet, for years parents in Texas have wide-ranging rights. Currently, Texas parents have the right to remove their child temporarily from a class or activity that conflicts with their religious beliefs. They have the right to review all instructional materials, and the law guarantees them access to their student’s records and to a school principal or administrator. Also, school boards must establish a way to consider complaints from parents.

In Texas, sex education is not required to be taught in public schools. Health education was removed as a requirement to graduate high school in 2009.

Still, some parents, opposed to and frustrated by masking requirements along with nearly three years of on-again, off-again school closures, have become more vocal at school board meetings, claiming their rights have been compromised.


The full program is now LIVE for the 2022 The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 22-24 in Austin. Explore the schedule of 100+ mind-expanding conversations coming to TribFest, including the inside track on the 2022 elections and the 2023 legislative session, the state of public and higher ed at this stage in the pandemic, why Texas suburbs are booming, why broadband access matters, the legacy of slavery, what really happened in Uvalde and so much more. See the program.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/16/keller-isd-removes-books/.

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

“Bought and paid for by Big Pharma”: Ron Johnson complains that lowering drug prices hurts profits

The campaign of Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who is running to unseat U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, declared Tuesday that the Republican incumbent “is bought and paid for by Big Pharma.”

That charge came in response to Johnson’s Monday comments about Medicare negotiating the cost of certain prescription drugs, which is included in the Inflation Reduction Act that U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law Tuesday afternoon.

Appearing on “The Brian Kilmeade Show,” Johnson told the Fox News host that “when you start punishing the pharmaceutical industry, you’re gonna have less innovation; you’re gonna have fewer lifesaving drugs. That’s not a good thing.”

Barnes—who won the Democratic primary last week—said Tuesday that “while Ron Johnson is worried about protecting the bottom lines of big pharmaceutical companies, I’m worried about working families across Wisconsin who are forced to choose between putting food on the table or affording the medication they need.”

“For over a decade, Ron Johnson has put big corporations and his wealthy donors before the working people he was elected to represent,” he asserted. “In the Senate, I’ll hold Big Pharma accountable and ensure every Wisconsinite has a fair shot.”

The progressive Democrat’s campaign also highlighted recent reporting by The Cap Times that Johnson, while chairing the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2018, “declined to subpoena Teva Pharmaceuticals as part of a Democrat-led investigation of the drugmaker’s role in the opioid epidemic.” In the months that followed, the company donated to both Johnson’s campaign and an affiliated political action committee (PAC).

Johnson spokesperson Alexa Henning told the Madison-based newspaper that the “senator appreciates the support that people offer, but he doesn’t personally track who gives what, and donations never impact his views on issues or how he votes.” She added that asking about Teva’s contributions “is another politically motivated hit job by the corporate media and cheered on by their allies in the Democrat Party.”

Barnes’ campaign, meanwhile, said Tuesday:

Ron Johnson has a long history of selling out Wisconsinites in favor of his large corporate donors. Earlier this year, Johnson justified sending 1,000 good-paying, family-sustaining jobs out of Wisconsin by claiming, “It’s not like we don’t have enough jobs here in Wisconsin.” Reporting later showed the company shipping jobs out of state, Oshkosh Corp., “ranks seventh among Johnson’s top career contributors.”

Johnson, a businessman, was elected to the Senate in 2010 and won a second term in 2016.

In his bid to replace Johnson, Barnes has secured the support of various progressives groups across Wisconsin and the nation along with local, state, and federal elected officials, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

On the healthcare front, Barnes backs not only drug pricing reforms like those in the new law but also putting the United States on a path to universal healthcare by passing Medicare for All legislation at the federal level.

“In the richest nation in the world,” the candidate says in a campaign video, “no one should be going bankrupt because of their medical bills.”

Laura Ingraham is delusional to think GOP voters will grow tired of Trump. They love his crimes

Donald Trump’s in the headlines again, and as usual, it’s because of sinister and criminal activity. This time, there’s the added bonus of suspected espionage, likely around nuclear secrets, because Trump’s criminal aesthetic is as understated as his tacky gold-plated New York penthouse. Unsurprisingly, this is causing some in the GOP elite to occasionally slip up, and allow their longing for Trump to just go away to peek out. 

“The country I think is so exhausted,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham said Monday on a right-wing podcast. “They’re exhausted by the battle, the constant battle, that they may believe that, well, maybe it’s time to turn the page if we can get someone who has all Trump’s policies, who’s not Trump.”

Of course, Ingraham fails to remember that the majority of the country has always opposed Trump, who lost the popular vote by millions in both 2016 and 2020. Like most Republican pundits, she habitually conflates “the country” with “Republican voters,” who are a minority, just one with disproportionate power due to serious flaws in the constitution. 

Poor word choice aside, Ingraham’s argument is basically that the corruption is finally wearing thin and that Republican primary voters may very well be ready to nominate someone else in 2024. Someone who is just as fascist, but without all the crime and corruption. Someone like, well, Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is even more authoritarian than Trump, but appears to have a lot less personal drama due to spending his non-work hours powered down at a recharging station. 

Will Republican voters finally get sick of Trump or are they sticking by him no matter how cartoonish his crimes get? 

And unsurprisingly, Ingraham is getting livid pushback from Trump loyalists. Newsmax host Eric Bolling unloaded on her Tuesday.

“What do you mean, ‘No Trump?'” Bolling whined. “What’s wrong with you?”

This debate between Ingraham and Bolling is refracted through their personal desires. Ingraham’s job is secure, Trump or no Trump, and so she’s likely just feeling personally exhausted by defending the utterly indefensible, night after night. Bolling is at Newsmax, where he landed after being fired after sexual harassment allegations at Fox News, only because of his skills as a Trump sycophant. But while their views are defined entirely by their career ambitions, it is reasonable to ask who is right: Will Republican voters finally get sick of Trump or are they sticking by him no matter how cartoonish his crimes get? 


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


The answer is the latter.

Yeah, yeah I know there’s polling and focus group data that suggest otherwise, but Trump will easily knock out his primary competitors in 2024, as he did in 2016, with the puerile bullying that so thrills the GOP base. More crucially, this “exhaustion” argument fails to understand that Trump’s criminality is not something that Republican voters merely tolerate — it is central to his appeal to Republican voters, especially primary voters. 

Crushing the rule of law and demonstrating that the only thing that matters is tribalism and power is the entire point of Trumpism. 

Trump is a unique figure in American politics in two major ways. First, no other president has come even close to Trump, in terms of corruption and criminality. His rap sheet of sexual assault, financial crime, fraud, election cheating, attempted election theft, and blackmail schemes is so long that anyone who tries to recite it all invariably forgets another dozen scandals. Second, no ex-president has ever been so powerful, at least in the modern era. There’s a reason people who leave the office never run again, even if they are popular like, say, Barack Obama. They know that their party’s voters are usually ready for some fresh blood. 

 

Trump’s criminality helps explain his cult-like hold over the GOP base. His degeneracy is aspirational to these voters, who like to imagine that they, too, are along for the ride of floating above law and custom. (The audacity of the January 6 insurrectionists illustrates this phenomenon. The conveyor belt into jail for them illustrates the delusional nature of it all.) But the appeal of Trump’s malevolence goes beyond the right’s fantasies of reality TV villainy. It’s about ideology. Fascism and corruption are as inseparable as Rudy Giuliani and cheap hair dye. 

Fascism, authoritarianism, whatever you want to call it: It’s an ideology that exists to refute modern ideals like democracy and equality under the law. Instead, it’s about worshipping power and enforcing strict social hierarchies where the empowered class gets to do what it likes, while the oppressed classes have to live under the yoke. Openly flouting the law isn’t just a demonstration of power. It’s a tribute to the fascist ideal, where “the law” is something that only applies to the hated out-groups. (Yes, yes, I’m familiar with Frank Wilhoit’s famous 2018 blog comment you are about to quote at me.) So Trumpers aren’t hypocrites for wanting Hillary Clinton locked up for not committing any real crime while hoping Trump escapes justice. Crushing the rule of law and demonstrating that the only thing that matters is tribalism and power is the entire point of Trumpism.  


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


A fascist leader who isn’t also corrupt and a criminal doesn’t make sense. What is the point of having all that power, if you’re not going to flaunt your ability to get away with behavior that “lesser” people go straight to jail for? Plus, it drives liberals crazy when Trump gets away with yet another crime, and nothing tickles the GOP erogenous zones like infuriated liberals.

They demand total immunity for people in their tribe while passing laws to destroy people they don’t like for things that shouldn’t be crimes.

Rep. Liz Cheney’s devastating primary loss in Wyoming Tuesday night perfectly illustrates this. Sure, there are lots of factors that feed into it, including the non-stop villainization of her in right-wing media and, of course, Republican misogyny. Ultimately, however, Cheney’s defeat was a result of her rejecting the central motivating concern of Trumpism, which is the obliteration of rule of law in favor of a society organized solely on the basis of status and power. Cheney is rigidly right-wing in most ways, but she drew the line at how much impunity power should buy a person like Trump. For Republican primary voters, that is inexcusable. What good is power if you still have to live by some of the rules that you would enforce on others? 

Having a president who gets away with serious crimes, while Black Lives Matter protesters and leftists are imprisoned and tear-gassed for no real reason, is pure heaven for the power-obsessed fascists that make up the most enthusiastic portion of the GOP base. There are, of course, other Republican voters who aren’t quite as obsessive. But those people tend to vote less in primaries. That’s why the increasingly unhinged radicals increasingly dominate the GOP candidate list.

It’s not just Trump, either. From Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania to Kari Lake in Arizona to Tudor Dixon in Michigan, the candidates who are performing well with Republican primary voters, even in swing states, are those who are running on a platform of pure authoritarianism. They demand total immunity for people in their tribe while passing laws to destroy people they don’t like for things that shouldn’t be crimes, like aborting problem pregnancies or admitting that gay people exist. That, more than anything, is what their voters want. 

Defending Trump for possible espionage may make Ingraham’s job more annoying, but don’t cry for the woman who made herself rich feeding fascist lies to an aging GOP base. Trump is exhausting, but that’s exactly why his base loves him. He’s successfully built a fantasy that titillates them: The man who can commit crimes without limit and never faces a moment of real accountability for it.

Sure, they may feel moments of doubt, since “flagrant criminal” really isn’t a good image for a general election candidate. But when primary voting time comes around, the vicarious thrill of getting away with it will always trump Republican voters’ more rational concerns. The only way to break the cycle is for Trump to face real criminal penalties, and prove that he does not possess the superhuman powers his base imagines him to have. 

Trump supporters use Truth Social to dox investigators in Mar-a-Lago raid — and their families

On MSNBC Tuesday, Rolling Stone political reporter Asawin Suebsaeng explained how former President Donald Trump’s social media network is only fanning the flames as Republicans rage against the FBI search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago to find missing classified documents.

Truth Social, said Suebsaeng, is being used to out the personal information of officials involved in the case — and their families.

“In 2016 we saw the Russians infiltrate our democracy targeting Black voters, and now Trump has engaged in these, you know, essentially Twitter wannabe platforms,” said anchor Tiffany Cross. “I’m curious how you think that could be weaponized when it comes to misinformation.”

“Well, you mentioned the term ‘Twitter wannabe’ earlier in terms of what Trump’s attempt at building a MAGA social media — it’s Truth Social, and at its very best form, currently, it’s a Twitter wannabe,” said Suebsaeng. “Unfortunately for Trump, nothing more so now in terms of how much of a player it’s going to be in terms of radicalization, that depends on how much popularity it’s going to gain and right now that’s a little bit questionable.”

“What we do know, in terms of the level of MAGA-related popularity that it does have, is that in recent days, ever since the FBI raid on Trump’s home and private Florida club in Mar-a-Lago, Truth Social had become a haven in the way that other social media platforms and more shall we say mainstream social media platforms had not become for this type of doxxed information on not just the personnel, the magistrate who signed off on this and also their families,” said Suebsaeng.

“As you pointed out in the intro, the school that one of the kids went to was bandied about there … left up for days, and it was to the taken down until we reached out to Truth Social which, again, is under Trump’s control since he’s the head honcho. He’s one of the founders. It’s his company. They didn’t take it down until after we reached out for comment and until after we published the story last night.”

“To make sure we weren’t being completely unfair, because there are a lot of things that happen on a lot of different social media platforms that aren’t necessarily the fault of the people, shall we say, of the people who owned them, we did a quick search on Twitter,” added Suebsaeng. “We did a search on Twitter, just a one-on-one comparison between Truth Social and Twitter.com and we couldn’t find any of the same doxxed information we were describing earlier about the FBI personnel and their families, so take that for what you will.”

Watch below or at this link.

Trump claims Cheney primary was “referendum” on Jan. 6 and her loss means committee should shut down

United States Representative and Vice Chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., was defeated in Wyoming’s Republican congressional primary on Tuesday evening by challenger Harriet Hageman, a right-wing attorney whom former President Donald Trump endorsed on September 9th, 2021.

Cheney’s leadership role on the bipartisan commission has put her at odds with the GOP’s pro-Trump base and its compliance enforcers, who censured Cheney last year for her vote to impeach Trump for inciting the insurrection. That loyalty was cemented with Hageman‘s nearly thirty-point triumph – a drastic reversal from Cheney’s landslide 2020 win when three-quarters of ballots cast were for her. Incidentally, Trump’s lopsided victory in Wyoming over President Joe Biden – 43 percent – was greater than in any other state.

Nonetheless, Cheney maintained her message. In a speech to supporters following her concession call to Hageman, Cheney vowed to press forward with her “duty” to hold Trump accountable.

“Two years ago, I won this primary with 73 percent of the votes. I could easily have done the same again, the path was clear, but it would have required that I go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election. It would have required that I enable his ongoing efforts to unravel a democratic system and attack the foundations of our Republic. That was a path I could not and would not take,” she said.

“No House seat, no office in this land is more important than the principles that we are all sworn to protect. And I well understood the potential political consequences of abiding by my duty,” Cheney continued per The Hill.

“The primary election is over,” she added. “But now the real work begins.”

Cheney’s address caught Trump’s attention. In a late Tuesday night trio of posts on his Twitter imitation app Truth Social, Trump gloated about the results of the contest, repeated his Big Lie that the 2020 election was “rigged and stolen,” and demanded the termination of the January 6th House Select Committee.

10:12 p.m.:

Congratulations to Harriet Hageman on her great and very decisive WIN in Wyoming. This is a wonderful result for America, and a complete rebuke of the Unselect Committee of political Hacks and Thugs. Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself, the way she acted, and her spiteful, sanctimonious words and actions towards others. Now she can finally disappear into the depths of political oblivion where, I am sure, she will be much happier than she is right now. Thank you WYOMING!

11:39 p.m.:

Liz Cheney’s uninspiring concession speech, in front of a ‘tiny’ crowd in the Great State of Wyoming, focused on her belief that the 2020 Presidential Election was not, despite massive and conclusive evidence to the contrary, Rigged & Stolen. It was, and that’s not even counting the fact that many election changes, in numerous States, were not approved by State Legislatures, an absolute must. Liz Cheney is a fool who played right into the hands of those who want to destroy our Country!

12:05 a.m.:

I assume that with the very big Liz Cheney loss, far bigger than had ever been anticipated, the January 6th Committee of political Hacks and Thugs will quickly begin the beautiful process of DISSOLUTION? This was a referendum on the never ending Witch Hunt. The people have spoken!

Enough politics before law: The US must abandon presidential privilege and prosecute Donald Trump

When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974, many Americans were appalled. In fact, it’s widely assumed to have been a decisive factor in Ford’s 1976 loss to Jimmy Carter. Still, there was a general sense of relief among the public that the Watergate saga was over. Ford had wanted Nixon to show contrition as a condition of the pardon but the disgraced former president refused. Ford issued the pardon anyway, absolving him of all crimes committed while he was president. Nixon did eventually issue a fairly gracious acknowledgment after he received the pardon. It’s the closest thing to an apology Richard Nixon ever gave the country:

I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy. No words can describe the depth of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency, a nation I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly respect.

Richard Nixon had made many political comebacks in his career, but, at this point, it was all over. He had resigned in disgrace and the country could move on, at least secure in the knowledge that he would never hold public office again. There would be no more comebacks.

The notion that it is wrong to prosecute former presidents for what they did while in office may have been around before all of that happened but it really seemed to take hold with Nixon. Many people were upset, of course, but the argument that there was something destabilizing about a new administration prosecuting its predecessor and having the taint of banana republic politics was pretty compelling. The shame and humiliation of a tarnished legacy were believed to be powerful deterrents to the kind of people who would seek the highest office in the nation. The ugliness of putting a former leader on trial and potentially in jail would change American politics forever and it made a whole lot of people feel queasy.

Donald Trump simply won’t stop committing crimes and is determined to keep doing it as long as he can get away with it.

It’s pretty clear today that that was a mistake. It may have once been OK to allow a disgraced president to resign and live in solitary obscurity to contemplate his crimes. The acute danger to the country was over, after all, the presidency was peacefully transferred and Congress enacted many reforms to deal with future presidential overreach. But those arguments do not apply to our current crisis. Donald Trump simply won’t stop committing crimes and is determined to keep doing it as long as he can get away with it. Just try to imagine him putting out a statement like Nixon’s.


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


Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a piece for Lawfare this week in which he discusses this subject. He has long been one of those opposed to prosecuting former presidents for all the reasons I outline above but has reluctantly come to the conclusion that this situation may require it. Donald Trump is unlike any president in American history. Goldsmith was moved to write about this in the context of Trump’s latest scandal — his inexplicable decision to illegally abscond with White House documents intended for the National Archives, some of which we now know were highly classified and which he refused to return. We may never know the contents of those documents but we do know that a grand jury has been hearing testimony about this issue for months and that the head of the counterintelligence division of the FBI was alarmed enough to apply for a search warrant citing laws governing obstruction of justice, removal or destruction of records, and violation of the Espionage Act. Goldsmith believes that whether this was a wise move by the DOJ depends on the contents of the documents and whether it is proven that Trump refused to cooperate. I think he’s missing the forest for the trees. 

Look at this in the context of Trump’s years-long crime spree to see that there was no choice but to take this extraordinary step. His contempt for the rule of law is so brazen that if they didn’t, we might as well just officially declare that he has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution in perpetuity and call it a day.

It may turn out that the documents are not as sensitive as they thought and all that will happen is that they are returned to the National Archives. But you have to look at this in the context of Trump’s years-long crime spree to see that they had no choice but to take this extraordinary step. His contempt for the rule of law is so brazen that if they didn’t, we might as well just officially declare that he has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution in perpetuity and call it a day.

Consider the long list of crimes that the Justice Department was precluded from prosecuting because of the policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The Mueller Report alone listed almost a dozen instances of obstruction of justice just in the first two years of Trump’s presidency. He tried to bribe a foreign leader for personal political gain and was impeached for doing it. His abuse of presidential power to punish enemies and reward cronies is unprecedented. As we speak, he is under investigation for attempting a coup and disrupting the peaceful transfer of power.

And he’s running for president again, with the full backing of tens of millions of loyal followers who are convinced that Trump is being persecuted simply for being their hero.

Trump has slithered out from under the law and managed to evade accountability for his misdeeds his entire life. He has been committing crimes and dealing in corrupt practices at an ever-increasing pace since he entered politics, believing that it shields him from legal liability. In fact, he believes that being president allows him to literally do anything he chooses.

So everyone is rightfully worried about what will happen if Trump is held accountable for his crimes. After all, he has already unleashed his violent supporters on the FBI and is saying publicly that something terrible is going to happen because of his supposed persecution. His cult-like following is talking about civil war.

But part of the reason he has all those followers in the first place is that he seems to be invulnerable. They see him as a super-hero, still standing after all the slings and arrows dished out by the legal authorities and the political opposition. It’s just possible that if the rule of law prevails for once, the veil might fall and some of them will see him as the frail narcissist he really is. Let’s just say, it’s worth a try. It’s not like letting him off the hook has worked up until now. 

“Everyone’s saying no”: Trump hires Florida insurance lawyer as top attorneys refuse to work for him

Former President Donald Trump and his team have spent days since the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago trying to assemble a “team of respected lawyers” but keep getting rejected, according to The Washington Post.

“Everyone is saying no,” a prominent Republican lawyer told the outlet.

Trump is scrambling to find an experienced team of attorneys to defend him amid mounting legal crises. The Justice Department is investigating him under the Espionage Act after he took classified records, including some labeled “top secret,” to his Mar-a-Lago residence. He also faces legal scrutiny in the DOJ’s investigation into the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, as well as a state civil probe in New York and a Fulton County, Ga., criminal investigation into his efforts to overturn his loss in the state.

Jon Sale, a former Watergate prosecutor who is now a prominent Florida defense attorney, told the Post he turned Trump down last week.

“You have to evaluate whether you want to take it,” he said. “It’s not like a DUI. It’s representing the former president of the United States — and maybe the next one — in what’s one of the highest-visibility cases ever.”

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich defended the quality of the former president’s legal team, noting that it also includes former federal prosecutors Evan Corcoran, who represented former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in his losing battle against the DOJ,  and James Trusty, who was behind Trump’s letter threatening a highly dubious defamation lawsuit against CNN for describing his election lies as lies.

“The President’s lead counsel in relation to the raid of his home, Jim Trusty and Evan Corcoran, have decades of prosecutorial experience and have litigated some of the most complex cases in American history,” Budowich told the Post. “President Trump is represented by some of the strongest attorneys in the country, and any suggestion otherwise is only driven by envy.”

While Corcoran and Trusty submitted filings in the case, Trump’s other attorneys have been tasked with making his case to the public in media appearances.

The most visible Trump attorney has been Christina Bobb, a former anchor at the right-wing outlet OAN, where she pushed election conspiracy theories that got the network sued by defamation by Dominion Voting Systems. Bobb’s federal legal experience is largely limited to a “handful of trademark infringement cases on behalf of CrossFit” while she worked for a law firm in San Diego, according to the Post. Bobb has already undermined Trump’s baseless claim that the FBI may have “planted” evidence during the search while no one was looking, revealing that Trump and his family were able to watch the entire raid through CCTV.

Trump’s other Florida-based lawyer is Lindsey Halligan, a Florida insurance lawyer that handles residential and commercial claims but has never handled a federal case.

Trump’s other attorney in the documents investigation is Alina Habba, who has a small practice near Trump’s Bedminster, N.J., golf club. She previously worked as general counsel at a parking garage company. Habba has also represented Trump in his dubious lawsuits against the New York Times, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and his niece, Mary Trump.

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman noted that this is Trump’s seventh or eighth legal team since he became president.

“Finding a new one has been a challenge amid his desire to treat this as a short term PR issue as opposed to a longer term legal one,” she wrote.


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


The New York Times reported last week that one of Trump’s lawyers signed a statement in June certifying that Trump had returned all classified documents to the National Archives after a grand jury subpoena was issued in the case. Investigators subsequently learned from inside sources that there were still classified documents at the resort. It’s unclear which of Trump’s attorneys signed the document.

“You get these guys who just live to be around him, and mistakes get made,” an unnamed attorney told the Post. “These guys just want to make him happy.”

“Either the attorney acted in good faith on what turned out to be false factual representations made by Mr. Trump or someone else communicating on his behalf, in which case Mr. Trump or his proxy would have criminal jeopardy for false statements or obstruction of justice, or the attorney knowingly gave false assurances to the government,” David Laufman, the former head of the DOJ’s counterintelligence division, told the Post. “And it’s hard to believe that a lawyer knowingly would have lied to the government about the continued presence of classified documents.”

Trump, who has faced myriad legal scandals from two impeachments to local criminal investigations, has repeatedly struggled to find elite attorneys to represent him.

“In olden days, he would tell firms representing him was a benefit because they could advertise off it. Today it’s not the same,” former Trump lawyer-turned-critic Michael Cohen told the Post. “He’s also a very difficult client in that he’s always pushing the envelope, he rarely listens to sound legal advice, and he wants you to do things that are not appropriate, ethically or legally.”

Another attorney recalled Trump’s legal team urging him to avoid tweeting about the Mueller investigation early in his presidency only to see a tweet about it before they even got to the end of the White House driveway. “Several people said Trump was nearly impossible to represent and that it would be unclear if they would ever get paid,” the Post reported.

“This is not good,” one Trump confidant told the outlet. “Something big is going to pop. Somebody needs to be in charge.”

Even a small rise in temperatures could decimate North American forests

From 2007 to 2017, land-based ecosystems like the vast boreal forests of Canada and the Amazon rainforest removed roughly a third of anthropogenic carbon emissions from the atmosphere. According to a slate of new scientific research published this week in Nature, however, the threats that climate change poses to these terrestrial carbon sinks are greater than previously understood.

new study from a research team at the University of Michigan found that even a relatively small temperature increase of 1.6 degrees Celsius associated with climate change can have drastic effects on the dominant tree species in North American boreal forests, including reduced growth and increased mortality.

“Our results spell problems for the health and diversity of future regional forests,” University of Michigan forest ecologist Peter Reich, who led the study, told the University of Michigan news office. 

This vast and nearly entirely intact boreal forest biome, stretching across the Canadian landmass and some of the northern U.S., below tundra and above more temperate forest, consists primarily of coniferous spruce, pine, and fir species. The research team found that modest warming increased juvenile mortality in all nine tree species common in boreal forests, and that it also severely reduced growth in northern conifer species such as balsam fir, white spruce, and white pine.

While the study also found that increased warming boosted the growth of some broadleaf hardwood species like certain oaks and maples, which are more common in the temperate south, these trees are probably too sparse to take the place of disappearing conifers. The ecosystem is likely to enter an entirely “new state,” according to the study.

“That new state is, at best, likely to be a more impoverished version of our current forest,” Reich told the university news office. “At worst, it could include high levels of invasive woody shrubs, which are already common at the temperate-boreal border and are moving north quickly.”

The five-year experiment used infrared lamps and soil-heating cables to heat thousands of spruce, pine, and fir seedlings at two University of Michigan forest sites in northeastern Minnesota. Seedlings were heated around the clock in the open air, from early spring to late fall, at two different potential projections of near-term temperature increases.

Reich, who is the director of the Institute for Global Change Biology at the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability, elaborated that boreal forests may be reaching a tipping point at which even modest global warming creates a feedback loop that not only reduces the ability of boreal forests to support healthy plant, microbial, and animal biodiversity, but also their ability to remove and store carbon.

Additional research published in Nature this week found that climate change is driving spruce trees into swaths of Arctic tundra that haven’t hosted trees in thousands of years, and yet another study added to worries about the resilience of the Amazon rainforest to climate change.

Lindsey Graham’s moment of truth: After being ordered to testify, he faces a stark choice

Sen. Lindsey Graham faces his courthouse moment of truth.

On Aug. 15, Atlanta federal District Court judge Leigh Martin May ordered Graham to testify before the special Fulton County grand jury investigating then-President Donald Trump’s Jan. 2, 2021, phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. 

In that call, Trump asked Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” which he asserted was one vote more than he needed to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in Georgia. Graham had himself made two phone calls to Raffensperger after the November 2020 election but before Trump’s call. It’s not hard to imagine what those calls were about.

Graham has three choices on how to proceed. Only one can redeem him as someone committed to the rule of law. That choice, by the way, would also be the safest way to avoid the kind of prosecutorial suspicion that could lead to Graham becoming a target of the Georgia investigation, as Rudy Giuliani became on Monday.

First, Graham could appeal, continuing his blanket resistance based on the almost certainly inapplicable “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution. That provision states that in all cases “except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,” senators and representatives “shall not be questioned” outside of Congress “for any Speech or Debate in either House.” More in a moment on Judge May’s reasons for rejecting its application here.

Second, Graham could appear before the grand jury and answer some of the prosecutor’s questions, but continue to object on a question-by-question basis, asserting that the queries implicate his constitutional immunity, an avenue the Supreme Court has made quite narrow. He might try playing that card if continuing to hide the truth and remaining a Trump loyalist are his most important priorities.

Graham has three choices on how to proceed from here. Only one of those can redeem him as someone committed to the rule of law — and is the safest way to avoid potential prosecution.

Finally, he could comply with the court’s order and testify, asserting his right not to incriminate himself if he needs to, but otherwise providing the information prosecutors seek. That option is the one any American genuinely committed to the rule of law would take. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has good reasons to hear what Graham has to say. 

Those reasons explain why Graham lost the first round in his battle to stay home and avoid a grand jury’s questions: Willis is focused on the content of the two unrecorded phone calls Graham made in late 2020 to Raffensperger. She also wants to know whether Graham coordinated his calls with the Trump campaign or even with Trump himself.

Raffensperger and his deputy, Gabe Sterling, claim that Graham  pressured them to assist Trump by tossing out ballots due to assertions about whether the voters’ signatures matched those on file. Sterling and Raffensperger allege that Graham wanted Raffensperger to disqualify the entire vote in counties — such as Fulton, where roughly 525,000 votes were cast, more than 10% of the state’s total — with high numbers of questioned signature matches.


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


Graham denied any such intent. He told the media that he just wanted to improve the process going forward, with the upcoming Jan. 5, 2021, U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia, ultimately won by two Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff. 

Graham’s current claim that he was exploring possible future election legislation is undercut by the fact that, in his calls, he appears not to have mentioned any such potential legislation.  

Thus, it is hardly surprising that Judge May rejected Graham’s blanket reliance on the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause. One of us (Gerson) successfully represented the government in the D.C. federal court of appeals in Brewster v. United States, one of two Supreme Court cases on which Judge May relied. Brewster held that the clause “does not prohibit inquiry into activities that are casually or incidentally related to legislative affairs but not a part of the legislative process itself.”

The question Judge May addressed was whether Graham was seeking to shield from scrutiny truly legislative activity or activity that was “political” or otherwise non-legislative in nature. As the Supreme Court has held, the Constitution does not shield such matters from a grand jury’s inquiry.

For reasons that are apparent to laymen and lawyers alike, the Atlanta federal court rebuffed Graham’s claim that his calls were entirely legislative information-gathering exercises. They instead involved a “Senator from South Carolina making personal phone calls to state-level election officials in Georgia concerning Georgia’s election processes and the results of the state’s 2020 election.” The court wrote, “On its face, such conduct is not ‘a manifestly legislative act.'”  

Graham could now appear before the grand jury and object to whatever questions he claims intrude on his “speech and debate” clause immunity. While he could then return to federal court to litigate any dispute over his individual objections, the range of such objections would be limited, given that legitimate “legislative” matters obviously wouldn’t include attempting to overturn state-based election results. 

So the question for the gentleman from South Carolina at this juncture is whether he is to be seen as a full-throated MAGA-right ally, as a sophisticated politician employing the judicial process to try to protect Trump, or as someone who actually believes in the rule of law.

How one of Trump’s best friends was trapped in the Jersey swamps: An American tale

The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed. — Honoré de Balzac

As the nation’s legal system comes to a near-meltdown while attempting to hold a former president accountable for alleged high crimes and a lifetime of misdemeanors, we fixate on the target of our attention like never before. Yet we might be wise to take a look at how our admiration of wealth makes personalities like Donald Trump possible.

While there’s now a tendency to blame everything on him, it would be worthwhile to pull back a bit and see that Trump is just one man in a pantheon of hard-charging moguls we have elevated to near-demigod status by conferring a kind of omnipotence on them. We can’t really move on past Trump unless we confront our own dark side, which has made him and those like him possible.  

The truth is, there’s a platinum-plated conveyor belt at the heart of the American Dream machine greased by our societal greed. In my home state of New Jersey, where so much wealth is concentrated, there’s a real admiration for these personalities who know what they want and will go to any lengths to get it. We loved Tony Soprano in Jersey for a reason. Call it our shadow self writ large. As far as I know, New Jersey is the only state to have elected two former Goldman Sachs partners as governors. (Furthermore, both are Democrats: current Gov. Phil Murphy and Jon Corzine, who was both our governor and before that a U.S. senator.)

There’s a platinum-plated conveyor belt at the heart of the American Dream machine — and the sad tale of the New Jersey Meadowlands mega-mall is the perfect illustration.

There’s perhaps no greater example of how our state’s political leadership — of both parties — has been enamored of great wealth than the way Trenton has been played by a procession of developers who have promised a mega-mall in the New Jersey Meadowlands. It was first branded under former Gov. Jim McGreevey as Xanadu and then was relaunched by Gov. Chris Christie as the American Dream Meadowlands.

We have never seemed to do enough due diligence on these projects, on the irrational justification that “the stakes are so high.”

Consider how relieved the state was back in the summer of 2006 when Tom Barrack, CEO of Colony Capital LLC, rode into the Meadowlands to “rescue” the fiscally floundering Xanadu, aka American Dream project, which had been originated by the Mills Corporation, a Virginia developer that ran afoul of an SEC probe and ultimately went bankrupt.

The Mills board of directors included Charlie Black, of the infamous K Street global lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly — and yes, that would be Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. That firm’s client list included Donald Trump and several quasi-dictatorial strongmen in developing countries, like Angola’s Jonas Savimbi and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.

Mills, a heavy donor to both political parties, had managed to convince McGreevey and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, led by George Zoffinger, that Xanadu — with its proposed indoor 14-story ski dome and 2.2 million square feet of entertainment and retail space — could help revive the state’s sports complex and help it retain the NFL’s New York Jets, the NBA’s New Jersey Nets (as they were then known) and the NHL’s New Jersey Devils.

In a 2006 story headlined “Reprieve for Troubled Xanadu Entertainment Complex in Meadowlands,” the New York Times reported that Colony Capital was a privately held corporation that “owns hotels and casinos around the world, including the Hilton and Resorts casinos in Atlantic City. Its principal, Tom Barrack, was described on the cover of Fortune magazine last October as ‘the world’s greatest real estate investor.'”


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


“Barrack has done deals with Saudi princes, Texas oilmen, a Caribbean dictator — even with Donald Trump,” that sycophantic Fortune profile recounted. “He bought the Fukuoka Dome, Japan’s Yankee Stadium, in part because he calculated that the titanium in the retractable roof was worth as much as the purchase price. He bought and sold New York City’s Plaza hotel, turning a fast $160 million profit, as well as London’s tony Savoy chain, netting another $270 million. Even Trump defers: ‘Tom has an amazing vision of the future, an ability to see what’s going to happen that no one else can match.'” 

Describing Barrack as a “swashbuckler who moves at a furious gallop yet exudes an aura of calm,” Fortune recounted how in 1976 he had parlayed his ties with the Saudi princes into a hugely profitable three-way deal with the murderous Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier:

Barrack’s princes said they could arrange to have the kingdom grant the discount to Haiti; all they needed was for Haiti to reciprocate by extending diplomatic relations and most-favored-nation status to Saudi Arabia. At the palace, where the rotund Baby Doc perched on a throne, Barrack pitched the virtues of the deal. In the middle of his appeal, Baby Doc interrupted. “Can I try on the watch?” he asked, referring to a diamond-studded, $200,000 Piaget timepiece one of the princes was wearing. The prince agreed. When Barrack wrapped up, Duvalier had another question: “Can I keep the watch?” Baby Doc got the Piaget and opened the door for Saudi oil to come to Haiti.

By August 2010, Barrack’s Colony had to throw in the towel on finishing the beleaguered mall project, which had already burned through $2 billion. Along the way, public pension retirement funds from Iowa, Mississippi, Alaska, Texas and New York all got burned to the tune of hundreds of millions, chasing after the promised high rate of return from investments in the Xanadu/American Dream project that never seemed to materialize. 

Meanwhile, the State of New Jersey, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, continued to double down on its “investment” in the project, reasoning that it was simply in too deep to get out. This meant the ploughing of hundreds of millions of dollars into the project in the form of state subsidies, both direct and indirect, as well as in state highway and railway improvements through the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

Of course, this was done over the consistent and prescient objections of environmental advocate Jeff Tittel, then of the Sierra Club. By 2011, it was up to Gov. Chris Christie to enlist the legislature to double down on more state support of the swamp mall on behalf of yet another developer, Triple Five, the Canadian conglomerate that built the Mall of America in Minnesota.

New Jersey kept on doubling down on its “investment” in the swamp mall, reasoning — like so many victims of cons and scams — that it was in too deep to get out.

“This is the American Scheme, because it is about taking care of developers at the expense of the taxpayers of New Jersey,” said Tittel, who was director of New Jersey Sierra Club at the time. The state Senate, he said, had taken “the side of special interests over the financial health of our state.Teachers, police and firemen are being laid off, but we are going to give hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to a Canadian developer.”

Under the terms of the deal, according to Tittel, Triple Five got tax increment financing that “would allow for tax monies to be reinvested into the development rather than paid to the state, while the facility will still require state and municipal services such as police.”

This May, Bloomberg News reported that American Dream, under the management of Triple Five, had lost $60 million in 2021, drawing $173 million in revenue against $232 million in expenses. According to Bloomberg, the beleaguered project generated sales of $305 million, which was 15 percent of the $2 billion predicted in 2017 for the first year of operation.

On top of the outside construction loan, American Dream reportedly holds “$290 million in sales tax supported municipal bonds and $800 million of municipal debt backed by payments in lieu of property taxes. The mall reported $2.6 billion in total liabilities and about $500 million in equity.”

And what became of onetime swashbuckler Tom Barrack? Last week, amid the tempest swirling around the FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Largo compound, it was easy to miss the criminal proceedings in Brooklyn in which a judge rejected Barrack’s motion to remove his home confinement ankle bracelet before his federal corruption trial gets underway next month.

Barrack was an adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign, headed up his scandal-plagued Inaugural Committee and acted as an outside adviser with high-level access to Trump’s administration involving matters in the Middle East. “Barrack introduced Trump to his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and facilitated conversations that strengthened Trump’s ties to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, helping to realign the Middle East,” reported Forbes in 2018.

In July of last year, however, Barrack was indicted along with two other men for allegedly engaging “in a conspiracy to illegally advance and promote the interests of the United Arab Emirates in this country,” according to prosecutors. 

 “These arrests serve as a warning to those who act at the direction of foreign governments without disclosing their actions, as well as those who seek to mislead investigators about their actions, that they will be brought to justice and face the consequences,” said acting U.S. Attorney Jacquelin M. Kasulis for the Eastern District of New York.

Barrack’s lawyer argued that Barrack’s $250 million bond, one of the largest ever put up, should be sufficient to assure his appearance in court, according to the Daily News. The judge didn’t buy it. 

“Even with the current financial and travel restrictions, Barrack is a heavily resourced man with an extensive network of contacts throughout the world,” Judge Brian Cogan wrote. “Facing a potential prison term of at least a decade, at age 75, it would not be surprising for Barrack to determine that he would rather take his chances and flee, despite his extensive family ties and longtime residence in his community. This risk only grows as trial approaches.”

Will what befell Tom Barrack also befall his old friend, the former president? In any case, the problem is bigger than Trump. It’s the archetype of the swashbuckling, unprincipled mogul that we elevate, and that has repeatedly caused us grief.

“Hell state America”: Florida court bars “parentless” 16-year-old from getting abortion

Reproductive rights advocates were outraged by a Florida appellate court’s Monday decision upholding a trial judge’s move to block a “parentless” 16-year-old from getting an abortion.

Escambia County Circuit Judge Jennifer J. Frydrychowicz recently rejected the unidentified teen’s request for permission to bypass the parental notice and consent requirements under Florida law. A three-judge panel from the state’s 1st District Court of Appeal upheld that decision, which critics called “barbaric,” “flabbergasting,” “outrageous” and “unconscionable.”

Judges Harvey Jay and Rachel Nordby — joined in part by Judge Scott Makar — affirmed the decision of the trial court, which they said found that the teen “had not established by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.”

Florida law, the judges’ opinion notes, “allows for a remand to the trial court with instructions for a further ruling, but no such remand is warranted here.” On that point, Makar disagreed.

Makar concurred with affirming Frydrychowicz’s decision and praised the judge for displaying “concern for the minor’s predicament,” asking “difficult questions of the minor on sensitive personal matters in a compassionate manner” and producing “a thoughtful written order in a rapid fashion.”

However, he also said that “given the open-ended nature of the order reflecting the trial judge’s willingness to hear from the minor again — and the time pressures presented — I would remand the case to the trial court.”

As Makar detailed:

The minor is almost 17 years old and parentless. She lives with a relative but has an appointed guardian. She is pursuing a GED with involvement in a program designed to assist young women who have experienced trauma in their lives by providing educational support and counseling. The minor experienced renewed trauma (the death of a friend) shortly before she decided to seek termination of her pregnancy.

Her petition — a standard form that she completed by hand — stated two potential bases for a waiver under the statute. First, the minor states that she is sufficiently mature to make the decision, saying she “is not ready to have a baby,” she doesn’t have a job, she is “still in school,” and the father is unable to assist her… Second, the minor states that her “guardian is fine with what [she] wants to do,” which would be a sufficient basis for a waiver of notice if other statutory requisites are met.

Civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill said Makar’s opinion “highlights the particular outrage of the majority decision,” adding that “it’s clear the trial court judge expected that the minor would be able to return to her court to supplement her presentation” and “there is no basis for the appeals [court] to refuse the remand.”

“I’m having a hard time with the trial court judge’s decision as described in Judge Makar’s concurrence/dissent,” Ifill continued. “The minor seems to have more than met the standard. A ‘close case’ [should] err on granting the teen’s clearly thought-out request.”

Critics highlighted as ridiculous the courts’ conclusion that the teen is not mature enough to choose an abortion and thus should be forced to continue a pregnancy that will likely result in the birth of a child.

“A Florida court is blocking a 16-year-old from having an abortion because it says she’s not ‘mature’ enough to make that decision. But she’s mature enough to raise a child instead?” tweeted Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. “This is outrageous. And it’s why we must stop this extreme GOP agenda immediately!”


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


Writer and Northwestern University professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor similarly said: “Not mature enough to decide to terminate a pregnancy, but mature enough to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Hell state America.”

Florida Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book argued that it was “unconscionable” for the state to sentence the girl “to continue an unwanted pregnancy after she stated she was not ready to have a baby, was pursuing her education, didn’t have a job, and the father was unable to assist her.”

Just “shy of her 18th birthday and from legally being able to make this decision free from radical Republican overreach,” Book added, “I truly cannot fathom the court’s justification for finding this brave young woman ‘not sufficiently mature’ to choose what is best for herself, her body, and her future aside from pure political will or inability to separate church and state.”

Others also emphasized the importance of empowering pregnant youth to make decisions about their bodies. The group VoteProChoice declared that “young people need access to abortion care free from judgment — not barriers and forced birth.”

As Lauren Rankin — author of the 2022 book “Bodies on the Line: At the Front Lines of the Fight to Protect Abortion in America” — put it: “Young people should be able to legally terminate a pregnancy. They should also be given support and resources, free of judgment and stigma, if they choose to parent. The issue isn’t young people parenting. The issue is stigmatizing and eradicating their ability to do either.”

Monday’s controversial ruling follows GOP Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing a 15-week abortion ban in April and the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court majority overturning Roe v. Wade in June. Throughout the summer, stories of pregnant people nationwide struggling to access abortion care have stacked up.

Noting the Florida case in that context, Rewire executive editor Jessica Mason Pieklo said, “The tragedies are compounding and seem never-ending.”

“Where’s this money going?” Millions donated after Uvalde shooting still haven’t reached victims

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

UVALDE — Alfred Garza III wakes up at around 11 a.m. most days and downs a can of Monster Energy drink. After a shower, he heads to a popular eatery here, El Herradero de Jalisco, and orders a fajita chicken salad. Then, he makes his way to his father’s mechanic shop, where he hangs out until evening.

Then he goes home to watch Netflix or YouTube videos until he falls asleep around 1 a.m.

That’s been the grieving father’s routine since May 24, when a gunman killed 10-year-old Amerie Jo Garza, his only child, along with 18 other students and two teachers at Robb Elementary. Since that day, he’s been unable to muster the will to return to his old life and his job as a salesman at a local auto dealership.

Garza, 35, worries he’ll fall behind on his mortgage and car payments. He’s scrounging to pay for gas and food. And he’s confused about why he’s been unable to find meaningful financial assistance from nonprofits or the state, despite millions of dollars being made available to the people of Uvalde after the shooting.

“I’m not expecting life-changing money out of the situation,” Garza said from his living room, where the last school portrait of his daughter hangs on the wall. “It’s just to get me through this rough patch until I go back to work.”

After the shooting, Gov. Greg Abbott announced he would allocate $5 million for Uvalde to open a social services center for grieving residents. That created confusion for many in the community, including the mayor and a state representative for the area who said they expected those dollars to flow directly to residents.

“It’s just ridiculous, it’s almost like, where’s this money going? Like, “Hey, I need help, I need money,'” Garza said.

Separately, at least $16 million has been raised from thousands of donations from across the country, flowing into GoFundMe accounts and local nonprofit organizations. But that money hasn’t yet been distributed to the people it’s intended for, and it could take months before that is sorted out — the local committee overseeing the largest donation fund wants to wait two more months before the money is distributed.

Garza’s not the only one struggling to get by. One in five Uvalde residents — who are mostly Mexican American — live below the federal poverty line. And the trauma of Texas’ most deadly school shooting touches the victims’ families and friends, the survivors and the students, teachers and staff at Robb Elementary.

Several funds, each with their own rules

Mickey Gerdes, a local attorney who chairs the Uvalde 10-member committee in charge of the Uvalde Together We Rise fund, said donations have reached $16 million so far, collected through a GoFundMe account for the victims’ families, survivors of the shooting, and other local and regional organizations that have been fundraising.

Since it was formed on June 22, the committee has held two town hall meetings, the latest one last week, to allow families to share how they feel the money should be divided and who should qualify. The committee also needed time to research laws and make sure that recipients don’t get taxed for relief money and that they don’t lose other benefits such as Medicare and Medicaid after receiving financial help, Gerdes said.

He said he understands families need the money now, so the committee has agreed to start giving advances from $10,000 up to $25,000 after the application process opens on Sept. 8. Those advances will be deducted from the overall amount each recipient receives, he added

Gerdes said the committee chose an Oct. 20 cutoff date for donations “to maximize the number of funds.” and will start accepting applications for the money on Sept. 8 through the National Compassion Fund. The committee has partnered with the nonprofit, which has helped distribute $105 million since 2014 to victims and victims’ families of mass shootings.

In the meantime, families who lost loved ones or were injured in the shooting can apply for emergency funds to help pay for rent, mortgages, groceries or gas at hopeforuvalde.org. That fund is designed to help in the short term before the National Compassion Fund begins to distribute the larger funds.

Garza and others have turned to other places for financial help, which can be a time-consuming process. Garza said he filled out a 9-page application for help from the state attorney general’s Crime Vic­tims’ Com­pen­sa­tion Program, a 43-year-old program open to anyone in Texas who has been the victim of a crime. Two weeks later, Garza said he received $1,000, just enough to make one mortgage payment.

After the Uvalde shooting, the attorney general’s office promoted the program in a news release, saying the “team is working around the clock to ensure all qualifying applications are expeditiously reviewed, approved if allowed under Texas law, and reimbursed.”

The agency’s website says awards are capped at $50,000 and are meant to cover the costs of lost wages, medical expenses or funeral costs. According to the office, $36,213 had been paid “to or on behalf of victims” of the Uvalde shooting as of Monday.

The attorney general’s office “has not denied any claims related to the Uvalde shooting to date,” said Josh Reno, deputy attorney general of criminal justice. “It’s also worth noting that Texans have been extraordinarily generous in supporting the Uvalde community and victims of the horrific murders. The demand on the [Crime Victims’ Compensation] Program may therefore be less than it would be otherwise.”

“My heart breaks for the families and community in Uvalde. Words can hardly do justice — let alone money,” said Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement in May. “I encourage all victims, their families, and providers to apply for this program to help ease the burden they’re carrying.”

Garza also said he received some cash and gas station and grocery store gift cards, which helped him pay for his June and July expenses. He said he wasn’t clear on who gave this money out, but the Community Council of South Central Texas and the state Department of Housing and Community Affairs have provided more than $400,000 in gas cards, hotel stays, mortgage assistance and utility assistance to at least 192 Uvalde households.

“Our heads are not in the right place to be even doing any of that [paperwork] stuff,” Garza said. “It’s just very inconvenient to have to go through that to get help.”

Confusion about state money causes friction  

In May, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin and state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, whose district covers Uvalde, wrote a letter to Abbott that said the family of a shooting victim was at risk of having their power cut off while their daughter was in the hospital, while other families were offered compensation of two weeks’ pay, which they called “meager.”

The letter didn’t say who or what agency offered the two-week pay for some families.

In the letter, McLaughlin and Gutierrez asked Abbott to remove Uvalde District Attorney Christina Mitchell Busbee from overseeing the $5 million grant the state provided to Uvalde.

“These families cannot begin to heal unless they are given time to grieve free from financial worry,” Gutierrez said in the letter. “In short, the State of Texas ought to use every available resource in law to make these families whole.”

Abbott’s office responded by saying the governor would support whoever local officials put in charge of the social services center funded by the $5 million grant.

Busbee said the $5 million was never meant to be given directly to families. Instead, the grant required Uvalde to create the Uvalde Together Resiliency Center, where Uvalde residents can receive free services including counseling, help applying for unemployment benefits and services from the Mexican consulate by request.

Busbee said that she worries that McLaughlin and Gutierrez’s letter caused misinformation to spread.

“The [$5 million] grant actually prohibits me from taking money and giving it specifically to individuals,” she said. “That’s not what it’s for. It’s to run the Resiliency Center on behalf of the Uvalde community.”

The mayor didn’t respond to an interview request regarding the $5 million grant..

Gutierrez said in a phone interview the intention of his letter was to bring attention to the families who are struggling to get by. He said if families can’t receive money from the $5 million grant, he wants the Texas Division of Emergency Management to assign case workers to help families fill out the paperwork for other programs and help them navigate any other bureaucracy.

“The biggest thing that families are needing more than anything is, essentially, resources to pay the bills,” he said. “There are people that they’re simply traumatized and can’t go to work.”

He said some families have received donations directly through their own GoFundMe accounts “but not everybody had the same successful GoFundMe page.” He said the governor should be doing more to help families because Abbott has “failed to understand the problem on the ground.”

Renae Eze, a spokesperson for Abbott, said in a statement that the governor “has taken immediate action to address all aspects of the heinous crime committed in Uvalde, working with state agencies to deploy all available resources and provide support to the victims’ families and the Uvalde community.”

Eze said that apart from the $5 million grant for the center, Abbott has provided $1.25 million to the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District for counseling, another $105.5 million for school safety upgrades and mental health services across Texas and issued a disaster declaration in Uvalde so that agencies such as the Texas Division of Emergency Management could set up the temporary facility to house the resiliency center.

“I’m trying to put it back together” 

The new resiliency center is now in a temporary location just outside of the city limits behind the Uvalde County Fairplex, an event venue and indoor arena. The center is made up of a tent and 10 air-conditioned pods where counselors conduct sessions with residents.

Mary Beth Fisk, the interim executive director of the Uvalde Together Resiliency Center, said that since the center opened in June they have received 3,000 visits from local residents, mostly for counseling services.

Fisk said that while not everybody may be ready to see a counselor, she wants the community to know that there are services available. They have done different outreach campaigns, buying ads in the local paper, telling religious leaders to tell their congregations about the center and spreading the word on social media.

“The commitment is for the long term, we’re here to serve so families get what they deserve,” Fisk said.

The goal, Busbee said, is to keep the center open for at least four years using the state money. Uvalde County commissioners recently approved the purchase of a building where the center will be located for the long term, using $700,000 in state funds separate from the $5 million grant. The building, which used to house a bank, will be renovated using a separate grant or Uvalde County general funds, Busbee said.

Garza, who says he’s gone to one counseling session, said he hasn’t gone back to work because he doesn’t think he can focus on work. All he thinks about is Amerie Jo, and “what my life was like when I had my daughter, what my life is like now without my daughter and what my life is gonna be going forward.”

He misses his daughter’s infectious laugh. Amerie Jo, he said, was a witty girl who, like him, loved to socialize with people. He said he thinks he needs at least another two months before he feels “ready to go back out into the world.”

But whether he can afford to be out of work for two months is something he also considers. He said he is hoping he could get an advance from the National Compassion Fund once that becomes available.

“That’s kind of what I’m trying to process right now,” said Garza, who wore a cap with his daughter’s initials embroidered in red letters. “My life is kind of like in pieces right now and I’m trying to put it back together.”

 

Alexa Ura contributed to this story.


The full program is now LIVE for the 2022 The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 22-24 in Austin. Explore the schedule of 100+ mind-expanding conversations coming to TribFest, including the inside track on the 2022 elections and the 2023 legislative session, the state of public and higher ed at this stage in the pandemic, why Texas suburbs are booming, why broadband access matters, the legacy of slavery, what really happened in Uvalde and so much more. See the program.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/16/texas-uvalde-shooting-relief-money-victims/.

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

Truth-telling, confession and first-class lies: Is moral clarity possible in Donald Trump’s America?

Recent episodes of purposeful and accidental truth-telling brought to my mind the latest verbal lapse by George W. Bush, the president who hustled this country into war in Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. He clearly hadn’t planned to make a public confession about his own warmongering in Iraq when he gave a speech in Texas this spring. Still, asked to decry Russian president Vladimir Putin’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine, Bush inadvertently and all too truthfully placed his own presidential war-making in exactly the same boat. The words spilled out of his mouth as he described “the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified invasion of Iraq — I mean of Ukraine.”

Initially, he seemed shocked that he had blurted that out and tried to back off his slip by shrugging and muttering, “Iraq, too,” as if it were a joke. Some in his audience even laughed. But his initial attempt to sideline his comment only deepened the hole he was in. Then he tried another ploy. He suggested that his slip could be forgiven or excused because of his age, 75, and that his invasion and the destruction of Iraq could now be forgiven because of his cognitive decline. All in all, it was a first-class mess. 

An Earlier Pathetic Attempt at Comedy

I remember another of Bush’s attempted jokes that got an immediate laugh from his audience, but soon fell seriously flat. It was in 2004. The Iraq War was underway and the president was at the yearly dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association, a black-tie event attended by both journalists and politicians.

After various comedy sketches, then-President Bush rose to present a short meant-to-be humorous slideshow featuring himself supposedly looking for the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Remember that, in the lead-up to war there, Americans were hammered with fearful and deceptive political messaging, emphasizing that only an invasion could stop that country’s ruler, Saddam Hussein, from having WMD. (None were ever found, of course.) At that dinner, Bush showed photos of himself supposedly searching for those devastating weapons in the Oval Office beneath a cushion on the couch and under the desk. “No weapons under there!  Maybe they’re here!” said the smiling president repeatedly in a sing-song voice, as if engaged in a child’s game. Horrifyingly enough, many in that audience of journalists did indeed laugh.

I was offended then, just as I was by Bush’s recent slip and his sorry attempts to minimize and excuse his responsibility for the blood on his hands, the massive death toll from his invasion, and so much additional destruction and suffering. According to The Costs of War project, more than 207,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in that nightmare, while the number who died from the indirect violence of that war was far higher, given the damage done to the Iraqi health care system and the rest of that devastated country’s infrastructure. More than 20 years later, people are still dying needlessly. And I also mourn the more than 7,000 U.S. servicemembers who died in the post-9/11 war zones Bush created, as well as the many more who were wounded.

I can’t help but wonder if George Bush doesn’t feel at least a little of this himself. Otherwise, why would he have made such a slip? Or maybe it wasn’t a slip at all, but an inadvertent confession.

That his telling gaffe about Iraq and Ukraine received so little attention certainly reveals something about our media’s ongoing uneasiness with Bush’s wars and perhaps the conflicted feelings of our citizenry as well when it comes to what they did (and didn’t do) during the Iraq War. How many who were initially enthusiastic about the Afghan and Iraq wars would now, like their former president, admit we were wrong? How many people who supported those conflicts have taken what happened to heart and are thinking more deeply about an American propensity for war and the war culture that goes with it? Like George W. Bush, too few, I’m afraid.

Worshipping Lies

This past July 24th, the New York Times featured “I was wrong” op-ed pieces by a number of its columnists. The editors defined “being wrong” as “incorrect predictions and bad advice,” as well as “being off the mark.” Of course, one of the definitions of the Greek word for “sin” (amartia) in the New Testament is “missing the mark.”  Fascinating. 

I would have taken the editors’ definitions further though. Saying “I was wrong” means more than “rethinking our positions on all kinds of issues,” as the Times suggested. Often, the problem isn’t simply that people lack the best, most up-to-date information or data. Only by digging into ethics and social psychology will we better understand why people deceive not just others but even themselves with lies, slippery rationalizations, or comedic attempts at distraction to cover up deeper dynamics that have to do with privilege and power, or what religious traditions sometimes call “worshipping false idols.”

Moral psychologist Albert Bandera has explored some of the diverse mechanisms people rely on to morally disengage and excuse inhumane conduct. They shift their rhetoric and thinking to redefine and even rename what they are doing, “sanitizing” language (and their acts) in the process. In this way, they often shift responsibility onto someone else, minimize any damaging consequences for themselves, and dehumanize the victims of the violence they’ve let loose.

But there are other examples of moral disengagement that are even harder to understand. In such cases, people make decisions and act in ways that even undercut their own self-interest and values. For me, one of the saddest recent examples is Stephen Ayres, a witness at the House select committee’s January 6th hearings this summer. He had been part of the Trumpist mob that stormed the Capitol. A family man who, until then, owned a house and had a job with a cabinet company, Ayres came across in those hearings as a lost soul who couldn’t fully comprehend how he had willingly injured himself and his family by idolizing Donald Trump and his election lies.

His arrest for participating in the insurrection resulted in the loss of almost everything he had. With his wife sitting behind him, he testified about having to sell his house, losing his job, and struggling to come to terms with his actions. “I wish I had done my own research,” he said, trying to explain how he could have been so easily deceived by Trumpist lies regarding the 2020 presidential election.

Clearly, the social media bubble he slipped into that captivated and compelled him to head for Washington had given his life new meaning and an otherwise missing sense of excitement. He hadn’t planned to enter the Capitol building that day but was swept away by the moment. “Basically, we were just following what [Trump] said,” Ayres testified. In handing over his critical thinking to right-wing social media and a president intent on hanging onto power at any cost, he unwittingly also handed over his capacity for moral deliberation and, in the end, his very life.

Liz Cheney’s Struggle for Moral Clarity

In recent weeks, Liz Cheney, vice-chairperson of the January 6th committee, was questioned about a past moral choice of hers by Leslie Stahl in a 60 Minutes interview — specifically, how years ago she threw her lesbian sister and family under the bus for political purposes. It was a time when Cheney was struggling to get elected in conservative Wyoming. That meant coming out as anti-LGBTQ. Now, she says, “I was wrong” to have condemned her sister then.

Listening to her, I wanted to hear more about such moral grappling and how, in these years, her convictions had or hadn’t changed when it came to people, religion, family, political life, power, and the role her father played as George W. Bush’s vice president in those godforsaken wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, Stahl didn’t push her further.

I disagree with Liz Cheney on almost every policy position she’s taken in these years. Nonetheless, I find myself grateful for her rejection of Donald Trump’s mad election claims and her determined, even steely, leadership of the January 6th committee hearings. Cheney eventually discovered her moral bearings on her sister’s sexual orientation and family life. Now, I wonder if that past moral struggle influenced her decision to throw political expediency to the wind regarding her own House seat in a Wyoming primary that she might lose on August 16th. After all, by resisting the Trumpian tide, she’s become one of the few Republicans willing to do some serious truth-telling. 

Today, Cheney finds herself in another league from most of her party’s leaders and power players. In the state where I live, Pennsylvania, Republicans are coalescing behind the candidacy of Doug Mastriano for governor. Candidate Mastriano not only wants to arm school employees, but according to my local newspaper, he even organized buses for January 6th, now “rubs shoulders with QAnon conspiracy theorists,” and until recently had an active social media account at Gab, a site well-known for its white supremacist and anti-semitic rhetoric.

Mastriano continues to spread Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, is a Christian nationalist, and believes in an abortion ban without exceptions, and the list goes on and on. Nonetheless, Republicans like Andy Reilly, a member of the state GOP national committee, rationalize their support for Mastriano by saying things like, “When you play team sports, you learn what being part of a team means… Our team voted for him in the primary.” 

Lying to Others and Oneself

What enables such self-deception? According to journalist Mark Leibovich, author of Thank You for Your Servitude: Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission, what “made Trump possible” even after the January 6th insurrection was “rationalization followed by capitulation and then full surrender.” Reviewing Leibovich’s book, Geoffrey Kabaservice added this: “The routine was always numbingly the same, and so was the sad truth at the heart of it. They all knew better.” In other words, “knowing better” doesn’t assure anyone of doing the right thing. Instead, too many Americans were swayed by “greed, ambition, opportunism, fear, and fascination of Trump as a pure and feral rascal.”

Tim Miller, author of Why We Did It: Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell, adds “hubris, ambition, idiocy, desperation, and self-deception” to the mix of reasons why so many politicians do what they do. “How do people justify going along?” he asks. But he, too, played that game once upon a time. A Republican gay man with a husband, he rationalized helping the GOP pass anti-LGBTQ legislation by “compartmentalizing” his personal life from his professional one. As he now says, “Being around power, being addicted to power,” along with the insatiable compulsion to “be in the room where it happens,” is a recipe that leads people to act self-deceptively, while deceiving others.

It’s like placing scales over your own eyes and those of others, to blind as many people as possible, yourself included, to the immorality of your acts. And some lie even more to themselves, claiming that they can resist the worst tendencies of destructive power-mongering. They say, “We need to have good people in the room” to stop the worst from happening, even as they capitulate to power players and justify what should never be justified. 

Many of us are waiting to hear an “I was wrong” from so many politicians (though I can’t imagine Donald Trump ever succumbing to honesty), including most of the Republican leadership. Just for starters, I’d like to hear “I was wrong” regarding Muslim bans, the demonization of immigrants, the refusal to seriously address gun violence, the denial of women’s human rights, the gerrymandering and weakening of voting rights, religious nativism, and sidling up to white supremacy, not to speak of the supposed “steal” of the 2020 election. But given the likelihood that people in power will lie to themselves and others, I’m not holding my breath.  

Telling the Truth about U.S. Military Spending

What I’m also waiting for is an “I was wrong” from both Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington who, year after year, support ever more outlandish military budgets, despite so many other existential crises in our country and on the planet, despite the death-dealing costs of war to the servicemembers Americans claim to highly esteem, and despite the fact that our violence abroad simply hasn’t worked. 

Remember that the United States spends more than half of its entire discretionary federal budget on militarization and war, a tally greater than the military budgets of the next nine highest-spending countries combined. Tragically, it doesn’t appear that this will change any time soon.

According to an analysis by the anti-corruption group Public Citizen , in 2022, the congressional armed services committees only added to the already gigantic military budget the Biden administration requested for 2023. The House added another $37.5 billion, while the Senate added $45 billion. Our leaders refuse to learn from the last decades of unremitting war. Instead, power and privilege continue to hold sway. 

As the same report explained, after military-industrial-complex corporations donated $10 million to congressional armed services committee members, “the Department of Defense received a potential $45 billion spending increase.” This was in addition to the president’s $813 billion recommendation. The report concluded, “The defense contractors will have clinched a return on its $10 million investment of nearly 450,000%.”

It’s discouraging to see how deception and rationalization so regularly undermine truth and moral courage. It’s also sobering to witness individuals who willingly lie to themselves and, in doing so, subvert their own and others’ wellbeing. But I’m also encouraged by times when, as with Liz Cheney on that committee, some of us demonstrate what it means to dig deeply for moral clarity against the prevailing headwinds of moral disengagement, disinformation, power, and privilege.

The fact is that truth-telling and confession, while difficult, are good for the soul. I wish for more and hope it will be enough. God knows, all of us and this beleaguered planet truly need it.    

“We owe him nothing”: Rashida Tlaib vows to “vote down” Joe Manchin’s oil-friendly IRA side deal

With President Joe Biden set to sign the Inflation Reduction Act into law on Tuesday, progressive members of Congress are increasingly speaking out against a side agreement that Democratic leaders reached with Sen. Joe Manchin in order to secure final passage of the $740 billion climate, tax, and healthcare measure.

The side deal focuses primarily on permitting changes that would help fast-track fossil fuel infrastructure—including a long-delayed pipeline in Manchin’s home state of West Virginia—even as scientists say that meeting key emission-reduction targets requires a swift end to all new oil and gas development.

Because its provisions are outside the bounds of the budget reconciliation process, the permitting agreement must follow a legislative track separate from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which the Senate passed on August 7 and the House gave final approval on Friday.

The permitting legislation, a major boon to Manchin’s fossil fuel donors, would need 60 votes to pass the Senate, requiring some Republican support as well as unanimous backing from the Democratic caucus.

While progressives in the Senate and House voted for the IRA despite concerns about the bill’s handouts to the fossil fuel industry, they quickly made clear that they don’t feel bound to support the permitting proposal, which climate groups warn would gut crucial laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and shield dirty energy projects from legal challenges.

In a statement to The American Prospect on Tuesday, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said that “handshake deals made by others in closed rooms do not dictate how I vote, and we sure as hell don’t owe Joe Manchin anything now.”

“He and his fossil fuel donors already got far too much in the IRA,” Tlaib added.

Tlaib’s comments to the Prospect echo the sentiments she expressed in a statement shortly after final passage of the IRA last week.

“My yes vote today is not quiet acceptance of the Manchin poison pills,” said the Michigan Democrat. “We will be united in defeating the separate Manchin ‘permitting reforms’ that will accelerate climate change and pollute Black, brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities.”

“Now that the IRA has passed,” she continued, “there is absolutely zero reason that Congress should follow through on a backdoor handshake deal that directly undermines the purpose of the IRA. Manchin went back on his word to get [Build Back Better] done, and we owe him nothing now.”

Tlaib isn’t the only House Democrat speaking out against the side deal, a draft form of which has been circulating among lobbyists and lawmakers in recent days.

One draft document obtained by Bloomberg earlier this month bore the watermark “API,” the acronym for the American Petroleum Institute, a powerful oil and gas industry lobbying organization.

Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, blasted the side deal and vowed to fight it following passage of the IRA, which Democrats and environmentalists have hailed as a historic climate action measure even as they acknowledge its serious flaws.

“Environmental justice communities know all too well that permitting reform is nothing more than industry code for the systematic gutting of our most foundational environmental and public health protections, like the National Environmental Policy Act,” said Grijalva. “Polluting industries may have won that promise in a deal with a select few, but I intend to do everything in my power to convince the rest of my colleagues to break it.”

Amid reports that Democratic leaders are planning to attach a permitting measure to must-pass spending legislation such as a bill to keep the government funded, Grijalva is demanding a standalone vote on the deal.

“We’re going to start early to urge a separate vote,” Grijalva told The Hill on Friday. “One of my prerogatives is that if I’m opposed to it—to vote against it.”

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., for his part, told Politico that he is “not going to be steamrolled into a bunch of fossil fuel giveaways just because Manchin cut a deal in a closed room with Chuck Schumer.”

“He doesn’t get to run the show on something like this,” Huffman added, “and many of us will have a say on what that deal looks like if it even happens.”

Progressive opposition to the permitting deal inside Congress is mounting as grassroots advocacy groups and frontline organizations ramp up their mobilizations against the agreement, warning it poses a severe threat to the climate and vulnerable communities.

“This permitting wish list is an unacceptable sacrifice of the communities and environment of our region,” Appalachian Voices declares in a new petition urging Congress to reject the plan, which would clear the way for the Mountain Valley Pipeline and other emission-spewing fossil fuel projects.

“The proposals included in the list would limit state authority under the Clean Water Act, require federal agencies to rush review processes, and limit—or even avoid—review under the National Environmental Policy Act,” the petition continues. “These measures would put a great deal of strain on federal agencies and limit their ability to thoroughly vet permits for polluting infrastructure. The wish list would ultimately benefit the fossil fuel industry and bring further harm to our climate and our futures.”

In a blog post last week, renowned environmentalist Bill McKibben endorsed efforts to tank Manchin’s side deal, citing the West Virginia Democrat’s repeated obstruction of climate action in the recent past.

“We’re in a life-and-death struggle for a working planet; the IRA advances our chances, and permitting reform would reduce them. The moral choice is therefore obvious,” argued McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org. “Manchin played games for years; it’s time to play games with his game.”

Liz Cheney takes a final swipe at Trump after GOP defeat: “That was a path I could not” take

Rep. Liz Cheney quickly conceded her primary loss on Tuesday, explicitly acknowledging that the GOP voters of Wyoming rejected her — despite a staunchly conservative voting record as the third-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives — after publicly criticizing Donald Trump. 

“This primary election is over, but now, the real work begins.”

Her defeat was expected, as was the celebration from nearly all of Republican media. Cheney sacrificed her political career when she didn’t have to. 

“Two years ago, I won this primary with 73% of the vote. I could easily have done the same again,” she told supporters on Tuesday. “The path was clear, but it would’ve required that I go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election… That was a path I could not and would not take.”


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


The highest-ranking Republican to vote to impeach Trump over the Capitol riot, Cheney took a stand on principle, even as it left her in direct opposition to the driving principles of the overwhelmingly Republican electorate of her state. She represented Wyoming’s only seat in the House. Three other House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump lost their primary bids against Trump-backed challengers in recent weeks. While four of the other six opted to retire. 

Even after Jan. 6, however, Cheney continued to stand in opposition to pro-democracy initiatives like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, making clear that despite her repulsion to Trump, there is a direct connection between her voting record and the rise of Donald Trump.

Cheney lost to Harriet Hagemana Trump-endorsed lawyer who spent decades fighting federal rules protecting land, water and endangered species.

Trump’s biggest boosters celebrated the news on Twitter. 

But other prominent Republicans, like Trump’s former national security advisor and fellow neocon John Bolton, praised Cheney’s bravery in defeat. 

The only four episodes of “Game of Thrones” where no one dies

“Game of Thrones” was famous for a number of things: spectacular battle scenes, a weirdly large number of people who were okay with incest, and death death death. If “Game of Thrones” developed a reputation for anything, it was for being a show where no one was safe.

That said, the series couldn’t be killing people all the time, and there are indeed a few episodes where no one bit it. Not many — four out of 73, by Screen Rant’s account — but enough to give us a breather every once in a while.

And by episodes with “no deaths,” we mean that no named characters died now did any random soldier or peasant. Here are the four episodes of “Game of Thrones” that gave us a bit of a break:

Episode 103: “Lord Snow”

The series premiere of “Game of Thrones” opens with a group of Night’s Watchmen being killed by White Walkers, and the second episode ends with Ned killing Sansa’s faithful direwolf Lady. But the third episode, “Lord Snow,” gave us a bit of a reprieve as storylines around Westeros and Essos got going.

In Essos, Daenerys Targaryen gains confidence as the wife of Khal Drogo, even as it becomes clear that her brother Viserys is not respected. In King’s Landing, Catelyn visits Ned to tell him of a plot against their family. At Winterfell, Bran learns that he will never walk again; and at the Wall, Jon struggles to set into his new life just as his new friend Tyrion Lannister departs down south.

“Lord Snow” is a relatively quiet episode often considered one of the weaker ones of the season, possibly because no blood is spilled. The show would remedy that soon enough.

Episode 307: “The Bear and the Maiden Fair”

By this point in the show the War of the Five Kings is raging and a lot of people have died. It’s kind of surprising that everyone makes it out of this one alive, although there are a couple close calls. Mostly notably, Brienne nearly gets gored by a bear before Jaime Lannister’s heart grows three sizes and he decides to save her.

Elsewhere, Daenerys negotiates with officials from the slave city of Yunkai, Arya runs away from the Brotherhood Without Banners only to be captured by the Hound, and Jon Snow continues walking a tightrope as he pretends to work with the wildlings even as he plans to betray them. No one may have died in this episode (well, Ygritte shoots a deer), but it’s plenty tense anyway.

This would be the last bloodless episode of “Game of Thrones” we got for a while.

Episode 606: “Blood of My Blood”

Here’s another episode that sets up bloody events to come but doesn’t quite get to them. Bran and Meera flee the cave of the Three-Eyed Raven following the death of Hodor and are spared a similar fate thanks to the arrival of Benjen Stark. Jaime Lannister prepares to assault the High Sparrow, but finds that his son King Tommen has converted to his cause. Sam visits his family in the Reach, and Arya breaks with the Faceless Men in Braavos, which means they’re going to come after her.

There is a bit of a backdoor in this one: at the top of the episode, Bran — who’s still absorbing the history of all the world after becoming the new Three-Eyed Raven — sees flashes of events from the past, as well as glimpses of what’s to come. He briefly sees a young Jaime Lannister kill the Mad King Aerys Targaryen, but because the death doesn’t technically happen in this episode, we’re gonna let it off on a technicality.

But should we? Maybe there are only three episodes of “Game of Thrones” with no deaths.

Episode 802: “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”

“A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” is a deep breath before all hell breaks loose in “The Long Night,” when the Night King and his army of the dead assault Winterfell. It’s the best episode of Season 8, in large part because it just lets characters we’ve come to love hang out. Highlights include Podrick singing “Jenny of Oldstones,” Sansa reuniting with Theon, and of course, Jaime knighting Brienne.

Not to dredge up the old debates about the quality of Season 8, but if the rest of the final episodes had taken cues from “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” and made room for a few more pauses and beats, I think the whole thing would have come out looking much better. Ah well.

A “Game of Thrones” prequel show called “House of the Dragon “will premiere on HBO and HBO Max on Aug. 21. Rest assured that there will be plenty of death in that one too.

Michelle Branch, Patrick Carney and the nuances of how we talk about abuse

The events escalated quickly.

In the early hours of Thursday morning, musician Michelle Branch wrote on Twitter that she had discovered her husband of about three years, musician Patrick Carney, with whom she has two small children, cheated on her with his manager while Branch was at home with the couple’s youngest child, who is 6 months old. The woman Branch named in the tweet quickly took her social media private. Branch did not, but deleted the tweet

On Friday, Branch filed from divorce from Carney. Soon after, it was revealed that Branch had been taken into police custody Thursday morning after law enforcement was called to the couple’s home in Nashville for a possible domestic disturbance.

It’s confusing and developing, but these events may bring more attention to an important topic, one that, thanks to the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, seems to be in the news more and more: intimate partner violence and control.

In the divorce filing, Branch cited “irreconcilable differences.” The marriage with Carney was her second. Branch was previously married for more than a decade to Teddy Landau, the bass player in her band at the time. They married when she was 21 and he was 40, and have a 17-year-old daughter together. This was Carney’s third marriage, having previously been married from 2007 to 2009 to Denise Grollmus and from 2012 to 2016 to Emily Ward. 

Multiple people turned her song titles into punchlines, especially “Goodbye to You.” Others made jokes of confusing Branch with musician Vanessa Carlton. 

Branch and Carney, who is a producer and the drummer for The Black Keys, met at a Grammy party in 2015. Her divorce from Landau was finalized later that year, as Carney’s was with Ward a year later. On social media in the wake of the Branch divorce news, commentors were quick to allege earlier infidelities. In a 2011 Salon essay, writer Grollmus alleged Carney was unfaithful to her. 

Michelle BranchSinger-songwriter Michelle Branch performing in concert during ‘The Hopeless Romantic Tour’ at Emo’s on July 30, 2017 in Austin, Texas. (Rick Kern/WireImage/Getty Images)The internet was also quick to rally mostly behind Branch, the Grammy award winner of such hits as “Everywhere,” and “Happy Now,” who shot to stardom when she was still a teenager. “Hopefully, Branch can move on from this dude,” Jezebel wrote. Multiple people turned her song titles into punchlines, especially “Goodbye to You.” Others on social media made jokes of confusing Branch with musician Vanessa Carlton; both have black hair and found artistic popularity as young women in the early 2000s. 

That Branch was arrested when police came to her and Carney’s home did not deter the internet’s support. As Vulture and others reported, Branch’s arrest was for misdemeanor domestic assault. TMZ reported on court documents where “Branch admitted she slapped Carney ‘one to two times,’ and Carney did not sustain visible injuries.” Branch was released from custody after making the $1,000 bond. Vulture attributed her early release in part to be able to nurse the couple’s breastfeeding infant, who was named for Carney’s grandmother. 

The Los Angeles Times and others commented on Branch’s police photograph, in which a red mark is visible below her eye, but Branch has a port wine stain birth mark which she chooses to sometimes cover with makeup. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXYp3n4gGAl/

Some fans saw the alleged slapping as a kind of rallying cry, a justification for the deep betrayal. One argument is that violence is violence, and as such, is always unacceptable. Others have brought up reactive violence, a type of aggression triggered by a prolonged provocation or perceived threat. This was a term brought into popular discussion during the Depp and Heard trial. As Dr. Jordan Schaul said in an interview with The Daily Dot: “Domestic abusers and other perpetrators may intentionally elicit reactions from victims and targets to discredit them and justify their own behavior.” 

“We see one person being the initiator and one person responding.”

A contested term during the Depp and Heard trial was “mutual abuse.” A clinical psychologist who provided couples counseling to Depp and Heard in 2015 alleged that was their dynamic. The psychologist, Laurel Anderson, as reported by Salon, said in court that Depp claimed Heard “gave as good as she got.” But a therapist interviewed by Salon said that therapists typically do not see mutual abuse, a dynamic of equal violence between partners. “We see one person being the initiator and one person responding,” Dr. Kathy Nickerson, a licensed clinical psychologist, told Salon. “There’s a difference between harmful behaviors and abuse.”

Abuse can take different forms, including a persistent pattern of manipulation, control or denying someone’s reality. Infidelity can relate to abuse, as Dr. Robert Weiss writes in Psychology Today: “in which the men and women who commit infidelity sometimes victimize and abuse their betrayed partners — usually as part of justifying or covering up their behavior.” Along with threats, emotional abuse, or physical or sexual abuse, Weiss lists neglect as a form of abuse, in which an abusive partner is not “holding up one’s end” of responsibilities or “emotionally abandoning a partner and/or children.”

At the same time, women can be abusers, and men can and are abused, including by female intimate partners. According to the National Coalition of Domestic Violence, 1 in 9 men experience severe domestic violence, compared to 1 in 4 women, yet in 1 in 4 men experience “some form of physical violence by an intimate partner,” compared to 1 in 3 women. “This includes a range of behaviors (e.g. slapping, shoving, pushing) and in some cases might not be considered ‘domestic violence.'”


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


As writer Shannon Ashley argues about Branch and Carney: “How our culture shifts is dependent upon our collective reactions right now. Laughing, mocking, and making light of what’s happened will push us to continue to handle future abuse in unsavory, unequal ways. Speaking openly, acknowledging the complexities and nuance — that will help us to move forward and change our course.”

If the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial taught us anything, it’s that many people struggle with nuance. The Branch and Carney incident may be yet another example of the complications of domestic violence, and the need to acknowledge its lasting impact. 

Three years ago, a star in Orion inexplicably dimmed. Astronomers finally know why

Earth’s sun is a predictable star, and that’s a good thing: if the sun fluctuated in its brightness significantly from year-to-year, the solar system would be a much less hospitable place for life. But while most stars in the universe are as regular as our sun, a small percentage aren’t — and when a star suddenly dims or brightens, it usually signifies something odd is happening with it, or even that it could be on the verge of exploding.

So when astronomers noticed in 2019 that Betelgeuse had dimmed, some speculated that the massive star was going to expand into a supernova so large it would be visible from Earth even during the daytime hours. Given that Betelgeuse is the tenth-brightest star in the night sky, citizens of Earth paid attention. Novas or supernovas that are visible with the naked eye are rare, and when they do happen, they tend to be generation-defining events: the last time a nearby star went supernova, in 1604, it was so bright that it was visible during the daytime

Betelgeuse’s mysterious behavior made headlines — and then it got more mysterious in February 2020. Then, reports surfaced that Betelgeuse was regaining some of its waning brightness. Before long, the so-called “Great Dimming” had captured the public’s imagination. Scientists and amateur astronomers alike obsessed over Betelgeuse’s odd behavior, trying to derive the meaning; one independent scientist even set up a Twitter bot, “BetelBot,” which issued regular updates on Betelgeuse’s varying brightness.  

But now, thanks to a group of scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope, we now know the cause of Betelgeuse’s Great Dimming: A coronal mass ejection (CME), or a phenomenon in which a star’s corona (or crown) erupts with a massive cloud of highly magnetized and energetic plasma.

“It has very large convective cells on its surface, which means there is hot material moving upward from within, similar to chocolate sauce boiling in a pot,” explained study author Dr. Andrea Dupree, associate director of the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in an email to Salon.

The paper itself was posted to the preprint database arXiv and accepted for publication by The Astrophysical Journal. 

“It appears that in 2019, [Betelgeuse’s] outward expansion seemed to last an exceptionally long time and coincided with the presence of an exceptionally large convective cell,” Dupree said. The dimming that observers noted at that time was caused by “an ejection of a substantial part of the star’s surface followed by the presence of a cooler spot, presumably due to gas expanding to fill the void.”

“Stars live like these live for millions of years, but the end comes relatively quickly,” Murphy wrote to Salon.

Since Betelgeuse is a massive star (it is 1000 times larger than our sun), roughly a year passed before people began to note the consequences of this event. Yet astronomers “could see material moving out through the star’s atmosphere (in the southern part of the star) using the Hubble Space Telescope,” Dupree explained. “And then that southern part became very dim, as if a dark cloud were covering it. So we believe the dimming is attributed to the material that was ejected and cooled, as well as the cool spot from the gas that expanded into the void left by the ejected material.”


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


Dr. Avi Loeb, an astronomer at Harvard University, told Salon by email that part of the reason the discovery about Betelgeuse is so significant is that it is an unusual star — specifically, a red supergiant (which have the largest radii of all known stars). Moreover, Betelgeuse is so large that “if it were at the center of our Solar System, its envelope would engulf the asteroid belt and the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.”

Speaking of red supergiants, Loeb said that “understanding their properties and evolution is important for understanding their fate when they consume their nuclear fuel and eventually explode. They all go on to burn heavier elements and undergo core-collapse resulting in a supernova.”

Loeb also offered some illumination on the star’s period of re-brightening in February 2020.

“By 22 February 2020, Betelgeuse started to brighten again,” Loeb explained. “Infrared observations found no significant change in brightness over the last 50 years, suggesting that the dimming was due to a change in extinction by large dust grains. Data from the Hubble Space Telescope in 2022 suggested that occluding dust was created by a surface mass ejection and caused the dimming.”

“It has very large convective cells on its surface, which means there is hot material moving upward from within, similar to chocolate sauce boiling in a pot,” explained study author Dr. Andrea Dupree.

Dr. Phil Massey, an astronomer at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, told Salon by email that he did not believe most astronomers seriously believed that Betelgeuse was about to explode as a supernova. Some believed that the Great Dimming had been caused by a giant starspot somewhere on Betelgeuse’s surface — a starspot being the interstellar equivalent to our sun’s sunspots, blemishes that appear periodically on the surface of stars. Others theorized that Betelgeuse was undergoing a dust formation event — in which a star will “lose mass in an episodic way” that results in a cloud of dust in its vicinity.

Massey noted that he and Dr. Emily Levesque of the University of Washington, with whom he has been studying red supergiants since 2003, had found that the star’s temperature had been essentially unchanged over many years. That was an important clue as to what was going on with the second-brightest star in the Orion constellation.

“To us, that completely ruled out the ‘star spot’ explanation and meant that there had been some sort of large mass ejection, leading to the formation of dust.” (They later wrote a paper on the subject for the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.)

Regarding Dupree’s observations, Massey said that they vindicated the earlier research he had done with Levesque: “Their results confirm what we’ve long suspected — that red supergiants ‘burp’ out large amount of mass from time to time, and that this mass-loss is more episodic in nature than constant.”

Dr. Alex Murphy, an astronomer at the University of Edinburgh, also praised Dupree’s work by adding that it allows people to better understand a development which — technologically speaking — they would have been unable to appreciate only a few decades ago.

“Stars live like these live for millions of years, but the end comes relatively quickly,” Murphy wrote to Salon. “So we’re really lucky to have one so close to us and in this phase now, when mankind has ‘just’ (astronomically speaking) developed the technology to be able to see what’s happening. We have pretty good understanding of what’s happening, but there’s nothing like seeing it first hand.”

This dairy-free Italian cream soda is your summer savior

A quick trip to South Dakota provided everything I could want in a Wild Wild West-themed adventure and then some. I took home a rock from Crazy Horse Memorial, roamed with the buffalo at Custer State Park, posed with the presidential statues in Rapid Cityhiked the Badlands, and picked George Washington’s nose from afar at Mount Rushmore. But shockingly enough, one of the most impactful (and random) takeaways from my visit was a reinterpretation of Italian cream soda concocted by Katlyn Svendsen, a member of the state’s tourism department, who invited journalists like me to experience everything the Midwest destination has to offer.

Within hours of arrival, our group was fascinated to find the inventor herself taking a can of flavored sparkling water, chugging a few sips, and then topping it off with her favorite brand of almond milk creamer. That’s it . . . painfully and almost comically simple, yet so smart.

Of course, this is a less sweet, dairy-free alternative to a traditional Italian cream soda, which is made with club soda, crushed ice, sugary syrup, and two kinds of cream (heavy and whipped). Syrup flavors can even be tailored to individual preferences, ranging from fruit and nuts to chocolate and vanilla.

Anyone is, by all means, welcome to use a sweet base (or even a sweetened creamer) to preserve its integrity, but Svendsen’s lighter beverage proved to be a hit with everyone as both a refreshing quencher during laborious outdoor activities and a creative departure from basic bubbly H2O.

When asked about her beloved brew, Svendson said “once the flavored sparkling water trend hit, I had to figure out a quick and convenient way to enjoy it along with everyone else.”

This foray into beverage ingenuity came as no surprise for the busy mom, who revealed that she forgoes caffeinated beverages in favor of sparkling water.

“We love to be outdoors and in remote locations, so running into a local coffee shop to get an Italian soda isn’t a reality in my world, ” she said.

“I also don’t love carbonation. So a bit of creamer jazzes it up for me, cuts the fizz, and creates something magical.”

Svendsen has even become a bit of a tailgate barista: She keeps a variety of flavored sparkling waters in her SUV’s cooler so that friends and family members can enjoy the summertime sipper during sporting events and neighborhood get-togethers.

But what are her preferred cans and bottles? Waterloo’s black cherry with any almond milk-based creamer.

“LaCroix is most readily available where I live, so I drink a fair amount of that, too, and typically a berry flavor with a vanilla creamer,” she divulged. “I [also] recently discovered Evian’s sparkling water and I enjoy some vanilla creamer in their grapefruit basil flavor. Coffeemate’s Natural Bliss almond creamer or an oat creamer pour in beautifully.”

Of course, I had to ask the South Dakota expert for her favorite regional dish (Italian cream soda and the former Sunshine State don’t quite go hand in hand when it comes to local food and drink culture).

“Chislic,” she shared without hesitation. “Oh my gosh — it’s pure magic and a very ‘South Dakota thing’ that is delightful.”

“Chislic was first mostly found in southeastern South Dakota and was traditionally made with lamb. Today, it is found in bars across the state and is typically beef,” she added, describing the state’s signature skewer. “The best correlation is steak tips. The meat is in small bite-sized pieces, highly seasoned, and cooked (typically fast-fried or grilled) quickly to remain tender. People often dip it in either a steak sauce, ranch (because hello, Midwest), or aioli.”

So the next time you find yourself in South Dakota, order a plate of chislic and cheers to it with an Italian cream soda (Svendsen-style, of course).

According to Danny Trejo, fried chicken belongs in your quesadilla

You might know him from movies like “Machete” and “Bad Ass,” but these days, you’re just as likely to find Danny Trejo in the kitchen of one of his LA restaurants as on a movie set. In fact, it was at one of these restaurants — Trejo’s Tacos in Santa Monica, California, to be precise — that the actor, cookbook author, and restaurateur walked listeners through his method for making Pollo Frito Quesadillas on the latest episode of Food52’s podcast, “Play Me a Recipe.” Described by Trejo as “mouthwatering,” these quesadillas aren’t your average after-school snack — they come stuffed with super-crispy fried chicken, slaw made from green cabbage and chipotle crema, fresh chiles, and cheese.

Here’s what we learned cooking with Danny Trejo:

  1. First and foremost: Fried chicken belongs just as much in a quesadilla as it does on a waffle with maple syrup. “This fried chicken is delicious on its own, but when we pair it with salsa and load it into a quesadilla, it’s a whole other level of delicious,” says Trejo.

  2. Salting your chicken 30 minutes prior to dredging and frying creates a light curing effect, “[making] the meat even more flavorful.” This technique, similar to a dry-brine, also ensures a moist, juicy final product. (But, in a pinch, any leftover fried chicken will work just as well — just make sure it’s roughly chopped prior to assembly.)

  3. If you like spicy chicken, introduce multiple sources of heat. To provide “a little bit of kick” in this recipe, Trejo seasons the fried chicken dredge with cayenne pepper, plus garlic and onion powders, dried oregano, and sweet paprika. Then, he loads the quesadilla with spicy, chipotle crema and thinly-sliced serrano chiles.

  4. As for building the quesadilla, Trejo emphasizes the importance of making sure each component is “evenly spread” to ensure a balanced mix of fried chicken, cabbage slaw, chiles, and cheese in each bite.

To hear more from Danny Trejo, check out the latest episode of our podcast, “Play Me a Recipe.” Or, you can find the full recipe for Trejo’s Tacos’ Pollo Frito Quesadilla below.

Recipe: Danny Trejo’s Pollo Frito Quesadilla (Fried Chicken Quesadilla)

De La Calle wants to make tepache, an ancient Mexican drink, a household name in the US

When the hot, dry breath of summer settles over southern New Mexico with seemingly no end in sight, my cadre of tolerable beverages constricts to solely those that quench. Enter De La Calle tepache, the bright and refreshing canned take on an ancient fermented drink you’ll find on wheeled carts at street markets or bubbling away under the sink in home kitchens across Mexico. 

I gazed at the cactus-dotted expanse of my desert backyard beneath a punishing sun as I cracked a condensation-beaded can of pineapple spice — one of the original five flavors Los Angeles-based De La Calle debuted with last year. The zero-proof drink was tart and lightly fizzy, with gentle warmth from cinnamon, ginger and black pepper. Unlike the multitude of sodas and fruity ready-to-drink beverages on the market, De La Callie’s delicate sweetness didn’t linger — making it a fine, understated base for a shot of tequila or mezcal, should the occasion arise to turn it dirty, I thought innocently. 

De La Calle’s flagship flavor also proved a fitting entrypoint to tepache itself, which is traditionally made by fermenting pineapple peels and cores for a few days with unrefined brown sugar and spices. This pre-Columbian beverage purportedly originated among the Nahua people of central Mexico or the Mayans of the Yucatan. The name, which stems from the Nahuatl word “tepiatl,” is a conjunction of “corn” and “tender water,” referring to the drink’s corn base. After Spanish colonizers introduced fruits like pineapple, the spiny tropical fruits became the preferred base for tepache. (You’ll still find fermented corn drinks all over Mexico, colloquially known as tejuino.) 

For Rafael Martin del Campo, who co-founded De La Calle with CEO Alex Matthews, tepache conjures clay jars lining the fruit carts at street festivals and celebrations in his native Querétaro, Mexico. But most of all it takes him to his childhood home kitchen, where he’d often watch his grandmother make tepache, fine-tuned to consonance with cinnamon and black pepper. 

Most of all it takes him to his childhood home kitchen, where he’d often watch his grandmother make tepache, fine-tuned to consonance with cinnamon and black pepper.

“I remember coming to the kitchen and smelling fruit, and I would eat pineapple while she was making tepache,” says del Campo. “She learned to make it from her grandmother; it’s something that’s passed down from generation to generation.” 

Del Campo went on to study fermentation in a food sciences and technology program in college and worked in research and development for kombucha brand KeVita, while at home he continued evolving his generational tepache recipe with new additions like star anise and ginger. A friend introduced him to Matthews, an entrepreneur who’d co-founded beverage brands Vina and Juice Served Here and had fallen in love with tepache on trips to Mexico City. 

“He asked me if I knew what tepache was,” del Campo says. “I’m like, ‘I make this at home in my kitchen!’ I made a batch that same weekend, brought it in for him to taste the next week and he said, ‘wow, this is amazing! Why doesn’t it exist out there?'”

Del Campo and Matthews spent roughly a year traveling around Mexico getting inspired by regional Mexican ingredients and seasonal flavors, while del Campo workshopped and scaled his recipes. The lineup of now nine flavors in cheerful, candy-colored cans includes mango chili, tamarind citrus, orange turmeric, ginger manzana, cactus prickly pear and watermelon jalapeño. A process during production extracts the alcohol that naturally occurs as part of the fermentation process, leaving behind lactic acid. (I can’t help but quip to Del Campo that one of the top Google searches related to tepache is, “Can tepache get you drunk?”)

Since launching in January 2021, the company has expanded at a rapid clip from its L.A. homebase, securing $7 million in funding and achieving distribution in some 30 states within just over a year. 

I can’t help but quip to Del Campo that one of the top Google searches related to tepache is, “Can tepache get you drunk?”

“We’re expanding as we talk,” Del Campo says, referencing a national rollout in Whole Foods and throughout California Target stores, both of which take place in September. He thinks the drink’s relative healthfulness — low in calories, probiotic and antioxidant-rich — has a lot to do with its appeal. Not to mention the simple calculation of its plain likability — something our Mexican neighbors have known for centuries. 


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


“Everybody in Mexico already knows about tepache — it’s so popular, there’s a pop culture song called ‘Pina & Fresa,'” he said. “Here we’re educating the general population, and I think it’s going well. Just think of kombucha — nobody knew what it was not that long ago. But if it’s something people like then it’s going to be accepted by the masses.” 

As for me, my current favorite is tamarind citrus. Inspired by its namesake fruit pod — which you’ll find on the beaches of southern Mexico mixed to a paste with sugar and chiles — the canned iteration is tangy and salty-sweet. Perfect on a searing afternoon, corregido con un chupito de tequila, should the occasion arise, of course.

“Unacceptable”: Trump-appointed inspector general stonewalls Jan. 6 probe and blocks witnesses

Rep. Bennie Thompson D-Miss,, the chairman of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riots, has put the inspector general’s office for the Department of Homeland Security on notice.

Thompson and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., sent a letter to the DHS IG’s office on Tuesday informing them that they are now considering “alternate means” to secure information they had requested about the Secret Service text messages related to January 6th that went missing.

The letter began by calling out the IG’s office for purportedly stonewalling their investigation.

“In response to the Committees’ requests, you have refused to produce responsive documents and blocked employees in your office from appearing for transcribed interviews,” wrote Thompson and Maloney. “Your obstruction of the Committees’ investigations is unacceptable, and your justifications for this noncompliance appear to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of Congress’s authority and your duties as an Inspector General.”

The letter then detailed three separate instances of noncompliance with the House Select Committee’s requests, including an initial failure to alert Congress to missing January 6-related texts, as well as the office’s “repeated failures to gather text messages from the Secret Service and other senior officials related to the January 6 attack.”

The letter concluded with a warning about facing a potential subpoena if the committee’s demands remain unmet.

“Your failure to comply with our outstanding requests lacks any legal justification and is unacceptable,” they wrote. “Please provide all responsive documents by August 23, 2022, and make the individuals requested for transcribed interviews available by the same date. If you continue to obstruct, we will have no choice but to consider alternate means to ensure compliance.”

Read the whole letter here (PDF).

“The scope is mind-blowing”: Trump allies’ voting system breach is “way beyond what we thought”

Donald Trump’s lawyers directed computer experts to copy sensitive data from Georgia election systems as part of a broad and well-organized effort to access voting equipment in multiple states.

Emails and other records obtained by the Washington Post show lawyers asked the forensic data firm Atlanta-based SullivanStrickler to access election systems in at least three key states, and attorneys for voting-security activists and Georgia voters said the documents confirmed the state’s election system had been copied.

“The breach is way beyond what we thought,” said attorney David D. Cross, who is representing the plaintiffs. “The scope of it is mind-blowing.”

The documents show attorney Sidney Powell dispatched a team to Michigan to copy a rural county’s election data and then helped arrange for them do that in the Detroit area, and a Trump campaign attorney sent the team to Nevada, and SullivanStrickler experts copied data from a Dominion voting system in Coffee County, Georgia, on Jan. 7, 2021.

A criminal investigation is underway in Michigan against several individuals whose names appear in the newly revealed documents, and Mesa County clerk Tina Peters is under indictment in Colorado on felony charges including conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and attempting to influence a public servant.

SullivanStrickler was permitted by courts to examine voting equipment in at least two counties, although details about those efforts have not yet been made public, and the new documents show Powell’s group discussed and paid for elections-systems data — and the plaintiffs intend to provide those records to the FBI and state and local elections officials.