Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Collins-Sinema compromise bill draws backlash: “Political stunt that won’t address abortion rights”

As GOP-led states continue working to further restrict reproductive freedom in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s late June ruling, some progressive advocates on Monday responded critically to the introduction of bipartisan abortion rights legislation.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Tim Kaine, D-Va., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., introduced the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, which they claim “would undo the damage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju declared that “this bill is just another political stunt that would not actually address the abortion rights and access crisis that has pushed care out of reach for millions of people already.”

“Unless these senators are willing to end the filibuster to pass this measure, there’s no reason to take it seriously,” Timmaraju added.

According to the co-sponsors, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act would:

  • Prohibit state regulations that impose an undue burden on a woman’s access to pre-viability abortions, while allowing states to enact reasonable restrictions on post-viability abortions—provided that states cannot ban abortions that are necessary to protect the life or health of the mother;
  • Protect access to contraceptives; and
  • Preserve conscience protections.

NARAL noted that in February, then again in May—after a draft of the Dobbs decision leaked—both Collins and Murkowski refused to support the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), a Democrat-led bill to codify Roe, the 1973 decision that affirmed the constitutional right to abortion until it was recently overturned by the high court’s far-right majority.

At least 10 Republican senators would have to join with the Democratic caucus to pass a bill, due to the filibuster rule that is backed by not only the GOP, but also Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who notably opposed WHPA.

“Senate Republicans have been crystal clear about where they stand on abortion,” NARAL said, pointing out that ahead of the Dobbs ruling, “47 GOP senators signed onto amicus briefs calling on the court to end” Roe.

Collins and Murkowski also helped shift the U.S. Supreme Court to the right during former President Donald Trump’s tenure. Though Murkowski voted present rather than to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Collins voted against confirming Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Murkowski backed Barrett, Collins supported Kavanaugh, and they both voted for Justice Neil Gorsuch.

As The Washington Post reported Monday:

It’s not clear that Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would bring up the bill for a vote ahead of the midterm elections in November. There has been disagreement in the Democratic caucus on whether a bipartisan bill that has no chance of passage should be brought forward, which would make it more difficult for Democratic candidates to contrast themselves with Republicans. And many Democrats, Kaine said, would prefer the Democratic version of the bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which includes fewer limitations on abortion.

Kaine calls the bill the bare minimum.

“What the four of us were trying to do was put a statutory minimum in place that replicated what the law was a day before Dobbs,” he said.

The newspaper noted that Kaine also admitted their proposal does not have the support of 10 Republican senators.

Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, blocked the Right to Contraception Act. Because Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., tried to pass the House-approved bill by unanimous consent, other GOP senators were not required to weigh in.

Trump causes commotion with confusing last-minute co-endorsement in GOP primary

Much to the confusion of his party, Donald Trump on Tuesday endorsed “ERIC” in Missouri’s GOP Senate primary, even though there three candidates named “Eric” in the race. 

“I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 Elections, and I am therefore proud to announce that ERIC has my Complete and Total Endorsement!” Trump said in a statement this week, arguing that the GOP “must send a MAGA Champion and True Warrior to the U.S. Senate, someone who will fight for Border Security, Election Integrity, our Military and Great Veterans, together with having a powerful toughness on Crime and the Border.”

The “Erics” in the running include former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens; State Attorney General Eric Schmitt; and a little-known third candidate, Eric McElroy.

Asked which Eric the president has officially thrown his weight behind, Trump’s team told NBC that the “endorsement speaks for itself.”

Immediately after Trump’s public statement, Greitens tweeted that he was “honored to have the support of President Trump! We will MAGA!”


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


Schmitt likewise tweeted: “It is truly an honor to have President Trump’s endorsement in the Senate race.” Schmitt also said that he is “the only America First candidate in this race.

Both Erics claimed to have received an election eve phone call from the former president as well. 

Trump’s apparent dual endorsement comes amid significant party divisions over who Trump should back in the race. Some members of the former president’s inner circle have urged Trump to refrain from supporting Greitens over the candidate’s alleged history of physical abuse and sexual misconduct. However, others have encouraged Trump to back Greitens, deeming him the only bona fide MAGA candidate in the race. 

Opposition to Greitens has in large part been fueled by the anti-Greitens super PAC Show Me Values, which has poured some $6 million into attack ads highlighting the former governor’s problematic past. Meanwhile, both of the state’s senators – Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is retiring – have called on Greitens to bow out of the race. 

According to a survey conducted last by Emerson Polling and The Hill, Schmitt is currently leading the pack, with Greitens trailing behind at 16 percent.

Manchin’s secret climate “side deal” revealed: “It’s not a climate solution, it’s a climate bomb”

Environmentalists raised grave concerns Monday over newly reported details of a side deal between the Democratic leadership and Sen. Joe Manchin that would reform the permitting process for energy projects and clear the way for final approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would carry fracked gas through West Virginia.

The agreement was reached as part of an effort to secure Manchin’s support for the Inflation Reduction Act, a proposed budget reconciliation bill that includes renewable energy investments, drug price reforms, and a number of giveaways to the fossil fuel industry. Because its provisions fall outside the bounds of reconciliation, the side deal must be passed as separate legislation.

According to a one-page summary obtained by the Washington Post, the agreement in its current form “would set new two-year limits, or maximum timelines, for environmental reviews for ‘major’ projects,” a potentially massive victory for the fossil fuel industry that could also entail benefits for renewable energy production.

“It would also aim to streamline the government processes for deciding approvals for energy projects by centralizing decision-making with one lead agency,” the Post notes. “The bill would also attempt to clear the way for the approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would transport Appalachian shale gas about 300 miles from West Virginia to Virginia. This pipeline is a key priority of Manchin’s.”

Specifically, the summary states the bill would require “relevant agencies” to “take all necessary actions to permit the construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline and give the D.C. Circuit jurisdiction over any further litigation.”

As the New York Times notes, that move would take cases involving the pipeline away “from the Fourth District, where environmentalists had found success.”

The emissions impact of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which has been mired in legal and regulatory issues for years, would be substantial at a time when scientists say failure to swiftly rein in carbon pollution would have devastating consequences for life on Earth. One analysis estimates the completed pipeline would generate 89,526,651 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, equal to 26 new coal-fired power plants or 19 million passenger vehicles.

The pipeline has drawn forceful opposition from local and Indigenous communities that fear the project will expose water and land to dangerous leakage and pollution. The pipeline’s current route would carry gas across around 1,000 streams and wetlands on its path from West Virginia to Virginia.

“It’s not a climate solution. It’s a climate bomb,” Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, wrote in a Twitter post Monday.

“Fast-tracking fossil fuel projects and industry boondoggles will just throw more fuel on the climate fire,” Henn added. “Democrats shouldn’t be sacrificing communities in the path of the Mountain Valley Pipeline just to please a senator in the pocket of Big Oil.”

No timeline has been formally established for a vote on the side deal, which would also restrict legal challenges to energy projects. But Manchin, a close ally of the fossil fuel industry and the top recipient of oil and gas donations in Congress, suggested in a statement last week that Democratic leaders committed to advancing legislation containing his priorities by the fall.

According to the Times, which cited unnamed people familiar with the deal, it is likely that Democratic leaders will attempt to “insert the Mountain Valley Pipeline and permitting provisions into a must-pass piece of legislation, such as the bill that funds the federal government, to maximize its chances” of final approval despite anticipated backlash from progressive members.

In a statement late Monday, Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen warned that hacking away at regulatory processes for energy infrastructure “prioritizes polluting industries and fossil fuel interests over people who are dealing with prolonged exposure to toxic pollution.”

Since the text of the Inflation Reduction Act emerged last week, climate organizations have been grappling with the trade-offs in the bill and attempting to discern whether the good—historic investments and tax credits for renewable energy production—outweighs the bad, such as requirements for more oil and gas lease sales on public lands and waters.

“The world is on fire and Congress is attacking it with a squirt gun while giving Senator Manchin and fossil fuel executives more matches by fast-tracking oil and gas drilling and hydrogen boondoggles,” Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel said Monday. “Drilling for oil and gas is no solution to the climate crisis.”

Experts have offered varying estimates for how much the Inflation Reduction Act’s passage would cut U.S. carbon emissions, with one analyst suggesting CO2 pollution could be reduced by 800 million to 1 billion tons in 2030.

Dillen indicated Monday that Earthjustice supports final approval of the Inflation Reduction Act, which could get a vote in the Senate this week. But she made clear that the climate organization—one of many groups that have sued to block the Biden administration’s fossil fuel lease sales—will fight any “attempt to weaken bedrock environmental review laws when the time comes.”

“In the meantime,” Dillen added, “we must focus on what’s in front of us and get the critical climate and environmental justice investments in the Inflation Reduction Act passed. Our planet can’t wait.”

Fox News host says “Al Qaeda feels pretty good” after Biden killed leader: “Not good news for us”

National Security Council Coordinator John Kirby pushed back against Fox News host Brian Kilmeade after he said that Al Qaeda “feels pretty good” despite its leader being killed by a drone strike.

While interviewing Kirby on Tuesday, Kilmeade downplayed the killing of terrorist mastermind Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

“I do think that one would believe if the leader of the Taliban — excuse me — the leader of Al Qaeda is not in a cave or hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan,” the Fox News host said, “That he’s on the balcony in the capitol, that Al Qaeda feels pretty good about their presence in that country and there’s more than just one guy.”

“But that’s not good news for us,” Kilmeade complained.

“I’d actually throw that back a little, Brian,” Kirby countered. “I don’t think they’re feeling too good about being in Afghanistan right now.”

“Really?” Kilmeade replied. “If they were worried about it, they would be hiding in Pakistan where we couldn’t even find them.”

“I mean, I don’t think Al Qaeda can look at what happened over the last 48 hours and feel like Afghanistan is going to be much of a safe haven for them,” Kirby explained. “We have proven that over-the-horizon counterterrorism capability works.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

“Cover-up”: Trump-appointed DHS watchdog’s office told Secret Service to ignore Jan. 6 text request

Two top House Democrats on Monday accused the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general of a “cover-up” related to the deleted Jan. 6 Secret Service text messages.

House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who also chairs the Jan. 6 Committee, and House Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., cited evidence of a “cover-up” in a letter to Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari, a controversial Trump appointee who has quashed Secret Service probes in the past.

The lawmakers raised “grave concerns” over Cuffari’s “lack of transparency and independence,” citing reports that his office learned of the missing Secret Service texts in May 2021 but did not tell Congress.

The letter also cited new evidence that Cuffari’s office “may have secretly abandoned efforts to collect text messages from the Secret Service more than a year ago,” indicating that the office “may have taken steps to cover up the extent of missing records.”

Cuffari informed Congress last month that Secret Service text messages from Jan. 5 and 6 were deleted, “roughly 14 months after you reportedly learned that the Secret Service texts were unavailable though Inspectors General are required by law to ‘immediately’ reports problems or abuses that are ‘particularly serious or flagrant,'” the lawmakers wrote, adding that Cuffari’s letter also failed to mention that his office told Secret Service to ignore a request to turn over texts from that time.

The lawmakers said that Cuffari’s office had requested text messages from Secret Service employees but his deputy, Thomas Kait, sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security just six weeks later informing officials that the IG office would “no longer request phone records and text messages” from Secret Service personnel related to Jan. 6.

It’s unclear why Cuffari’s office “chose not to pursue critical information” at the time, especially since his office submitted a new request for certain texts four months later in December 2021, the lawmakers wrote. Kait, the letter said, also removed “key language” from a February 2022 memo to DHS highlighting the importance of text messages to the IG’s investigation. Kait “apparently worked” with other senior staffers to “alter the memo to remove the reference to text messages” and instead praised DHS for its “timely and consolidated” response.

The letter also called out Cuffari’s office for failing to inform Congress about missing texts from top DHS Trump appointees Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli.

The lawmakers called for Cuffari to “step aside” and for the department to turn over additional documents.

“These documents raise troubling new concerns that your office not only failed to notify Congress for more than a year that critical evidence in this investigation was missing,” the letter said, “but your senior staff deliberately chose not to pursue that evidence and then appear to have taken steps to cover up these failures.”


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


Cuffari in a defiant email to colleagues obtained by Politico on Monday wrote that he “cannot always publicly respond to untruths and false information about our work,” alleging that the department has faced an “onslaught of meritless criticism.”

But it’s not just Congress criticizing the department. A DHS IG official told Politico that Cuffari and his senior staff are “uniquely unqualified to lead an Inspector General’s office, and the current negative congressional and media scrutiny bear that out.”

“The crucial oversight mission of the DHS OIG has been compromised,” the official said, “and there will be no course correction as long as Cuffari leads the DHS OIG.”

Olivia Troye, a former DHS official and adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, told CNN on Friday that she went public with her 2020 resignation over the administration’s pandemic response because she did not trust Cuffari.

“There is a reason that I went very public with my concerns about the Trump administration, rather than going through the traditional whistleblower process, which would have led me through the inspector general’s office at DHS,” she said. “And I’ll just say that. So, there’s a level of trust there that you understand.”

Cuffari previously came under fire for rejecting his staff’s recommendation to investigate the Secret Service’s role in clearing Lafayette Square of protesters ahead of a controversial Trump photo-op, according to the Washington Post. He also scrapped an investigation into whether the agency had flouted pandemic protocols despite recommendations from his staff. His office did not launch a single investigation specifically probing the Secret Service at any point while Trump was in office.

At the same time, reports have highlighted the unusual support Trump received from certain Secret Service personnel. Bobby Engel, the head of Trump’s detail on Jan. 6, and Tony Ornato, a longtime Secret Service officer who was tapped by Trump to serve as a deputy chief of staff at the White House, sought to refute testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump lunged at a Secret Service officer on Jan. 6 while insisting he be taken to the Capitol. Both men have since refused to testify under oath to the committee and have retained private counsel, lawmakers said last month.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) last month obtained records showing that Cuffari’s team was aware agents deleted their texts months earlier than reported but did not tell Congress.

“There’s a clear pattern, going back months, showing that Cuffari has no respect for his role as inspector general,” Liz Hempowicz, the director of public policy at POGO, told Politico. “Every time we report on another inexplicable misstep that shows Cuffari clearly not meeting his mission, he doubles down and claims everything is fine and that you just have to trust him. Biden should remove Cuffari as DHS inspector general now. DHS needs a credible watchdog.”

Here’s what’s in the Senate’s $369 billion climate and energy bill

It’s been a dangerously hot, rainy, fiery summer in the United States. But there’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon: Congress is on the verge of finally taking action to address some of the greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling the climate crisis. 

This week, after months of negotiations and false starts, Senate Democrats made a deal on a bill called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 

If it passes, the bill would invest $369 billion in American energy security and fighting climate change — the single largest infusion of federal cash aimed at tackling the climate threat in U.S. history. According to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office, the bill would reduce domestic emissions approximately 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, an estimate that has been tentatively verified by independent experts.  

This week’s deal is much smaller than the $2 trillion climate plan President Joe Biden initially envisioned. But it’s also a far bigger investment than Democrats thought they would get as recently as earlier this month

The legislation, which is currently in draft form and could be brought before the Senate next week, aims to combat rising inflation, reduce the federal deficit, limit the cost of prescription drugs and healthcare premiums, and tax major corporations and very wealthy Americans, in addition to its provisions on energy and climate. Senator Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia with financial ties to the coal industry, conditioned his support for the bill on a promise from Democratic leadership that it will take up separate legislation in the fall that would seek to modernize and speed up the permitting process for new infrastructure projects. That could include both renewable energy infrastructure and fossil fuel infrastructure like pipelines. 

When it comes to parsing the climate-related content in the Inflation Reduction Act, the key thing to keep in mind is that the $369 billion set aside in the draft text will be split between two priorities that are often in tension with each other: boosting domestic energy production and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The former would result in near-term expansions of fossil fuel extraction, like new oil and gas leases. But the longer-term climate payout could be monumental. 

Major clean energy investments

In some cases, the bill directly uses fossil fuel extraction as a bargaining chip for clean energy. It requires the Department of Interior put millions of acres of public lands and waters up for oil and gas leasing before the agency can grant access or sell leases to renewable energy projects. But while boosting oil and gas drilling, the bill also creates a new program that incentivizes oil and gas producers to reduce their methane emissions. And it contains a bounty of new funding for clean energy, mostly in the form of tax credits for businesses and individuals that would substantially reduce the nation’s reliance on dirty fuels. 

The bill would make electric vehicles more accessible to the average American by offering $7,500 rebates for new EVs and $4,000 for used vehicles. (However, place-of-origin requirements for the minerals to build those new vehicles could become a roadblock.) It would encourage homeowners to get off natural gas by offering up to $14,000 to install electric heating and cooling systems, water heaters, and stoves, and to make other home efficiency improvements. There’s also money for states to create programs to train contractors to do this work, which involves newer technologies that many contractors aren’t familiar with.

The bill invests in almost every kind of clean electricity generation imaginable, and offers grants and loans to speed up the development of new transmission lines to carry that clean power to customers. Existing tax credits for wind and solar would be extended and made more accessible to tribes, municipal utilities, and rural cooperatives. These energy projects would get more money for meeting wage minimums or for siting projects in “energy communities” — in other words, creating clean jobs in areas that have long been hubs for fossil fuel work. 

There’s also a whole slew of new tax credits that will help other forms of clean energy get off the ground and onto the grid, like batteries that can store and dispatch renewable energy, and geothermal energy, which uses heat from under the Earth’s surface to generate power. Old nuclear plants that supply crucial clean energy to the grid but are expensive to operate will also get a boost from new tax credits that could keep them online.

Some of the new incentives, like an increase in the tax credit for carbon capture and storage, are controversial. If the bill passes, projects will earn up to $85 for each ton of carbon they capture and store underground, whether the CO2 is captured from a power plant or from some other emitting source. The legislation offers an even bigger bump, up to $180 per ton, for projects that suck carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere. Many climate advocates are skeptical that these solutions will ever be effective or economical, and are concerned that they will have negative impacts on surrounding communities. But some experts say that they are some of the best options on the table to clean up certain industries like cement and chemical manufacturing. The bill also contains a new tax credit for producing cleaner forms of hydrogen, a fuel that produces no greenhouse gas emissions when burned and that could also help cut emissions from those industries. 

If the act passes, it will help create a lot of jobs making photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, and batteries, and processing the critical minerals behind these technologies. It offers billions of dollars in tax credits for domestic manufacturing of those materials. It will also help make sure that electric vehicles are manufactured in the U.S., with $2 billion to retrofit car manufacturing facilities to get them ready to make clean vehicles.

Wins and losses for environmental justice

The bill would also cut the pollution that disproportionately impacts predominantly Black and brown, low-income communities, with $60 billion in environmental justice initiatives. Frontline neighborhoods would receive $3 billion in block grants for community-led programs to reduce air pollution, to tackle the urban heat island effect and keep people safe during extreme heat, and to hold workshops and advisory group meetings to involve residents in decisions.

An $8 billion chunk of the funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is also earmarked for disadvantaged communities. If that funding goes to things like green schools or community solar, “that could be really exciting, dynamic, and transformative,” said Daniel Aldana Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of California, Berkeley and co-director of the Climate and Community Project.

Other provisions will benefit environmental justice communities, too. For example, there’s $3 billion for electrifying port infrastructure, which will improve air quality for nearby neighborhoods. There are tax credits for electric trucks, which should encourage the industry to shift away from diesel-powered 18-wheelers that emit noxious fumes in communities along highways and near warehouses.

One area where critics see a missed opportunity to address environmental injustice is housing. The tax credits that encourage households to make energy-efficiency upgrades, switch to electric appliances, and install solar panels will go only to homeowners, not renters. 

The bill does provide $1 billion in grants to make affordable housing more energy efficient, but with more than 5 million federally-assisted housing units across the country, that averages out to less than $200 for each unit. “In an eviction crisis, a utility debt crisis, a heat island crisis, you really need to move substantial amounts of money into the low-income housing sector,” said Cohen.

What experts are saying

Overall, climate groups were enthusiastic about the deal, but a few blasted Democratic leadership for not doing enough to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. The environmental group Food & Water Watch said the deal “fails to truly address climate change.” 

But the overarching message from most experts has been that this deal is a positive step forward for the U.S. “These kinds of investments do have a great track record of promoting clean energy technology development and deployment,” Adam Orford, an environmental historian and a professor of law at the University of Georgia, told Grist. “There are a lot of reasonable, needed, rational energy policy interventions here.” 

There is no guarantee that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will become law. Manchin, the senator from West Virginia, was one of two Democratic holdouts during the months-long intra-party negotiations leading up to the announcement this week. He worked with Schumer to craft the act, but he has backed out of deals before, and there’s still a chance he could change his mind. It’s less clear what Manchin’s colleague, Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona, thinks about the deal. She has not signaled whether she will support it or not. Her position on the legislation could slow or even tank the entire proposal. And experts are concerned that the permitting legislation Democrats promised to pass in a few months could make it easier for companies to get fossil fuel infrastructure approved more quickly. “The value of the total package will depend on what is proposed in the permitting law that was agreed to in order to get Manchin’s support,” Orford said, “but it’s an overall positive.” 

Trump’s N.J. golf resort hosts Saudi-sponsored event — 9/11 families outraged

Donald Trump brought his bloated bling back to Bedminster, New Jersey, last weekend, under the 24/7 protection of the taxpayer funded U.S. Secret Service.

The occasion was the Trump National Golf Club hosting the first East Coast tournament of LIV Golf, the controversial series funded by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, which chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed, better known around the world as MBS, was identified by U.S. intelligence agencies as behind the 2018 murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and opinion columnist with the Washington Post. MBS is also responsible for initiating and prosecuting a brutal war in Yemen, which has festered into what UNICEF describes as “one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises.” 

The LIV tournament sparked a protest at the Somerset County course from a contingent of 9/11 victims’ families who have been locked in prolonged litigation against the Saudi government, alleging that the desert kingdom provided material support to the 19 hijackers — 15 of them from Saudi Arabia — who were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people that day. Osama bin Laden, then the leader of al-Qaida, was the the son of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest oligarchs. 

Family members of those who died on 9/11 have blasted the former president as well as the superstar golfers who are reportedly pocketing six-figure fees for participating in the Saudi-financed event. Trump downplayed those concerns.

“I have known these people for a long time in Saudi Arabia and they have been friends of mine for a long time,” Trump told an NBC TV crew last week. “Nobody has gotten to the bottom of 9/11, unfortunately, and they should have as to those maniacs who did that horrible thing to our city, to our country, to the world. So nobody has really been there, so I can tell you there are a lot of great people who are out here today and we are going to have a lot of fun. We are going to celebrate.”

Before the tournament,  Brett Eagleson, a founder of the group 9/11 Justice, whose father died helping people evacuate from the World Trade Center towers, told Politico his group would be on site to protest leading golf pros like Bryson DeChambeau, Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson for “choosing to take Saudi payouts and look the other way on the country’s human rights abuses and role in the worst terrorist attacks on American soil.”

NJ Advance’s Steve Politi offered a vivid account of how the July 29 LIV Golf event opened, with AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck” blaring while three paratroopers landed “on a fairway nearby carrying a giant American flag.” The veteran sportswriter described how Mickelson stepped up to hit his first tee shot and “a heckler cracked the silence with a biting commentary about who is paying his massive salary. “‘DO IT FOR THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY!’ the man yelled.”

When legendary golf pro Phil Mickelson stepped up to take his first tee shot at Trump’s Bedminster club, a heckler cracked the silence: “Do it for the Saudi royal family!”

In the years since the 9/11 attacks, more people have died from exposure to the air that the EPA — then under the leadership of former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman — erroneously said was “safe to breathe” than died on 9/11 itself. More than 10,000 New Jersey residents are enrolled in the 9/11 WTC Health Program, which treats first responders and survivors with a myriad of chronic diseases and dozens of life-threatening cancers. 

Back in 2016, the 9/11 families and their supporters scored a major political victory when they marshaled a bipartisan congressional coalition that overrode Barack Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which gives U.S. victims of international acts of terrorism the ability to sue foreign governments they believe were complicit.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration “downplayed the Saudi connection and suppressed evidence that might link powerful Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families to the funding of Islamic extremism and terrorism,” according to former New York Times journalists Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, writing for The Intercept in 2021:

Many U.S. officials have insisted over the last two decades that the American government is not really hiding any conclusive evidence of Saudi involvement, and it is quite possible that successive presidents, along with the intelligence community, have closed ranks simply to avoid revealing classified information. And it’s plausible that officials want to avoid exposing details that might be politically embarrassing for both Washington and the Saudis yet don’t prove that the Saudi royal family, the Saudi government, or other powerful Saudi individuals played any role in providing funding or assistance for the September 11 attacks. But the refusal to be open and transparent about such a fundamental issue has fed suspicions.

Two decades later, however, glimpses of material that have become public provide mounting evidence that senior Saudi officials, including one diplomat in the Saudi Embassy in Washington, may in fact have indirectly provided assistance for two of the Al Qaeda hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who were the first of the hijackers to arrive in the United States in 2000 and lived for about a year and a half in San Diego beforehand.

Following the release by the Biden administration of previously classified FBI files, NPR reported that “the partially redacted report shows a closer relationship than had been previously known between two Saudis in particular — including one with diplomatic status — and some of the hijackers. Families of the 9/11 victims have long sought after the report, which painted a starkly different portrait than the one described by the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.”

The 9/11 Commission was at best agnostic about the Saudi connection. Investigators for the panel, which was co-chaired by former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean Sr., estimated that the 9/11 attack cost the al-Qaida conspirators just $400,000 to $500,000 to execute, but that the global network ran on $30 million a year that it largely got from a network of charities. 


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


“Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization,” according to the report. “Still, al Qaeda found fertile fund-raising ground in Saudi Arabia, where extreme religious views are common and charitable giving was both essential  to the culture and subject to very little oversight.” 

Furthermore, the report notes that “to date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.” 

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have struggled trying to balance the geopolitical interests of the U.S. with the nation’s insatiable thirst for cheap oil and its image as a supporter of human rights, which often puts the U.S. at odds with the Saudi government, as in the case of the gruesome Khashoggi murder.

As a candidate, Joe Biden vowed to “make [the Saudis] pay the price” for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. But by this summer, facing a global spike in oil prices, he was fist-bumping MBS on a trip to the kingdom.

As a candidate, Joe Biden said he was “going to, in fact, make them [Saudi Arabia] pay the price” for that crime, “and make them, in fact, the pariah they are.” As president, he pledged that human rights would “be the center of our foreign policy.” But in mid-July, facing a global spike in oil prices and the need for support in his campaign against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine campaign, he was fist-bumping MBS on a trip to the kingdom.

Meanwhile, Trump’s post-presidential dealmaking with the Saudis gives off the familiar odor of self-dealing. 

Trump’s beleaguered resort empire lost considerable prestige after a decision by the PGA of America to move its 2022 championship away from his New Jersey golf course just days after the Jan. 6 insurrection. As the Washington Post reported at the time, PGA president Jim Richardson issued a video in which he said it had become “clear that conducting the PGA Championship at Trump Bedminster would be detrimental to the PGA of America brand and would put at risk the PGA’s ability to deliver our many programs and sustain the longevity of our mission.”

With several hundred billion dollars available in the Saudi Public Investment Fund, the desert monarchy has made major investments in U.S. blue chip stocks like Uber, according to Bloomberg News. It has spread the fossil-fuel cash around, buying a controlling interest in the English Premier League club Newcastle United for $368 million and dropping hundreds of millions on LIV Golf, an upstart competitor to the PGA. 

Last spring, MBS reportedly overruled the sovereign wealth fund’s professional asset management professionals to grant Jared Kushner’s startup private equity firm $2 billion. As the New York Times reported in April, the expert panel sought to reject Kushner’s proposal because of the “inexperience” of his firm and after a review of its operations found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects.” Fund officials also balked at Kushner’s “excessive” asset management fees, and the perceived “public relations risks” of doing business with the son-in-law and close adviser to Donald Trump. 

Within the Trump White House, Kushner was seen as the point man doing damage control for MBS and the Saudis after the murder of Khashoggi, a Virginia resident who had become one of the most effective expatriate critics of the Saudi royal family. According to the New York Times, MBS and Kushner continued to exchange back-channel phone calls and texts well after Khashoggi’s death.

“As the killing set off a firestorm around the world and American intelligence agencies concluded that it was ordered by Prince Mohammed,” the Times reported, “Mr. Kushner became the prince’s most important defender inside the White House, people familiar with its internal deliberations say.” 

Nothing to see here: Just one royal family helping another. 

When whistleblowers go to prison, we’re on the road to tyranny

MARION, Illinois — Daniel Hale, dressed in a khaki uniform, his hair cut short and sporting a long, neatly groomed brown beard, is seated behind a plexiglass screen, speaking into a telephone receiver at the federal prison in Marion, Illinois. I hold a receiver on the other side of the plexiglass and listen as he describes his journey from working for the National Security Agency and the Joint Special Operations Task Force at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to becoming federal prisoner 26069-07. 

Hale, a 34-year-old former Air Force signals intelligence analyst, is serving a 45-month prison sentence, following his conviction under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified documents about the U.S. military’s drone assassination program and its high civilian death toll. The documents are believed to be the source material for “The Drone Papers” published by The Intercept, on Oct. 15, 2015. 

These documents revealed that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations drone airstrikes killed more than 200 people — of which only 35 were the intended targets. According to the documents, over one five-month period of the operation, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. The civilian dead, usually innocent bystanders, were routinely classified as “enemies killed in action.”

You can see my interview with Hale’s attorney, Jesselyn Radack, here.

The terrorizing and widespread killing of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of civilians was a potent recruiting tool for the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents. The aerial attacks created far more hostile fighters than they eliminated and enraged many in the Muslim world.

Hale is composed, articulate and physically fit from his self-imposed regime of daily exercise. We discuss books he has recently read, including John Steinbeck’s novel “East of Eden” and Nicholson Baker’s “Baseless: My Search for Secrets in the Ruins of the Freedom of Information Act,” which explores whether the U.S. used biological weapons on China and Korea during World War II and the Korean War. 

Hale is currently housed in the Communications Management Unit (CMU), a special unit that severely restricts and heavily monitors communications, including our conversation, and visits. The decision by the Bureau of Prisons to lock Hale up in the most restrictive wing of a supermax prison ignores the recommendation of the sentencing Judge Liam O’Grady, who suggested that he be placed in a low-security prison hospital facility in Butner, North Carolina, where he could get treatment for his PTSD.

Hale is one of a few dozen people of conscience who have sacrificed their careers and their freedom to inform the public about government crimes, fraud and lies. Rather than investigate the crimes that are exposed and hold those who carried them out to account, the two ruling parties wage war on all who speak out.  

These men and women of conscience are the lifeblood of journalism. Reporters cannot document abuses of power without them. The silence on the part of the press over Hale’s imprisonment, as well as the persecution and imprisonment of other champions of an open society, such as Julian Assange, is stunningly shortsighted. If our most important public servants, those with the courage to inform the public, continue to be criminalized at this rate, we will cement in place total censorship, resulting in a world where the abuses and crimes of the powerful are shrouded in darkness. 

If our most important public servants continue to be criminalized at this rate, we will cement in place total censorship, resulting in a world where the crimes of the powerful are shrouded in darkness.

Barack Obama weaponized the Espionage Act to prosecute those who provided classified information to the press. The Obama White House, whose assault on civil liberties was worse than those of the Bush administration, used the 1917 act, designed to prosecute spies, against eight people who leaked information to the media, including Assange — although he is not a U.S. citizen, and WikiLeaks is not a U.S.-based publication — along with Edward SnowdenThomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, Jeffrey Sterling and John Kiriakou, who spent two-and-a-half years in prison for exposing the routine torture of suspects held in black sites.  


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


Also under the Espionage Act, Joshua Schulte, a former CIA software engineer, was convicted on July 13, 2022, of the so-called Vault 7 leak, published by WikiLeaks in 2017, which revealed how the CIA hacked Apple and Android smartphones and turned internet-connected televisions into listening devices. He faces up to 80 years in prison. 

Obama used the Espionage Act against those who provided information to the media more than all previous administrations combined. He set a terrifying legal precedent, equating informing the public with spying for a hostile power. I published classified material when I was a reporter at the New York Times, but we are fast approaching the day when the mere possession of such material, along with its publication, will be illegal, as is already law in the U.K. It is a short step from criminalizing journalism to the imprisonment and murder of reporters, such as Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in 2018 in Istanbul. While Assange was sheltering in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, the CIA discussed kidnapping and assassinating him following the release of the Vault 7 documents.

The Espionage Act has been abused in the past. President Woodrow Wilson used it to throw socialists, including Eugene V. Debs, in prison for opposing America’s participation in World War I. But not until the Obama administration was it systematically turned on the press. 

Wholesale government surveillance, about which many charged under the Espionage Act tried to warn the public, includes surveillance of journalists. The surveillance of the press, along with those who attempt to inform the public by providing information to reporters, has largely shut down investigations into the machinery of power. The price of telling the truth is too costly.

Hale, trained in the army as a Mandarin linguist, was uneasy the moment he began working in the secretive drone program.

“I needed a paycheck,” he says of his work in the Air Force and later as a private contractor in the drone program, “I was homeless. I had nowhere else to go. But I knew it was wrong.” 

While stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he took a week off in October 2011 to camp out in New York’s Zuccotti Park during the Occupy Wall Street movement. He wore his uniform — a gutsy act of open defiance for someone on active duty — and held up a sign that read, “Free Bradley Manning,” who had not yet announced her transition. 

“I slept in the park,” he says. “I was there the morning [Mayor] Bloomberg and his girlfriend made the first attempt to clear the occupiers. I stood with thousands of protestors, including Teamsters and communications workers, who ringed the park. The police backed down. I learned later that while I was in the park, Obama ordered a drone strike in Yemen that killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old son of the radicalized cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a drone strike two weeks earlier.”

Hale was deployed a few months later to Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Force Base. 

He described his work in a letter to the judge:

In my capacity as a signals intelligence analyst stationed at Bagram Airbase, I was made to track down the geographic location of handset cell phone devices believed to be in the possession of so-called enemy combatants. To accomplish this mission required access to a complex chain of globe-spanning satellites capable of maintaining an unbroken connection with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred to as drones. Once a steady connection is made and a targeted cell phone device is acquired, an imagery analyst in the U.S., in coordination with a drone pilot and camera operator, would take over using information I provided to surveil everything that occurred within the drone’s field of vision. This was done, most often, to document the day-to-day lives of suspected militants. Sometimes, under the right conditions, an attempt at capture would be made. Other times, a decision to strike and kill them where they stood would be weighed.

The first time that I witnessed a drone strike came within days of my arrival to Afghanistan. Early that morning, before dawn, a group of men had gathered together in the mountain ranges of Patika province around a campfire carrying weapons and brewing tea. That they carried weapons with them would not have been considered out of the ordinary in the place I grew up, much less within the virtually lawless tribal territories outside the control of the Afghan authorities. Except that among them was a suspected member of the Taliban, given away by the targeted cell phone device in his pocket. As for the remaining individuals, to be armed, of military age, and sitting in the presence of an alleged enemy combatant was enough evidence to place them under suspicion as well. Despite having peacefully assembled, posing no threat, the fate of the now tea drinking men had all but been fulfilled. I could only look on as I sat by and watched through a computer monitor when a sudden, terrifying flurry of hellfire missiles came crashing down, splattering purple-colored crystal guts on the side of the morning mountain.

Since that time and to this day, I continue to recall several such scenes of graphic violence carried out from the cold comfort of a computer chair. Not a day goes by that I don’t question the justification for my actions. By the rules of engagement, it may have been permissible for me to have helped to kill those men — whose language I did not speak, whose customs I did not understand, and whose crimes I could not identify — in the gruesome manner that I did. Watch them die. But how could it be considered honorable of me to continuously have laid in wait for the next opportunity to kill unsuspecting persons, who, more often than not, are posing no danger to me or any other person at the time. Nevermind honorable, how could it be that any thinking person continued to believe that it was necessary for the protection of the United States of America to be in Afghanistan and killing people, not one of whom present was responsible for the September 11th attacks on our nation. Notwithstanding, in 2012, a full year after the demise of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, I was a part of killing misguided young men who were but mere children on the day of 9/11.

Hale drifted after leaving the Air Force, dropped out of the New School where he had been attending college, and was lured back into operating drones in 2013 by the private defense contractor National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency where he worked as a political geography analyst between December 2013 and August 2014. 

“I was making $80,000 a year,” he says into the receiver. “I had friends with college degrees who could not make that kind of money.”

Inspired by peace activist David Dellinger, Hale decided to become a “traitor” to “the American way of death.” He would make amends for his complicity in the killings, even at the cost of his freedom. He leaked 17 classified documents that exposed the high number of civilian deaths from drone strikes. He became an outspoken and prominent critic of the drone program. 

Because Hale was charged under the Espionage Act, he was not permitted to explain his motivations to the court. He was also forbidden from providing evidence to the court that the drone assassination program killed and wounded large numbers of noncombatants, including children. 

“Evidence of the defendant’s views of military and intelligence procedures would needlessly distract the jury from the question of whether he had illegally retained and transmitted classified documents, and instead convert the trail into an inquest of U.S. military and intelligence procedures,” government attorneys said in a motion at Hale’s trial.

“The defendant may wish for his criminal trial to become a forum on something other than his guilt, but those debates cannot and do not inform the core questions in this case: whether the defendant illegally retained and transferred the documents he stole,” the government motion continued.

Drones often fire Hellfire missiles equipped with an explosive warhead weighing about 20 pounds. A Hellfire variant, known as the R9X, carries an inert warhead. Instead of exploding, it hurls about 100 pounds of metal through a vehicle. The missile’s other feature includes six long blades tucked inside which deploy seconds before impact, shredding anything in front of it — including people.

Drones hover 24 hours a day in the skies over countries including Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria and, before the U.S. withdrawal, Afghanistan. (Although a drone attack on Kabul this week allegedly killed al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.) Operated remotely from Air Force bases as far away from the target sites as Nevada, drones fire ordinance that instantly and without warning obliterates homes and vehicles or kills clusters of people. Hale found the jocularity of the young drone operators, who treated the killings as if they were an enhanced video game, disturbing.  Child victims of drone attacks were dismissed as “fun-sized terrorists.”

Those who survive drone strikes are often badly maimed, losing limbs, suffering severe burns and shrapnel wounds, and losing their vision and hearing. 

In a statement he read at his sentencing on July 27, 2021, Hale said:”I think of the farmers in their poppy fields whose daily harvest will gain them safe passage from the warlords, who will, in turn, trade it for weapons before it is synthesized, repackaged, and re-sold dozens of times before it finds its way into this country and into the broken veins of our nation’s next opioid victim. I think of the women who, despite living their entire lives never once allowed to make so much as a choice for themselves, are treated as pawns in a ruthless game politicians play when they need a justification to further the killing of their sons and husbands. And I think of the children, whose bright-eyed, dirty faces look to the sky and hope to see clouds of gray, afraid of the clear blue days that beckon drones to come carrying eager death notes for their fathers.”

“‘Do you ever step on ants and never give it another thought?’ That’s what you’re made to think of the targets. You had to kill a part of your conscience to keep doing your job.”

“As one drone operator put it,” he read in court, “‘Do you ever step on ants and never give it another thought?’ That’s what you’re made to think of the targets. They deserved it, they chose their side. You had to kill a part of your conscience to keep doing your job — ignoring the voice inside telling you this wasn’t right. I, too, ignored the voice inside as I continued walking blindly towards the edge of an abyss. And when I found myself at the brink, ready to give in, the voice said to me, ‘You, who had been a hunter of men, are no longer. By the grace of God you’ve been saved. Now go forth and be a fisher of men so that others might know the truth.'”

It was, ironically, the election of Obama that encouraged Hale to join the Air Force.

“I thought Obama, who as a candidate opposed the war in Iraq, would end the wars and lawlessness of the Bush administration,” he says. 

However, a few weeks after he took office, Obama approved the deployment of an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, where 36,000 U.S. troops and 32,000 NATO troops were already deployed. By the end of the year, Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan again by 30,000, doubling U.S. casualties. He also massively expanded the drone program, raising the number of drone strikes from several dozen the year before he took office to 117 by his second year in office.  By the time he left office, Obama had presided over 563 drone strikes that killed approximately 3,797 people, many of whom were civilians. 

Obama authorized “signature strikes” allowing the CIA to carry out drone attacks against groups of suspected militants without getting positive identification. His administration approved “follow-up” or “double-tap” drone strikes, which deployed drones to strike anyone who assisted those injured in the initial drone strike. The Bureau of Investigative Journalists reported in 2012 that “at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims,” during Obama’s first three years in office. Additionally, “more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners,” the report read. Obama expanded the footprint of the drone program in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, and established drone bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

“There are several such lists, used to target individuals for different reasons,” Hale writes in an essay titled, “Why I Leaked the Watchlist Documents,” originally published anonymously in May 2016 in the book “The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program” by Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The Intercept:

Some lists are closely kept; others span multiple intelligence and local law enforcement agencies. There are lists used to kill or capture supposed “high-value targets,” and others intended to threaten, coerce, or simply monitor a person’s activity. However, all the lists, whether to kill or silence, originate from the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), and are maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center at the National Counterterrorism Center. The existence of TIDE is unclassified, yet details about how it functions in our government are completely unknown to the public. In August 2013 the database reached a milestone of one million entries. Today, it is thousands of entries larger and is growing faster than it has since its inception in 2003.

The Terrorist Screening Center, he writes, not only stores names, dates of birth and other identifying information of potential targets but also stores “medical records, transcripts, and passport data; license plate numbers, email, and cell-phone numbers (along with the phone’s International Mobile Subscriber Identity and International Mobile Station Equipment Identity numbers); your bank account numbers and purchases; and other sensitive information, including DNA and photographs capable of identifying you using facial recognition software.”

Suspects’ data  is collected and pooled by the intelligence alliance formed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S., known as the Five Eyes. Each person on the list is assigned a TIDE personal number, or TPN.

“From Osama bin Laden (TPN 1063599) to Abdulrahman Awlaki (TPN 26350617), the American son of Anwar al Awlaki, anyone who has ever been the target of a covert operation was first assigned a TPN and closely monitored by all agencies who follow that TPN long before they were eventually put on a separate list and extrajudicially sentenced to death,” Hale wrote.

As Hale exposed in the leaked documents, the more than one million entries in the TIDE database include about 21,000 U.S. citizens.

“When the President gets up in front of the nation and says they are doing everything they can to ensure there is near certainty there will be no civilians killed, he is saying that because he can’t say otherwise, because anytime an action is taken to finish a target there is a certain amount of guesswork in that action,” Hale says in the award-winning documentary “National Bird,” a film about whistleblowers in the U.S. drone program who suffered moral injury and PTSD. “It’s only in the aftermath of any kind of ordinance being dropped that you know how much actual damage was done. Oftentimes, the intelligence community is reliant, the Joint Special Operations Command, the CIA included, is reliant on intelligence coming afterwards that confirms that who they were targeting was killed in the strike, or that they weren’t killed in that strike.”

“The people who defend drones, and the way they are used, say they protect American lives by not putting them in harm’s way,” he says in the film. “What they really do is embolden decision makers because there is no threat, there is no immediate consequence. They can do this strike. They can potentially kill this person they are so desperate to eliminate because of how potentially dangerous they could be to the U.S. But if it just so happens that they don’t kill that person, or some other people involved in the strike get killed as well, there are no consequences for it. When it comes to high-value targets, [in] every mission you go after one person at a time, but anybody else killed in that strike is blankly assumed to be an associate of the targeted individual. So as long as they can reasonably identify that all of the people in the field view of the camera are military-aged males, meaning anybody who is believed to be age 16 or older, they are a legitimate target under the rules of engagement. If that strike occurs and kills all of them, they just say they got them all.”

Drones, he says, make remote killing “easy and convenient.”

On Aug. 8, 2014, the FBI raided Hale’s home. It was his last day of work for the private contractor. Two FBI agents, one male and one female, shoved their badges in his face when he opened the door. About two dozen agents, pistols drawn, many wearing body armor, followed behind. They photographed and ransacked every room. They confiscated all his electronics, including his phone.

He spent the next five years in limbo. He struggled to find work, fought off depression and contemplated suicide. In 2019, the Trump administration indicted Hale on four counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of theft of government property. As part of a plea deal, he pled guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act.

“It would appear that I am here today to answer for the crime of stealing papers,” Hale said at his sentencing. “But what I am really here for is having stolen something that was never mine to take: precious human life.”

“I am here to answer for my own crimes and not that of another person,” he said at his sentencing. “And it would appear that I am here today to answer for the crime of stealing papers, for which I expect to spend some portion of my life in prison. But what I am really here for is having stolen something that was never mine to take: precious human life. For which I was well-compensated and given a medal. I couldn’t keep living in a world in which people pretended things weren’t happening that were. My consequential decision to share classified information about the drone program with the public was a gesture not taken lightly, nor one I would have taken at all if I believed such a decision had the possibility of harming anyone but myself. I acted not for the sake of self-aggrandizement but that I might some day humbly ask forgiveness.” 

I know a few Daniel Hales. They made my most important reporting possible. They enabled truths to be told. They held the powerful accountable. They gave a voice to the victims. They informed the public. They called for the rule of law.

I sit across from Hale and wonder if this is the end, if he, and others like him, will be completely silenced. 

Hale’s imprisonment is a microcosm of the vast gulag being constructed for all of us.

7 bakery items newly spotted at Costco warehouses

In addition to its menu of food court favorites, Costco flaunts an affordable and impressive assortment of baked goods. Cookies by the dozen, decadent layer cakes and seasonal pies are just a few mouth-watering goodies readily available at the warehouse.

Costco’s dessert delicacies are typically found in its popular bakery department. In recent weeks, hungry shoppers have been able to scoop up and enjoy a handful of newly available treats.

From hefty chocolate cheesecakes to mini snickerdoodle cakes, here are seven sweets recently spotted at Costco by sleuths on social media:

Mini Raspberry Cakes

These generously-sized raspberry cakes were spotted by Laura of @Costcohotfinds on Instagram. They’re made of spongy vanilla cake, which is filled with raspberry jelly and topped with pink buttercream and white chocolate shavings.

“Mini (let’s be honest, they’re not mini) Raspberry Cakes with Buttercream Icing!” Laura wrote in a June post. “They remind me of the old raspberry lemon cakes!”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeefW5jlvVO/

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the cakes don’t have any lemon in them. However, they’re still popular among bloggers and Costco shoppers on Reddit alike.

The mini raspberry cakes are sold in packs of six for about $8.99. (As a reminder, at Costco, prices and selections may vary by location.)

Chocolate Cheesecake

You can never have too much chocolate, especially while enjoying Costco’s 4-plus pound chocolate cheesecake. This indulgent treat is encased in a chocolate crust and adorned with dollops of chocolate mousse and finely crushed chocolate cookie crumbs.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CexCV-DFD2w/

“It’s pretty damn good. Softer consistency than the regular vanilla cheesecake,” user u/ DostWithTheMost said on Reddit. “The cookie whip cream and cookie crust are A+. Very rich. I cut mine into 5 huge pieces then put 4 of them into the freezer.”

Another user, u/ OnlyOnHBO, praised the cheesecake’s “magnificent consistency and flavor,” as well as its “delicious” exterior.

Costco’s chocolate cheesecake is big enough to enjoy with a crowd at your next summer cookout or picnic (or by yourself in the comfort of your own home, where you can look forward to leftovers). The cheesecakes, which are available in the refrigerator case, retail for around $19.99 each.


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


Junior’s Michigan Cherry Layer Cake

Junior’s seemingly endless line-up of cheesecakes and cakes includes the Michigan cherry layer cake. The 7-inch cakes were spotted by Instagrammer @costco_empties, who is an expert when it comes to uncovering new warehouse finds. According to the post, this dessert consists of vanilla cake, which is layered with a Michigan cherry filling and buttercream and topped with crushed vanilla cookies.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdwvpmLF7O9/

A Michigan cherry layer cake costs about $14.49, and you can find one in the refrigerator case (if it’s for sale at your neighborhood warehouse).

Key Lime Pie

After a year-long hiatus, Costco’s key lime pie is officially back in stores. This classic seasonal dessert flaunts a butter graham crust and a deliciously sweet yet slightly tart lime filling.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CfFKg1Qlsjy/

Because the pies are a seasonal item at Costco, they’re available for a limited time only. So, don’t forget to pick one (or two) up the next time you’re in the bakery section.

Each key lime pie comes packed in a 68-ounce plastic tray and retails for around $15.99. (In case you were wondering, that’s more than 4 pounds of pie!)

Mini Snickerdoodle Cakes

Though the season is still summer, some autumnal cakes are already back on shelves. These not-so-mini desserts are made of soft pound cake cupcakes and adorned with delicious swirls of cinnamon cream cheese frosting and bits of snickerdoodle cookie crumbs.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdtIKw2lhVs/

According to fans on Reddit, the cakes can be enjoyed straight out of the box with a scoop of vanilla ice cream or stored in the freezer to savor at a later date.  

The mini snickerdoodle cakes are sold in packs of six for about $8.99.

Mini All American Chocolate Cakes

The mini all-American chocolate cakes with fudge icing are another miniature-sized offering that is back on store shelves. Much like the chocolate cheesecake, this treat is a chocolate lover’s dream come true. Each cake flaunts not one but four layers of rich chocolate cake topped with a generous smear of chocolate frosting and chocolate shavings.

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

“I have these things. HOLY CRAP THEY ARE AMAZING!” user u/ SwimmingDrink wrote on Reddit. “The frosting is a bit sweet, but it is pretty delicious. The cake on the bottom is soft and moisty. Only thing I don’t like is the shavings make it a bit difficult to cut. Besides that, the frosting is awesome.”

These mini chocolate cakes are sold in packs of 6 for around $7.99.

Raspberry Crumble Cookies

The final spot on this list goes to Costco’s raspberry crumble cookies, which made their comeback in early July.

“Raspberry Crumble Cookies are one of my Costco bakery favorites!”@costcobuys wrote on Instagram. “These all butter cookies have a raspberry filling and are seriously AMAZING!”

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cf9NBe7F1v0/

The cookies can also be enjoyed as is or heated up and served with scoops of your favorite ice cream. Each pack contains 12 cookies and can be purchased for about $11.99.

Graveyard grift? Ivana Trump’s Bedminster burial site might be a secret tax windfall, experts say

The gravesite for Ivana Trump, Donald Trump’s ex-wife who passed away last month, could mean a tax windfall for the former president, who owns the New Jersey golf course on which she is buried. 

Ivana Trump, who was buried in Bedminster, a New Jersey township home to the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, died of blunt impact injuries at 73 after falling down a staircase in her Manhattan home last month. The New York Post reported that her funeral was held “not too far from the main clubhouse.”

According to ProPublica, the Trump family trust previously worked to establish a non-profit funeral business in Hackettstown, New Jersey, located just twenty miles from Ivana Trump’s gravesite. That business, if operational, is “exempt from the payment of any real estate taxes, rates and assessments or personal property taxes on lands and equipment dedicated to cemetery purposes,” according to the New Jersey tax code. However, reports suggest that by burying his ex-wife on the course, Trump might be able to reclassify his golf course as a cemetery, qualifying the estate for those same exemptions. 

For over a decade, the former president has planned to build a cemetery on the grounds of the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, as Insider noted. In 2007, Trump told the New York Post that he wanted to be laid to rest in the “beautiful land” of Bedminster. In 2012, NPR reported that Trump had been approved by the city’s town council to build his own 500-grave mausoleum. The former president’s original blueprints, which included “four imposing obelisks,” were reportedly shot down after city officials deemed his plans “overwhelming and garish,” The Washington Post reported. Since then, Trump has reportedly augmented the project into a “10 plot-private family cemetery,” later deciding that it would accommodate as many as 284. Despite these changes, the memorial park has never materialized. 

Following news of Ivana Trump’s gravesite, reportedly in close proximity to the first tee, numerous experts postulated that the former president might be receiving tax advantages for choosing to bury his ex-wife on his golf club. 


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


“As a tax researcher, I was skeptical of rumors Trump buried his ex-wife in that sad little plot of dirt on his Bedminster, NJ golf course just for tax breaks,” tweeted Brooke Harrington, a professor of sociology at Dartmouth. “So I checked the NJ tax code & folks…it’s a trifecta of tax avoidance. Property, income & sales tax, all eliminated.”

Harrington added that there is “no stipulation regarding a minimum # of human remains necessary for the tax breaks to kick in–looks like one corpse will suffice to make at least 3 forms of tax vanish.”

Jay Soled, Director of Rutgers Masters in Taxation Program, was more skeptical of the idea that Ivana Trump’s burial was a tax play, calling the notion “a bit overkill.” Soled speculated that there was a “reasonableness standard” that the former president would probably not clear in a state audit. It’s more likely, Soled added, that this a “typical Trump technique of expenditure, misclassification that he can much more readily classify otherwise personal expenses as being deductible.”

It wouldn’t be the first time the former president has attempted to lower his tax burden on the New Jersey estate.

Back in 2019, HuffPost reported that Trump slashed his tax bill by designating the golf course as a farm by owning livestock on the premises. Consequently, he was taxed that year at $6 an acre rather than $462. The property maintains a herd of goats as well as resources for farming and woodcutting, according to The Wall Street Journal

The course is currently under federal scrutiny for possibly providing officials with erroneous asset valuations for tax reasons.

Reports about Ivana Trump’s burial comes as the Bedminster course hosts a Saudi-funded LIV golf tournament, which this weekend featured Fox News host Tucker Carlson and U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. The tour has been criticized over links between Saudi officials and 9/11 hijackers, as well as the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Trump used the presidential seal, apparently illegally, during the tournament. 

The Gilead Playbook: Right-wing extremists are making fiction come true

Ever since the early morning hours of Nov. 9, 2016, standing in a ballroom with red-hatted Trump election celebrants in the New York Hilton, I’ve been waiting for this moment. This eruption of misogyny, unlike any since perhaps the witch trials and the burnings of midwives at the stake, was only a matter of time.

As shocking, as wildly insulting as that pussy-grabber winning the presidency was to American women and girls, it was just the beginning of what appears to be a long season of sadism.

Who let the dogs out?

The election of Donald Trump signaled a cutting of the chain-link fence behind which something drooling and ferocious had been waiting. Unfortunately, what most of us didn’t fully grasp then was just how powerful that force of (male) nature was. Too late we understood that it had been long licking its wounds in a dark corner gathering strength. We sensed it for years, of course, but we didn’t know just how feral and hungry it might prove to be.

Remember the things that once had the power to shock us? They seem so meh now: American voters electing to the highest office in the land someone credibly accused of sexual harassment and assault, on record advising a younger man to “grab ’em by the pussy.” And that was after a presidential campaign in which he and his supporters had showered his female (“rhymes with witch”) opponent with profane misogynistic abuse.

Soon, The Donald and his followers had normalized everyday misogyny, celebrating their leader’s tendency to reduce all women to strip-club sexual attractiveness. Mini-Trumps sprouted in lesser elected positions across the country, publicly calling elected women or those campaigning for office witches and worse. We even got used to the seating of a new rightist Supreme Court with, for added insult, one new justice credibly accused of sexual assault and another a member of a religious cult that called women “handmaidens.”

Meh, meh. That, too, it turns out, was just the beginning.

We’re now living in the after-times of all that the Trump years unleashed.

In 1991, Susan Faludi wrote a book, “Backlash:The Undeclared War Against Women,” chronicling the ways in which the patriarchy was then fighting to reverse the gains made by our mothers and grandmothers. They were the ones who had braved public scorn in their struggle to pull American women out of their assigned roles as pointy-bra-wearing, breathy vixens consigned to housewifery or professional lives as secretaries, nurses or, at best, teachers.

The change that felt natural to us between 1970 and the turn of the century was not natural to them. Not even faintly. Never in recorded history had there been such an upending of patriarchal power.

Faludi was spot on, of course. Sadly, though, the backlash of the 1980s she chronicled would prove to be just a prologue. Having had it named for us, you might think we could have checked that backlash and maintained momentum toward gender equality. Who in the 1990s could have imagined a day when elected men in at least 25 states would be legally enabled to force raped women to give birth or prevent doctors from performing procedures to save women likely to die of pregnancy? Who could have predicted the level of hatred toward women embodied in those very statutes and openly spoken of without shame or hesitation by elected leaders?

Obviously, we should have known better.

The change that felt so natural to those of us who came of age between 1970 and the turn of the century was not natural to them. Not even faintly. Never in recorded history had there been such an upending of patriarchal power as in the years when we grew up. We tend to take it all for granted, but the challenge to male power from the successes of second-wave feminism (and access to birth-control options) was indeed unique.


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


The facts speak for themselves: A majority of women now work outside the home, and we outnumber men in college attendance, too — signaling even greater numbers of women who should be able to rely economically on themselves instead of male partners. American women were enabled to escape lives of utter dependence on men, precisely because we had access to contraceptives and abortion, and for the first time in history were able to control if, when, and with whom we would bear children.

All that represented serious, deeply meaningful change. It altered the way young women and young men interacted, sexually and socially. Admittedly, we are still far from parity. The development of Silicon Valley, another economic revolution like the industrial one, created a new flood of male-only economic dynasties that once again shut out women (who weren’t wives) from the upper reaches of the economy. But the trend lines in general were upending eons of power relations between men and women at the most intimate, domestic level.

It was only a matter of time — and we should have known it — before such advances provoked the beast. The election of Donald Trump provided a green light for the release of sick, dark fantasies of revenge and a resurgence of the apparently ineradicable urge among some men to rule women utterly and completely.

The predator’s ball

I’ve always found the Hulu series “The Handmaid’s Tale” to be unwatchable, misogynistic torture porn. As a young English major in the 1980s, I read Margaret Atwood’s novel. I understood it then as a dystopic satire on the theocratic woman-controlling impulses already bubbling up around the edges of American society, which that Canadian writer had creatively taken to their logical conclusion.

The streaming series, however, was something else. The graphic and repeated scenes of actress Elisabeth Moss’s subjection as Offred, including the rapes and various bloody mutilations and punishments visited on her and her sister handmaidens, all converged into a category of visual titillation that went straight to the amygdala. I could imagine men who didn’t find such visual crap as impossible to watch as I did.

The fact that the producers were men had, I’m sure, something to do with the tone.

But today, the horror is this: it’s not confined to a Hulu series anymore. The extreme right in American politics is openly working off the playbook of Atwood’s fictional Republic of Gilead. Its urge is to construct an all-American theocracy in which the Old Testament Biblical rights of men to control women as reproductive chattel are restored to them.

There was a time not that long ago when American women could assume our foes were safely isolated in pockets of lunacy like Missouri, where 2012 Republican Senate nominee Todd Akin famously suggested that rape can sometimes prevent pregnancy. Another example: Nevada, where a 2010 anti-abortion Tea Party candidate explained her “no exceptions for incest” position by suggesting that girls impregnated by their own fathers should remember that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

We laughed at them then. But the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade has emboldened those freaks to leave their hidey-holes and, as Dr. Phil might put it, open up about their true feelings.

Let’s start with Charlie Kirk Jr., the co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), which exists mainly to bus conservative college students to fill seats at Trump rallies or form media-attracting long lines to shake hands with Marjorie Taylor Greene and harass progressive college professors.

Kirk has a podcast and a massive social media following. On June 24, in the giddy aftermath of the Roe decision, he gushed about his feelings to his 1.7 million Twitter followers this way (italics mine): “Notice who is marching in the streets: single, unmarried, mostly white, college educated women. Frankly it’s foolish to call conservatives racist — who we actually can’t stand are angry, liberal, white women.”

He was probably disappointed when he only garnered 6,860 likes.

Kirk and his fellow travelers seem to be engaged in a competition to revile women. A few months before Roe was overturned, former NFL player and Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Minnesota Matt Birk actually got a twofer by slamming working women and supporting rapists simultaneously. Abortion rights, he said, lead to working women who then “go to the rape card” if abortion is restricted. He added: “It’s not over. Our culture loudly but also stealthily promotes abortion. Telling women they should look a certain way, have careers, all these things.”

Have careers, and all these things.

At Kirk’s recent TPUSA convention in Tampa, Rep. Matt Gaetz brayed to a roomful of young men and women this way: “Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.” (Try to imagine the pasted-on cheerleader smiles of the women in his audience listening to that.)

Who cares about words, though, when sticks and stones — and laws — actually break our bones (or cause us to bleed to death)? Straight from the Gilead playbook, the theocrats are trying to force women who need abortions to stay within the restrictive borders of their states. You don’t even need to imagine how closely this tracks with scenes in Hulu’s “Handmaid’s Tale.” A liberal/left-leaning political advocacy group, Meidas Touch, has created a little video clip to help you see it all too graphically.

In the past few weeks alone:

Texas Attorney General and indicted securities fraudster Ken Paxton sued the federal government to stop the implementation of the Biden administration’s requirement that abortions be performed in cases of emergency, when the life of a mother is at stake. Texas is officially on record now, working in the courts to make sure women likely to die of pregnancy actually do so.

Idaho Republicans rejected a measure to allow a life-saving abortion. The man behind the proposal to criminalize all abortions from the moment of conception, Scott Herndon, is running unopposed for a state Senate seat. He called it a “declaration of the right to life for reborn children.”

Or look to Texas again for proof that “pro-life” care for the “pre-born” child is a lie and not the real reason for the race to control uteri. A recent Texas Tribune/ProPublica investigation revealed that ironclad anti-abortion Texas is one of just a few states that doesn’t allow Medicaid coverage for a full year after a poor woman gives birth. How caring!

Democratic and progressive strategists and speechwriters don’t have to look far to find outrageous anecdotes. When President Biden mentioned a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim forced to travel to Indiana for an abortion, the rightwing info-silo, including the Wall Street Journal, promptly cast doubt on the very existence of the child and the rape. When the alleged rapist was arrested, theocrats continued to offer up treacly, sick excuses, dripping with sanctimony, for why even children should be forced to give birth.

“She would have had the baby and, as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” pro-life lawyer and former Indiana deputy attorney general Jim Bopp typically told Politico. He was, of course, speaking of that 10 year old whose medical care he would have wanted to prohibit in his state.

Reports of the post-Roe effects of care withheld are starting to hit the national news, with bleeding women and those with deadly infections having to wait for legal analyses or travel to distant places to find doctors. As one physician who narrowly saved the life of a miscarrying woman in Texas (having had to wait for the fetal heartbeat to finally stop) put it: “The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood, and had to be put on a breathing machine.” Her life was indeed saved, but in our new post-Roe world, barely.

The disunited states of pro-choice

There is no doubt in my mind (nor in Margaret Atwood‘s) that we’re now witnessing a real-life attempt to construct her once-fictional Republic of Gilead in our country. It will be complete with forced birth and rape as a means of master-race reproduction — plus lots and lots of female blood.

We’re now witnessing a real-life attempt to construct Atwood’s once-fictional Republic of Gilead in our country, complete with forced birth and rape as a means of master-race reproduction.

On the upside, the insane depredations, verbal and legal, being visited on women in these post-Roe months have already handed the Democrats a wealth of material from which to craft effective messages and potentially gain an edge in the coming midterm elections. The question is: Does the party have the will and skill to do it? If past is prologue, we can’t be sure.

For too long, the onus has been on women to figure out how to protect themselves from fanatical political misogyny. For example, when it comes to abortion, feminist activists have long urged women to “tell” their stories. Some are now bemoaning the fact that not enough of us did so before the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

The logic here is that if more women talked openly about their experiences, we would “normalize” that procedure. But is that true? Why should women have to “share” personal information in order to sustain our privacy, a right we actually possess, whether secured by law or not?

Our abortion stories couldn’t convert Justice Amy Coney Barrett or deter any other fanatical fetal rights activists from their appointed task before Roe was overturned. And why, in any case, should women ever have to discuss personal reproductive options and decisions outside a doctor’s office?

There is one exception. Survivors of illegal abortions do a service to the cause by sharing these stories. I recommend, for instance, French writer Annie Ernaux’s book “The Happening,” a short chronicle of her botched back-alley abortion in Paris in 1964. That bloody, terrifying account ranks with the most harrowing war stories ever written.

When abortion is relegated to dirty back rooms, women’s bodies become literal combat zones. The most resonant line among many comes when Ernaux describes the searing pain of a fake doctor inserting a tube into her uterus to start the process. “At that point I killed my mother inside me,” she writes.

A legion of organizations is now coalescing to assist women who will need abortions in the half of America where they’ll be faced with the same horrific choice Ernaux survived. (Some of those efforts are aggregated here and here.)

Doctors, to their credit, seem to be stepping up for women. The American Medical Association (AMA) issued a strong statement opposing the politicization of reproductive medicine. Its president, Jack Resneck, has warned lawmakers of the challenges they’re creating for doctors. The problem is, it might not matter. Like the American Bar Association’s declining influence in the selection of federal judges — unprecedented numbers of Trump’s appointees were deemed unqualified by that group — the AMA has limited influence in a world where significant numbers of the info-siloed believe COVID-19 is a hoax and the vaccines for it contain tracking microchips.

Politically, doctors aren’t going to save us anyway. For too long, even at the greatest women’s march of my adult lifetime, the anti-Trump protest in Washington on Jan. 17, 2017, women have presented a disunited front. The history of the fracturing of the women’s movement is long and sad. Discussions of it are fraught territory, mined with political IEDs that I’d rather avoid. I’ll only say this: Why is it that Congress instantly got moving on the gay marriage law after Roe was overturned (and yes, I’m for it!), when it can’t even get the basics for women passed in the federal Women’s Health Protection act. (The Senate has blocked it twice already.)

The answer, at least in part: Advocacy solely for women is always easier to defeat than advocacy for issues that also involve men.

Furthermore, we’re weakened from the inside. As Pamela Paul pointed out in a controversial post-Roe op-ed on the erasing of women, even Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU have stopped using the word “women” in discussing abortion in favor of phrases like “pregnant people” or “birthing people.” That the very definition of women is now added to decades of the slicing and dicing of women’s groups into narrower and narrower subdivisions of identity only weakens the movement.

It’s true that heterosexual white women are historically privileged over women of color or of different sexual orientations. But if we can’t even agree that all “women” are ultimately people born with a uterus — a subset of human beings who, whatever our differences in terms of class, race or ethnicity, share the utterly exceptional, unique challenge of being impregnable — we are going to lose this war.

GOP-backed “independent state legislature” Supreme Court case could reverse 200 years of progress

In a case to be heard in the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court could decide that state legislatures have control over congressional elections, including the ability to draw voting districts for partisan political advantage, unconstrained by state law or state constitutions.

At issue is a legal theory called the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which is posed through the court’s consideration of a dispute over gerrymandered North Carolina congressional districts. In early 2022, North Carolina state courts found the legislature violated the state constitution when it drew gerrymandered congressional districts favoring Republicans. The legislature has claimed that the U.S. Constitution gives it authority, unfettered by state courts’ interpretation of the state constitution or laws, to regulate congressional elections, and is asking the Supreme Court to agree.

If the court agrees, it could free state legislatures to take power away from voters – “We the People” in constitutional parlance – and reverse a two-century trend toward expanding the power of the people in congressional elections.

Some election and constitutional law analysts have already suggested that state legislatures may have similar power over presidential elections. The U.S. Constitution allows state legislatures to determine how a state chooses its presidential electors, arguably leaving the legislature free to choose presidential electors on their own without a popular election.

Power of the people in early America

The people wielded little power in congressional elections at America’s founding.

The unamended Constitution required United States senators be chosen directly by their state legislatures, not by voters directly. That was the case until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, which requires U.S. senators to be elected by the people.

The Constitution has always required United States representatives be chosen by the people, but who could vote was severely limited.

America’s late-18th century vision of democracy treated voting as a privilege to be doled out by the state, not a right. Voting was typically limited to a narrow band of people – adult white men with property.

Some states, including North Carolina and New Jersey, allowed women or free Black men, or both, to vote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Nonetheless, who could exercise power in congressional or state elections was a matter of grace provided by state legislatures.

Power of the people today

As U.S. democracy matured, the people gained power as the electorate expanded through various constitutional amendments.

Voting remains a right provided by each state. However, the states can no longer limit the right to vote based on race, sex, failure to pay a poll tax or age if a voter is 18 years or older. Functionally, adult citizens who have not been convicted of a crime have the right to vote in federal and state elections.

In addition, the value of a vote is protected. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court recognized the one-person, one-vote doctrine under the Constitution. That doctrine requires each congressional district in a state to contain approximately the same number of residents.

Before the doctrine was recognized, one congressional district in a state could have several times the population as another district in the same state. A vote in the larger district would have a fraction of the power of a vote in the smaller district.

In the wake of the one-person, one-vote doctrine, each vote carries approximately the same weight.

Undoing accountability

Providing voting power to the people makes representatives more accountable and answerable to their constituents. Adopting the independent state legislature doctrine may reverse the accountability.

Those who advocate the legitimacy of this doctrine say it rests on the Constitution’s grant to state legislatures of regulatory power over congressional elections in Article I, Section 4.

That section reads: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” It gives state legislatures the primary authority to run congressional elections, subject to congressional regulation through federal law.

For example, for much of the nation’s history, states could choose U.S. representatives through districts or through an at-large system. However, federal law now requires the representatives to be chosen solely through districts.

In addition, state legislative power has been treated as though it is constrained by other state governmental actors. In many states, governors may veto redistricting maps they deem unfair or improper. Similarly, as in the North Carolina case, courts may deem such maps unlawful or unconstitutional.

A strong version of the doctrine might give a state legislature the power to draw congressional districts without any oversight from state courts or the governor. Given that state courts apply a state’s constitution and state statutory law, a strong independent state legislature doctrine could leave the state legislature unfettered by state law in this area.

However, in a well-functioning democracy, state constitutional and statutory law should reflect the preferences of a state’s people. The Supreme Court reminded the Arizona legislature of this point in a 2015 ruling that allowed a citizen initiative in that state to bypass the legislature in redistricting, instead requiring congressional districts to be drawn by an independent commission. If the independent state legislature doctrine were to be adopted by the current Supreme Court, that power could not be exercised by citizens.

Limited federal protection

If the court adopts the independent state legislature doctrine, legislatures would still be subject to regulation by the U.S. Constitution and by federal law, such as the Voting Rights Act.

However, the court has limited the protections embedded in the Voting Rights Act. In the 2019 ruling, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court deemed partisan gerrymandering a political question, not subject to regulation by the Constitution. In that ruling, the court noted that state constitutional and statutory law could be used to stop partisan gerrymandering.

Three years later, the court is set to hear a case that could remove state courts from oversight of partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures. Adoption of a strong independent state legislature doctrine would leave partisan gerrymandering unregulated at both the state and federal levels.

State legislatures, unconstrained by state law, could then create aggressively gerrymandered congressional districts, possibly leading to an ever more partisan Congress with accompanying gridlock and policy failures.

Disempowering the people

When the Constitution was ratified, the state legislature was the locus of state power. That power was exercised by a few men who were not answerable to the broad populace. The state legislature was responsible for acting in the citizenry’s best interests. However, the citizenry had no effective way to force legislators to act in the people’s interests.

Over time, citizens have gained more control over state legislatures through an expanded vote and by becoming a larger part of the lawmaking apparatus of many states.

In a 21st-century democracy, the constitutional grant of regulatory authority to a state legislature regarding congressional elections might be thought to be a grant of primary authority to a state legislature – but an authority subject to a variety of other limits imposed via state constitutional law, state statutory law, the courts and the citizenry.

At America’s founding, the Constitution made the power of the people a matter of grace provided by state legislatures. As America’s democracy matured, the power of the people became a matter of right under the Constitution.

The independent state legislature doctrine threatens to make the power of the people a matter of grace again, reinstating an anachronistic vision of democracy long thought to have passed.

 

Henry L. Chambers Jr., Professor of Law, University of Richmond

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

“Better Call Saul” connects with the inevitability of Gene breaking bad

As much as we’d like to believe Saul Goodman’s undoing was inevitable, “Better Call Saul” is fond of reminding us that Bob Odenkirk‘s criminal lawyer chose his path. Throughout the series we’ve watched Jimmy be presented with options to go straight, or at least level enough to escape lasting consequences, only to choose the shortcut.

Since we’re watching the story from his point of view it’s been easy to side with his perspective. Examine the many phases Jimmy McGill has meant seeing the ways he’s been betrayed by family and by his colleagues. The people closest to Jimmy who don’t betray him abandon him.

That’s why it matters to know that one of Saul’s most reliable allies, Mike Ehrmantraut (Jonathan Banks), warned him about getting mixed up with a high school chemistry teacher trying to grab a piece of Albuquerque’s meth market. Mike’s top loyalty is to Gus Fring (Giancarlo Esposito), but since Gus has a use for Saul, Mike isn’t above taking Saul’s money and giving him sound advice.

While reporting his findings on the chemistry teacher to Saul, he tells him the guy has Stage 3 cancer, adding, “Listen, even if this guy was gonna live, I wouldn’t go near him. He’s a complete amateur.”

“Well,” Saul replies, “you see an amateur. I see . . .170 pounds of clay ready to be molded.”

But Mike is adamant in a “don’t say I didn’t warn you” kind of way. “If the cancer doesn’t get him,” he says, “it’ll be the cops or a bullet to the head.”

We’ve had a lot of good times watching “Better Call Saul” examine the many phases of Jimmy McGill’s life. That’s especially true of obsessive viewers noting the small details Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould task their writers and directors with inserting in each episode.

However, “Breaking Bad” – as in, the title of the 11th episode of the sixth season written and directed by Thomas Schnauz  – is one of those attention-getters inviting us to look up from our microscopes and magnifying glasses and take in the grand moral of this story and, perhaps, the “Breaking Bad” universe in general.

Since “Better Call Saul” began, people wondered if or when Walter White (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) would make an appearance, especially considering how prominent Mike and Gus are to Saul’s origin story.

This episode finally delivers that promised appearance by showing us the consequential lesson Jimmy/Saul failed to learn from the very start, and in a way that reverberates through Gene Takavic’s loveless black-and-white future.

In that desolate place, somewhere around Omaha, Nebraska, and sometime around 2010 (by the estimates of people who pick up clues by way of sports trivia), we’ve met a guy running out of options. Gene reaches out to Francesca (Tina Parker), his assistant when he went by Saul Goodman. Francesca lives a paranoia-haunted, glamour-free life of being followed, seeing that her mail is being opened, knowing her home phone is tapped, and managing a run-down apartment where she must cater to stoners.

He asks her for updates, some of which we already know (via “El Camino”), like the fact that Jesse has disappeared. Skyler, meanwhile, has cut a deal with the feds. Other folks have escaped the brunt of law enforcement’s wrath, including Huell. (Hooray for that one.) That leaves Saul Goodman as the only person left on their most wanted list for the Heisenberg case – and, as the season premiere teased, neither Saul nor any of the shell companies within shell companies he created contain any assets he can tap. The cops took it all.

 A major question is whether Jimmy McGill will learn from the object lesson presented by his time with Walter White and Jesse Pinkman.

Some of that might have been avoidable if he’d given Francesca any warning that he had put her name down as the manager of one of his fake corporations where he hid $850,000. But that has always been Jimmy’s blind spot. He doesn’t cultivate loyalty with the people he should, and puts too much faith in those who end up breaking his heart.

It’s not as if “Better Call Saul” were crying out for a grand takeaway. Odenkirk has made exploring the ethical and spiritual corrosion of Jimmy and the emergence of Saul Goodman fascinating in themselves.

But since the mystery of Gene remains unsolved – although as of this episode, we’re definitely driving up to his unraveling – a major question is whether the man behind that identity and the one before will learn from the object lesson presented by his time with Walter and Jesse.

To remind us of what that was, Schnauz returns us to Saul’s first encounter with the pair after they kidnap him and drag him out to the desert to stare down at an empty grave. We should never have assumed that was the end of the conversation. Once Walter and Jesse finish scaring Saul, they let him inside in their mobile meth lab. And the lawyer, being a nosy guy, sniffs around to figure out who he’s dealing with.

Better Call SaulBob Odenkirk as Gene in “Better Call Saul” (Greg Lewis/AMC/Sony Pictures Television)

The visuals in every “Better Call Saul” episode tell us as much about the interiority of whoever Jimmy McGill is turning into as his own words and actions do. Saul can see how little respect Walt has for Jesse, even in that scene’s short exchange, which the audience knows will blossom into betrayal.

Even at that moment, however, what Jesse says should have been a cautionary sign for Saul. Jesse asks who Lalo was, and Saul feigns ignorance. But Jesse presses: “You thought some dude named Lalo sent us. You seemed pretty freaked out. Never heard of no Lalo on the street.”

By no means was Lalo a lone wolf. He was something worse: a predator who surrounded himself with men and women he sacrificed without a thought. That doesn’t prevent him from disappearing off the face of the Earth.  Hence, the only man left who even mentions his name is Jimmy.

So perhaps what Jimmy McGill’s trials and transformations show us is what can happen to a person who goes through life without anyone having their back. Not even his ex.

When Jimmy calls Kim from the same phone booth he uses to reach Francesca, it’s revealed that she has started over in Titusville, Florida, where she works at a sprinkler company. While we don’t hear their conversation, his reaction tells us everything we need to know: he ends the call by furiously hammering the cradle with the receiver kicking through one of the booth’s lower glass panes.

At any rate, Gene Takavic is beyond the ability to be fixed by love or even friendship. In this black-and-white future, he is never seen being kind to anyone for kindness’ sake. There’s always an angle. And whenever that type of con artist takes someone who is actually nice for being a chump – an old lady like Marion (Carol Burnett) is a fine example – they’re begging to be punished.

Better Call SaulPat Healy as Jeff in “Better Call Saul” (Greg Lewis/AMC/Sony Pictures Television)

Of course, the “Breaking Bad” episode sets us up for Gene’s fall by showing him reeling in Jeff and his friend (Max Bickelhaup) for an identity theft scam targeting arrogant investment portfolio managers. He gets them drunk while plying them with salty snacks, calling himself Victor which the bigger jerks among his marks find to be hilarious. He’s such a loser, you see.

Once the men can barely walk, Jeff rolls up in his cab to take them home, offering each a bottle of drug-laced water. He helps the men to their doors, duct-taping the deadbolt before he goes. Shortly afterward Jeff’s friend swings by, temporarily relieves the men of their wallets and photographs their identification, credit cards and every type of bank statement he can find. They pass along that information to brokers. Everyone gets paid.

The operation runs smoothly until Gene sits down with an investment specialist who seems to be a good person (Kevin Sussman), doesn’t make him feel like a chump and then, in a crossroads moment, reveals to Gene that he has cancer. At that moment, a glimmer of Jimmy resurfaces.

“Hey, it’s not my business, but . . . should you be drinking?” he asks.

The man shrugs sadly. “You only go around once,” he says before clinking his glass with his new bar friend.

“Breaking Bad” shuffles between the full-color past and Gene’s future in a way that defies the viewer to ignore the obviousness of its foreshadowing. Take that hole Jesse and Walter dug for Saul, purely to scare him. As the three drive away from it, the camera angles downward to show Gene fade into view, lying in his bed and staring into space.

Enough is never enough for men like Walter White, Saul Goodman, or Gene Takavic.

By then Gene has concocted his identity theft scam, in the same way that by the time Saul rolls off in that iconic R.V. he’s witnessed Walter ominously coughing and connects the dots, figuring out this chemistry teacher is a dying man with nothing to lose. Surely profiting from a man who won’t live to reap the worst consequences of his actions can’t go wrong. Right?

We know that it does. As Francesca tells her former boss, Heisenberg’s death made things worse for everyone else, even those with the least involvement. When Jeff’s friend draws the line at stealing the identity of a mortally ill man in Gene’s time, does the man who used to be Jimmy McGill heed that warning? Of course not.


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


Jeff’s friend points out that they’ve all made plenty of cash, enough to release this catch. He’s even removed the tape from the lock. The sick man would never know what could have happened.

This is the “Better Call Saul” version of Skyler White’s “How much is enough? How big does this pile have to be?” moment.

But enough is never enough for men like Walter White, Saul Goodman, or Gene Takavic. Jimmy McGill could have figured out that answer if he’d learned that winning doesn’t involve someone else losing and made it his life’s lesson to never become that person.

With two episodes left in the series, it is tough to picture Odenkirk’s lonesome grifter turning over a new leaf or emerging without a dent. This is especially the case now that Marion has witnessed Gene yelling at her son before Jeffy drives Gene back to the sick man’s house to finish a morally bankrupt theft.

What we’re saying is, if the cancer doesn’t get Gene Takavic, it may be the cops or a bullet to the head.

New episodes of “Better Call Saul” air Mondays at 9 p.m. on AMC.

 

“Heinous”: Joe Scarborough calls out Trump for slamming proposed swap of “spoiled” Brittney Griner

Joe Scarborough, the former Republican U.S. congressman turned MSNBC personality, called Donald Trump a “heinous human being” on Monday after the former president suggested that Brittney Griner, the WNBA star recently imprisoned in Russia, was “spoiled.”

“We have Donald Trump calling Brittney Griner ‘spoiled,’ and we have Donald Trump talking about her, quote, ‘loaded up with drugs.’ There’s been no testimony, no evidence, no suggestion that she was, quote, ‘loaded up with drugs,'” Scarborough during a broadcast this week on his show, “Morning Joe.”

“It once again shows just what a terrible guy this is, what a heinous human being. How cruel it is,” he added. “And you cannot help but wonder if he’s saying that because she’s a black basketball player.”

Scarborough’s comments came after Trump suggested that the U.S. was getting played by Russia amid reports of a possible prisoner exchange between Griner and Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer who was convicted in 2011 of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and officials. Griner, by contrast, pleaded guilty last month to possessing vaporizer cartridges containing hash oil at a Russian airport. 

“It certainly doesn’t seem like a very good trade, does it?” Trump said of the deal. “[Bout’s] absolutely one of the worst in the world, and he’s going to be given his freedom because a potentially spoiled person goes into Russia loaded up with drugs.”


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


“They don’t like drugs. And she got caught. And now, we’re supposed to get her out – and she makes, you know, a lot of money, I guess,” the former president added. “We’re supposed to get her out for an absolute killer and one of the biggest arms dealers in the world. Killed many Americans. Killed many people.”

Griner, an Olympic gold medalist, has been detained in Russia since February and has since undergone what critics call a “show trial,” where her legal outcome was predetermined.  

On top of Griner, U.S. officials have also reportedly asked for the release of Paul Whelan, a former U.S. marine who was arrested in 2018 by Russian authorities on espionage charges and is currently serving a 16-year sentence. 

On Monday, CNN reported that Russian authorities threw a wrench into the deal by also requesting the release of Vadim Krasikov, a former Russian colonel who was convicted in Germany of assassinating Zelimkhan Khangoshvil, a former platoon commander for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Sources told CNN that the counteroffer is problematic because Krasikov is currently being detained in Germany.

The extremely ’90s history of the flavored latte

If, like me, you occasionally revisit Nora Ephron’s 1998 rom-com classic “You’ve Got Mail,” you may recall one iconic scene at a Starbucks in New York City’s West Village. Bookstore owner Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan), in a masterfully layered pinafore and turtleneck, smiles as she awaits her soon-to-be ’90s-viral order of a tall, skim, caramel macchiato. She’s recalling an email from Joe Fox, her AOL crush and unwitting rival played by Tom Hanks.

“The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision-making ability whatsoever to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee,” Fox’s voiceover proclaims. “. . . So people who don’t know what the hell they’re doing or who on earth they are, can, for only $2.95, get not just a cup of coffee but an absolutely defining sense of self: Tall! Decaf! Cappuccino!”

This scene that so cheekily encapsulates the American consumer would not only cement the rise of coffee’s second wave (through re-energized cafe culture at places like Starbucks and Peet’s Coffee), but also that of the flavored caffe latte, which has since spawned such viral progeny as eggnog, peppermint mocha, and, of course, pumpkin spice.

At once beloved and maligned, the distinctly American practice of doctoring espresso with flavored syrups and copious amounts of steamed milk purportedly dates back to San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood in the early 1980s. Per San Francisco-based syrup maker Torani, a retired coffee industry veteran named LC “Brandy” Brandenburg walked into North Beach’s Caffe Trieste in 1982 and glimpsed the Torani flavored syrup bottles lining the back bar. He asked owner and friend Giovanni “Papa Gianni” Giotta if he could take a few home to Portland, Ore., where he had an espresso machine. He started experimenting until he’d concocted the first flavored latte out of steamed milk, espresso, and vanilla and orange syrups, which he called the Fantasia.

“He picked up the phone and called Harry Lucheta [son-in-law of Torani’s founders Ezilda and Rinaldo Torre], who was running the company at that time,” says Melanie Dulbecco, Torani’s CEO. “He said, ‘I think I figured something out here.'”

On a handshake deal, Lucheta sent Brandenburg back to Portland with 10 cases and an agreed-upon commission to start spreading the flavored latte gospel to local roasters and cafe owners. Dulbecco, who started at Torani in 1991 and was mentored by Brandenburg and Lucheta, says it was tough going to sell to cafes in those early days.

“People’s initial reaction was, ‘You want to do what to your espresso?'” says Dulbecco. “Up to that point what was being served in cafes were cappuccinos or straight espresso.”

The practice of flavoring coffee dates back centuries, to the Middle Eastern spice trade when people started brewing coffee with cardamom or cinnamon, or plopping dried fruit pieces into their cups as a flavor complement. To this day, authentic Turkish and Arabic coffees are often brewed with cardamom. In Yemen, coffee beans are sometimes mixed with a heady blend of dried ginger, cardamom, cloves, and cinnamon.

Likewise, Italians have long been “correcting” their espresso with liqueurs. The marocchino, which originated in Piedmont, consists of a shot of espresso blended with cocoa and milk froth. It’s worth noting that these are fastidiously considered desserts, bordering on sin if ordered before lunchtime — not unlike Italians’ strictness about cappuccinos being solely a morning beverage.

Owing to the influx of Italians to North Beach in the early 1900s, flavored syrups have been part of American cafe culture since the ’20s. There, the San Francisco-native Torre set up shop producing Torani’s syrups, including tamarindo, orgeat, anisette, grenadine and lemon, which were mostly bound for Italian sodas, though occasionally flavored coffees. Grenadine would remain Torani’s most popular flavor until 1990.

However, Brandenburg’s latte was purportedly more inspired by the flavored coffees he started seeing on grocery shelves in the 1970s. Popularized by Chicago-based Gloria Jean’s Coffee, which debuted in 1979, flavored coffee usually involves mixing flavor compounds with a solvent like propylene glycol to attach the flavor chemicals to the beans. The flavor syrup is poured over coffee beans after the roast and agitated to coat them evenly.

“What Brandy saw was that consumers were looking for this coffee with flavors adhered to the beans, which was not a great experience,” Dulbecco says. “The point is, people still wanted it. That’s what gave him the idea of doing it in an elevated way. Part of the trick to growing this category was the addition of milk. Initially some people were finding coffee bitter, even with the flavorings. This was a way in.”

By the ’80s, Torani shifted its entire business to focusing on cafes. It added coffee-friendly flavors like vanilla, chocolate, white chocolate, and caramel and put together suggested menus with flavor syrups intended to blend with, not overpower, coffee. Coffee shops started getting on board, too. In October 1986, at the behest of then-new Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to create more seasonal coffee drinks, an employee at Seattle’s Columbia Tower Starbucks named Dave Olsen invented the eggnog latte.

In the early 1990s, just as Starbucks and Peet’s were starting to experiment with different flavored syrups, Bourge, France-based syrup maker Monin established a presence in America with its vanilla, caramel, and hazelnut syrups. Those earliest flavors remain three of Monin’s best-selling to this day, says Angela Thompson, beverage innovation director.

It’s hard to overstate how instrumental Starbucks was to the flavored latte’s rise. The precursor to pumpkin spice, the pumpkin pie latte, had already appeared at a few coffee shops when a Starbucks product manager presented a prototype to the R&D team at the company’s headquarters in 2003. The drink would spark an 11% jump in sales the following year and go on to be the company’s best-selling seasonal beverage of all time. It’s now available in 50 countries worldwide, and as of 2019, CNBC reported that an estimated 424 million had been sold. Meanwhile, spinoff iterations continue sprouting on grocery shelves and backbars, and pumpkin spice season creeps up and up like a slow-moving pumpkin-pie-filling spill, to the point where Torani now has to ensure it has stock of pumpkin spice syrup as early as July.

Of course, not everyone is so keen to debase their espressos with pumpkin spice or any other flavoring for a whole litany of reasons — some of which sprung out of the very same cafe culture that Starbucks helped usher in.

“There’s different kinds of thumbing your nose when it comes to coffee,” says Merry “Corky” White, a professor of anthropology at Boston University, who specializes in food and coffee. “One is, why mess up a good cup of coffee? Another, which is a big thing in Massachusetts, is Starbucks versus Dunkin’ Donuts, or more broadly, this idea of the fake elite versus the fake working class. I think the latte falls into the snob category perhaps in that scenario.”

The rise of specialty coffee and its affiliation with “rarified connoisseurship” arguably began in Berkeley in the 1960s, when Alfred Peet opened his first cafe using high-quality beans and manually calibrated roasting to brew a sweeter, less bitter cup. Until then, coffee status was less about the lousy swill in your cup than the place, with its sticky tables and din of philosophical chatter in a haze of cigarette smoke. “Now the coffee itself began to have the power to confer some kind of status on the drinker,” White says. This would only grow, later taking the form of backlash against the cheap, flavored coffees becoming popular at supermarkets.

As cafe culture evolved and eventually spilled into the mass market, so did the flavored latte — irking purists across the fake elite-to-working class spectrum. Whether or not you think a flat white belongs in the same category as a $6 single-origin El Salvadoran pourover and an iced vanilla latte with an extra pump, all three use language that carries with it some cache, White says.

“That’s another part of the sophistication — which I don’t think is real sophistication — but it’s the idea that expressing yourself requires this coffee language,” White says. “For Starbucks it’s ‘grande, tall, venti’ — things they completely invented — but it sounds exciting to say it in a foreign language.”

It’s enough to make one wonder what might be the coffee-language currency of a modern-day Kathleen Kelly, dogged owner of an endangered independent bookstore with her earnest, whimsical style and unwavering ethical compass. Would she still attach her name to a Starbucks tall skim caramel macchiato all these years later?

Then again, a defining sense of self averages $5 or more these days, so I suspect she’d probably just drink what she likes.

The absolute best way to marinate chicken

In Absolute Best TestsElla Quittner destroys the sanctity of her home kitchen in the name of the truth. She’s boiled dozens of eggs, mashed a concerning number of potatoes, and seared more Porterhouse steaks than she cares to recall. Today, she tackles marinated chicken.


I used to think that marinades were pointless. Or, more accurately, I wasn’t really sure what they did for flavor — blame the honey mustard craze of my youth. I wasn’t sure how or why I might employ one to lock in moisture when I could simply dry brine. So more often than not, I skipped them.

And then, a few years ago, my then-colleague Eric fed me a little bite of salmon. The bite was like none I’d ever had: it was juicier than a peach, despite being cooked to flake-stage, and its flavor carried the whole way through, rather than presenting as a surface-level jacket. He was developing a recipe for marinated salmon, and each day for a few weeks, I’d get a taste of a slightly tweaked recipe. Each bite of marinated protein was better than the last. I was hooked.

And so, I began to dabble. I began with prolific food scientist Harold McGee, to parse the true purpose and definition: “Marinades are acidic liquids, originally vinegar and now including such ingredients as wine, fruit juices, buttermilk, and yogurt, in which the cook immerses meat for hours to days before cooking,” McGee writes in On Cooking. “They have been used since Renaissance times, when their primary function was to slow spoilage and to provide flavor. Today, meats are marinated primarily to flavor them and to make them more moist and tender.”

From there, I’ll admit I became a little obsessed, and I’ll also admit that I began to marinade probably more than I should, possibly at one point marinating a single scallop in a six-ingredient concoction. The details don’t matter. What matters is that when the assignment to test as many marinades for chicken as I could fit in my (tiny) refrigerator came through, I responded affirmatively so quickly, I basically sprained my left thumb. Here are the results.

Equipment

Controls

I tested with the most cursed (least juicy) of meats: boneless skinless chicken breast. For each trial, I cut the breast into 2-by-2 inch chunks of roughly the same thickness. I did this to keep the results consistent, but also because through my completely normal dalliances with marinades over the years, I’ve found that the effects on flavor and tenderness tend to be more pronounced with a smaller cut of protein wherein a high proportion of the meat has surface area than, say, a whole bird (see Round 2).

In each test, I covered two chunks with just enough of the marinade agent to fully cover (which for me was about 6 ounces) + Diamond Crystal kosher salt (1/2 tsp) + minced garlic (1 large clove). Using whole Kosher salt in the solution seemed counterintuitive because it didn’t dissolve at first, but everything I read led me to believe it would work within the marinade like a dry brine, drawing out liquid from the meat and dissolving into the flavored liquid replacing it.

I marinated each set of chunks — really, so sorry to have to keep using the word “chunks” — for three hours, and six hours, doing a cooking test after each increment. To test each chicken chunk (we’re doing this), I seared the chicken in a hot Dutch oven with about a teaspoon of high heat friendly oil on all sides, just until cooked through.

Round one

Types of marinade

  • Rice vinegar (pH: 2 to 3)
  • White wine (pH: 3.0 to 3.4)
  • Orange juice (pH: 3.5 to 4.6)
  • Buttermilk (pH: 4.4 to 4.8)
  • Yogurt (pH: 4 to 4.94)
  • Lemon juice (pH: 3ish)
  • Tomato sauce (pH: 5.1 to 5.8)

Findings

By the three-hour mark, the most tenderizing marinades were lemon juice, tomato sauce, orange juice, and yogurt. The buttermilk-marinated chicken was barely more tender than an unmarinated piece. (Thank god I’ve found a synonym for chunk. It’s piece!) The rice vinegar-marinated chicken was about half as tender as the extremely tender aforementioned pieces. By the six-hour mark, the most tenderizing marinades were the same — orange juice, lemon juice, tomato sauce, and yogurt — with the addition of rice vinegar. The buttermilk-marinated chicken was a bit more tender than before, but still not quite as soft as the others.

On the flavor front, by the three-hour mark, the lemon juice, orange juice, tomato sauce, and wine had all penetrated the meat extremely thoroughly. Only the lemon juice also carried the flavor of garlic into the chicken. At the six-hour mark, rice vinegar again joined the bunch. Bizarrely, the garlic essence (also my signature perfume, and also all of my passwords) had disappeared from the lemon juice-chicken by the six hour mark, but the garlicky flavor appeared in the six hour white wine-chicken. The flavors of buttermilk and yogurt were not particularly palpable in the three-hour tests, but were subtle and delicious in the six-hour tests. Overall, I was most taken with how deeply and profoundly the wine flavor made its way into the meat in very little time, as when this type of marinade is the basis of dishes like Drunken Chicken.

Round two

One common complaint about marinades is that, even with more than enough time, depth of penetration can be limited. (Say, if you’re cooking meat that isn’t carved into perfect and tiny 2-by-2 inch chunks. Say, a situation like that.) The good people behind AmazingRibs.com write, “Marinades, unless they are heavy with salt, in which case they more properly are called brines, do not penetrate meats very far, rarely more than 1/8″, even after many hours of soaking. Especially in the cold fridge where molecules are sluggish. They can enter tiny pores and cracks in the surface but that’s about it.”

As such, for each test in this round, I tested different application techniques, all with a rice vinegar marinade, to see if I could get the solution to work its magic deeper than just the surface.

Application techniques

  • Submerged only (control)
  • Scored
  • Injected and submerged

Findings

Scoring the pieces of chicken about 1/3-inch deep significantly enhanced the flavor absorption and expedited the tenderizing effects of the rice vinegar marinade at the three-hour mark, as compared to the submerged only-chicken. By the six-hour mark, the scored chicken was rubbery and over-penetrated, though I suspect a larger piece and/or bone-in breast would have appreciated the extra hours, and perhaps deeper scoring.

I am sad to report that while I bought a truly terrifying tool off Amazon to inject vinegar and little bits of garlic into cold meat, the tool did virtually nothing. The marinade dribbled right out. I’m so glad real syringes don’t work like this. So, so glad. I suspect that were I marinating something huge, like pork tenderloin, I could have used heft, gravity, and twine to my advantage to keep at least some of the injected marinade in place, but for the small pieces I was working with, injection was a bust.

Depp v. Heard trial: The 5 biggest new revelations, from omitting Marilyn Manson to submitting nudes

The Depp v. Heard trial continues to generate heated discussion, headlines and controversy months after its conclusion. And its latest revelations highlight just how much more of a circus the trial could’ve been.

To recap, on June 1, a jury at the Fairfax County Circuit Courthouse in Fairfax, Virginia, awarded actor Johnny Depp $10.35 million for defamation and actor Amber Heard, Depp’s ex-wife, $2 million. Heard’s payment was awarded after Depp was found liable for statements he had made. Depp’s payment came about after Heard published an op-ed in the Washington Post on being an abuse survivor. 

Though the op-ed did not name Depp or anyone as Heard’s abuser, Depp sued Heard for defamation as a result of its publication. Heard then sued Depp for damages to her career, resulting in a lengthy, highly-contentious and publicized trial, including hours of testimony where both actors took the stand.

In early July, Heard’s legal team requested a mistrial after it was revealed that one of the jurors on the case had not actually been called for jury duty and was impersonating another person who had been summoned. The motions for a mistrial were denied, though Heard still has the option to appeal. 

This past weekend, documents in the Depp v. Heard case were unsealed. Totaling more than 6,000 pages, the documents reveal more details, arguments and twists in this lengthy and convoluted case. They offer new insights into what could have been.

Here are some of the more shocking revelations in the newly opened Depp v. Heard file. 

01

Celebrity name dropping (and bypassing Marilyn Manson) 

Famous names pepper the unsealed documents. In pre-trial information, Heard’s lawyers submitted the claim that the actor had lost “$47-50 million” in income over about three to five years as her career faltered due to a smear campaign run by Depp and his cohorts. As part of the claim, her legal team included actors that were comparable to Heard as far as expected salary and stature, including Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Gal Gadot and Chris Pine. As the Daily Beast writes, “All of these actors were clearly much bigger stars than Heard.”

 

While actor James Franco was dragged into the testimony of the trial when Heard claimed Depp “hated” Franco for supposedly having an affair with Heard on the set of “Pineapple Express,” rocker Marilyn Manson’s name is in the newly opened documents. Believing Depp’s association with Manson would make the actor look bad, Depp’s legal team “fought hard” to omit any references of Manson, accused of multiple accounts of abuse, including rape. Manson’s relationship with Depp is on display in text messages, unsealed with the documents:

02

Depp’s team tried to shame Heard with nudes

Something Depp’s legal team wanted to put into evidence? Personal photographs of Heard that were nudes. Depp’s lawyers also wanted to include in trial the information that Heard had worked as an exotic dancer in the past before meeting Depp. According to Heard’s legal team, who argued that both the nudes and her past work as a dancer were “irrelevant,” Depp’s lawyers wanted to erroneously: “frivolously and maliciously suggest or imply that Ms. Heard was at one time an escort.”

03

Heard could have received a lot more money

Heard and Depp divorced in 2016, after about a year of marriage. The two had been together for multiple years before marrying. During their marriage, Depp filmed “Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge,” the fifth “Pirates of the Caribbean” film. This would make the profitable film a community property asset in the marriage, meaning Heard was legally entitled to half the income. Depp’s salary for the film? Reportedly, up to $90 million

 

Pirates of the Caribbean StillJohnny Depp as Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” (Disney Enterprises)Heard left that money behind. Despite her lawyers’ insistence that she include the film in her community property with Depp, Heard refused, wanting to be out of the marriage as swiftly as possible. As revealed by the documents, her legal team wrote to her in an email “true to your word, that this is not about the money.” This information was not shared during the recent trial as the judge struck any evidence from the Depp and Heard divorce proceedings.

04

Potentially tampered evidence 

As The Daily Beast reported, audio and photos submitted by Depp as evidence include metadata that show “the items were ‘Modified’ days before their production in this case.” Metadata is information written into digital files. Depp only submitted one modified version of audio files, yet metadata indicated the file had been created, changed about a year after its creation, then modified again. “This raises significant concerns of manipulation, alteration, and deletion.”

Heard’s team requested the full, unedited version of audio evidence, but their repeated requests were denied. Photo evidence submitted by Depp of injuries he allegedly received from Heard also reveals metadata signs of manipulation, which leads to concern that evidence may have been altered. 


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

05

Other accusations of abuse — and prescriptions – against Depp

Depp’s team attempted to strike from inclusion in the trial other accusations of abuse by Depp, including testimony from actor Ellen Barkin who said that Depp had thrown a bottle at her while they were in a relationship. Depp’s lawyers also wanted to exclude the testimony of a psychologist who, according to The Daily Beast, “met with Heard for 29 hours over four sessions and determined that she suffered from PTSD as a result of ‘intimate partner violence‘ by Depp.” 

 

The legal team of Depp also wanted to exclude information on the actor’s use of alcohol and drugs in Heard’s presence and Depp’s “medical condition and medical history,” including a list Heard’s team attempted to put into evidence of medications Depp allegedly took, including Valtrex, commonly prescribed for herpes, and Cialis, used to treat erectile dysfunction and enlarged prostate.

 

 

Welcome to “The Stone Age,” chronicling the Rolling Stones’ epic career of rock, scandal and excess

Lesley-Ann Jones’s “The Stone Age: 60 Years of the Rolling Stones” is a strange, occasionally beguiling read. On the one hand, Jones — a veteran music journalist and rock biographer of artists such as David Bowie, Freddie Mercury and Marc Bolan — offers a no-holds-barred study of the Rolling Stones’ private, drug- and sex-fueled lives. Yet on the other hand, the author makes vital gestures towards the band’s blues roots, as well as the tragedies that marked the progress of their career, including the untimely death of Brian Jones and the murder and mayhem of Altamont.

The result is an at times awkward accounting of the Stones’ life and times. When it comes to concocting a celebrity dish-fest, Jones is the veritable master. “The Stone Age” is a thoroughgoing play-by-play of the group’s legendary overindulgences.

Rock ‘n’ roll biography tends to favor studies in over-the-top excess, and the Rolling Stones typified the genre’s outrageous appetites, locating them within the vicinity of Led Zeppelin and the Who, who transformed debauchery and destruction into an art form. In “The Stone Age,” Jones even goes so far as to feature an appendix detailing Mick Jagger’s most renowned dalliances, both female and male, amongst a purported 4,000 sexual conquests.

What’s missing — and what is sorely needed when it comes to books about the Rolling Stones — is the book that contextualizes their music within the mayhem that Jones catalogues. At times, the author makes gestures towards the issues at the heart of the Stones’ creative achievements. In her analysis of the band’s roots, for instance, Jones enumerates the bluesmen, both credited and uncredited, who influenced the Stones’ sound. The British Invasion and the subsequent British Blues Boom owe a considerable, unpaid debt to their African American forebears, as Jones makes clear.

But the story of the Rolling Stones — the one that will see their wares playing a century from now in formats we can only just begin to imagine — would be better served by a narrative that gets to the unruly, beating heart of their music and helps us to understand how it was first inspired, performed and committed to tape in the studio.

Thanks to the group’s quaternion of masterworks during the Jimmy Miller era, a period that produced “Beggars Banquet,” “Let It Bleed,” “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main Street,” new listeners will flock to the Rolling Stones’ incredible music for decades, if not centuries to come. And it won’t have anything to do with how many people fell into bed with randy old Mick.

In the book’s finest moments, “The Stone Age” dispenses with the scandal and the gossip, capturing the essence of what makes a working rock ‘n’ roll band tick. As Jones brings “The Stone Age” to a close, she conjures up a primal image of the group, “captured in mono and preserved for all time,” reminding us that ground zero for any musical fusion is the groove. “From such innocence and hope are legends made,” Jones writes. And she’s damned right.


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


Could silk take a bite out of humanity’s microplastic problem?

The “micro” prefix in the word microplastics might lead one to think that these tiny plastic particles, by definition less than 5 millimeters in length, are harmless trifles. And though microplastics are sometimes intentionally manufactured, more often these tiny slivers are created by accidents or the ravages of time, ending their life as pollution in our environment. When that happens, they are far from harmless — rather, they pose a threat to most life on Earth.

Part of the reason is that microplastics are linked to illnesses from cancer and infertility to inflammatory bowel disease. Unfortunately, they are so prevalent in the environment that even remote Pacific island nations like Palau are not safe. Humanity desperately needs an alternative — and that is where researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) enter the picture.

As they detailed in a recent article published in the scientific journal Small, researchers at MIT have developed a silk-based substitute for plastics for certain industrial products — specifically, industry systems that currently use plastics for microencapsulation processes. Microencapsulation is process via which tiny particles or droplets are covered with a substance that turns them into a pill-shaped object, one that protects its core from degradation through things like air or moisture exposure. While this silk-based substitute would not entirely solve the microplastics problem, it would indeed provide certain businesses with a planet-friendly alternative to microplastic-producing products.

“We successfully demonstrate that silk protein can be used as a technological material in agricultural products and cosmetics – it can protect and control the release of active ingredients, and it can be biodegraded,” MIT professor of civil and environmental engineering Benedetto Marelli and postdoctoral student Munchun Liu told Salon by email. “Our technology can be applied to various active ingredients, whether water soluble or not. We prepared the silk-based microcapsules using methods that are already widely adopted in industry.”


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


The MIT researchers believe that their silk product can replace those microplastics that are intentionally added to products, a group that the European Chemical Agency currently estimates as comprising roughly 10 to 15 percent of the global supply of microplastics. Adding to the convenience, the silk substitute would not need to be refined with as much precision and care as silk used in fine fabrics. To create high-quality threads, silkworm cocoons are carefully unwound; for the silk needed to replace microplastics, producers simply have to apply a simple, scalable water-based process. This means that it will be much cheaper and easier to produce the kinds of silk necessary to save the world than the ones which helped fuel the economy of medieval Europe.

That said, this does not mean that it will be easy to replace microplastics with silk. While the Silk Road no longer drives the global economy, there are economic challenges unique to the 21st century. Marelli and Liu explained to Salon that corporate stakeholders have to work “in concert” to encourage the use of technologies that offset negative environmental impacts.

“Engineering new solutions requires to consider planetary health in the equation so that we could all benefit from progress and innovation,” Marelli and Liu explained.

The MIT researchers are not the only scientists trying to come up with creative solutions to the microplastics problem. Last month a study in the scientific journal Microbial Genomics revealed that the insect Zophobas morio has a bacterial enzyme in its gut which dissolves a class of plastics known as polystyrenes, which exist in styrofoam, packing peanuts, bottles and other common household products.

“Our results support previous suggestions that superworms can help to reduce [polystyrene] waste,” the authors concluded.

Until there is a long-term solution to the microplastics crisis, Marelli and Liu noted that there are immediate steps individuals can take to do their part to mitigate the problem.

“Consumers can of course make a difference by limiting the use of take-use-discard products in favor of reusable ones,” Marelli and Liu wrote to Salon. “This include obvious products such as plastic bags, utensils, clothes that are durable, toys that have a long lifespan, tools, etc. At the same time, all the stakeholders need to find new solutions or define new policies that favor (or impose) the adoption of circular materials, without compromising on performance.”

Taxpayers still left on the hook for Jan. 6: Congress to increase security due to continued threats

Beginning on August 15th, the House sergeant-at-arms office will pay for lawmakers to strengthen security at their homes in response to increased safety threats. The measure comes in response to rising violence in the wake of the January 6th capital riot and the more recent January 6th hearings.

The government funding will cover up to $10,000 for lawmakers to spend on securing their personal residents. In addition to a $150 monthly maintenance fee, the equipment can include locks, cameras, video surveillance, or motion detectors, Sergeant-at-Arms William J. Walker explained.

The initiative comes directly following a recent incident in which Rep. Lee Zeldin, the New York Republican gubernatorial candidate, was attacked at a rally. The authorities have reported that a 43-year-old man jumped onto the stage with a pointed weapon yelling “You’re done!”

The Zeldin incident follows a larger trend of increased safety threats to lawmakers.

Between the first year of former President Donald Trump’s term and the first year of President Biden’s term, threats against members of Congress have increased by 144%, according to a report by the U.S. Capitol Police. In the first three months of 2020 alone, Capitol Police opened over 1,800 cases into security threats against lawmakers. This rise in violence reached a peak on January 6th, 2021, when rioters stormed the Capitol building and assaulted Capitol Police.

A year after the attack, Capitol Police Chief Tom Manager testified before the Senate explaining how the threat of violence has only increased since January 6th and more security resources were necessary to protect lawmakers.

“The biggest challenge I think we have is keeping up with the number of threats,” Manger said. “If they continue to go up the way they have, clearly we’re going to need additional officers to assign to this responsibility.”

Since then, a $1.9 billion emergency bill was passed to upgrade Capitol security. Additionally, Capitol Police announced plans to launch field offices in Florida and San Francisco to better monitor threats to lawmakers throughout the country.

Lawmakers, on both the left and right, have been beefing up their own security even before the federal security funding was passed.

A report by Mother Jones found that members of Congress were spending more on security than they ever had before. For example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, spent more on security just in 2021 she had during her entire time on the 2020 campaign train. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY, went from spending almost no campaign funds on security to spending $58,000 in just the first three months of 2021.

The New York Times found that far-right Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, spent $183,000 on her personal security during the beginning of 2022, more than any other lawmaker running for office.

Now, in the wake of the ongoing January 6th hearings, the violent backlash to members of congress has been brutal.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Il, one of only two Republicans serving on the January 6th committee, has been very vocal about how the Trump mob has been treating him. Back in June, Kinzinger shared a letter sent to his wife which said that Kinzinger “will be executed” and their newborn would be “joining Adam in hell.”

“The Darkness is spreading courtesy of cowardly leaders fearful of truth. Is [that] what you want @GOP?,” Kinzinger wrote.

At the begging of the summer, Kinzinger published a video that went viral on twitter compiling calls his office had received threatening him, his family, and Rep. Cheney, the other Republican on the January 6th committee.

WV Republican wants to ban child support because it may lead to abortions

Chris Pritt owns his own law practice, Pritt Law, where he specializes in divorce, custody arguments and child support. But standing before the state legislature in West Virginia, his argument was a linguistic pretzel to justify eliminating all child support for the parent who gets custody of a child.

According to Pritt, there are fathers who don’t want to be involved in the lives of their children.

“If she carries through with the pregnancy, he’s going to have, possibly, some sort of child support obligation,” said Pritt. “And, so, what he wants to do is, he wants to — in a sense — encourage her to go and find a way for her to get an abortion. Because he knows that a certain individual — if he has any kind if familiarity with her, he knows that she might be of such a state of mind, she must be in such a vulnerable position that it’s not worth everything that he’s going to put me through to carry this pregnancy forward. It’s going to be easier, it’s going to be better, for me to just go and terminate this ‘life.’ So she goes over to Virginia or to some other state where she goes and gets the abortion. So, I think that’s a really clear possibility if we enact the Second Amendment here, I don’t want to be doing anything that is encouraging thugs to go and get an abortion.”

“So, I think that’s a really clear possibility if we enact the second amendment here, I don’t want to be doing anything that is encouraging thugs to go and get an abortion,” he said, referring to the second and competing amendment to House Bill 302.

See the video below:

Trump-backed Jan. 6 attendee who vowed to “decertify” 2020 could be Arizona’s next election chief

This Tuesday, August 2, Arizona’s Republican and Democratic primary elections will be held, and residents of the Grand Canyon State will be voting for everything from governor to secretary of state. On the GOP side, it remains to be seen whether the nominees will be far-right MAGA conspiracy theorists or more traditional conservatives — and the Donald Trump-backed MAGA candidates include gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and secretary of state hopeful Mark Finchem, both of whom have been campaigning on the Big Lie and making the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump.

Finchem, who serves in the Arizona House of Representatives, is way beyond conservative; he’s a supporter of the far-right militia group the Oath Keepers who, in 2013, said that President Barack Obama was trying to establish a “totalitarian dictatorship.” And if Finchem wins the primary on August 2 and goes on to win the general election in November, Arizona’s top elections official will be someone who attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 and falsely claims that President Joe Biden wasn’t legitimately elected.

In an article published by Politico on August 1, journalist Zach Montellaro notes, “Mark Finchem — a poster child for election deniers following the 2020 election — is inching closer to becoming the chief election official in one of the most tightly divided battleground states in the country. Finchem, an Arizona state lawmaker, is running with former President Donald Trump’s endorsement in Tuesday’s Republican primary for secretary of state there. He has support from a coalition of other like-minded candidates running to be election administrators in their own states, which has gained traction in several other close 2020 swing states. And Finchem has a significant edge in a rare public poll of the secretary of state race published Friday.”

The poll that Montellaro is referring to was conducted by OH Predictive Insights and released on July 29. According to OH, Finchem is leading primary opponent Beau Lane by 21 percent — and Lake, in Arizona’s GOP gubernatorial primary, is leading opponent Karrin Taylor Robinson (who conservative Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has endorsed) by 18 percent.

Finchem is a member of the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a far-right group that seeks to put MAGA Republicans in control of the administration of elections in different states. The group ran into a brick wall in Georgia, where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — a conservative Republican who, like Gov. Brian Kemp, famously resisted Trump’s coup attempt in the Peach State after the 2020 election — won his primary by double digits. But in other states, including Nevada and Pennsylvania, the America First Secretary of State Coalition has been more successful.

“Should he win on Tuesday,” Montellaro explains, “Finchem will become the latest member of the America First Secretary of State Coalition to secure the Republican nomination in a key battleground, putting them a general election win away from running the 2024 presidential vote in their states — four years after working to subvert President Joe Biden’s election win and falsely claiming the vote was marred. The coalition’s founder, Jim Marchant, is the Republican nominee in Nevada, while Kristina Karamo is the de-facto GOP pick in Michigan. And in Pennsylvania, where the governor picks the state’s chief election official, coalition member Doug Mastriano is the GOP candidate…. Finchem does face significant opposition in the primary, including from Beau Lane, a businessman endorsed by GOP Gov. Doug Ducey.”

Montellaro continues, “But if the latest polling is any guide, Arizona Republicans are poised to elevate someone who has relentlessly sought to undermine confidence in state elections as their pick to run future elections. Finchem has been one of the chief proponents of election conspiracy theories since the 2020 election. He was a significant booster of the GOP-led review of all of the ballots cast in 2020 in Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest county, which was strongly opposed by the Republican-dominated county government and a bipartisan cast of election officials. Finchem also advocates the fanciful plan of ‘decertifying’ the 2020 election results in Arizona, which has no basis in the law, and he counts others who worked to undermine American elections among his prominent supporters, including Michael Flynn, Jenna Ellis and Mike Lindell.”

Ron DeSantis isn’t a dirtbag. That’s exactly why he won’t beat Donald Trump

Don’t look now, but the GOP elite are once again trying to find a way to get off the Donald Trump Express. This is roughly the 50th time that Beltway Republicans, tired of being tied to a half-literate and criminal reality TV host, have looked for a disembarking opportunity. This time, they’re eyeballing Ron DeSantis Station, hoping the Yale and Harvard-educated Florida governor is cruel enough to win over Trump voters without bringing along all that Trump criminality baggage. 

Hey, anything is possible, especially if the Department of Justice actually sucks it up and does the right thing in charging Trump for one or more of his many crimes. January 6, in particular, was a unique event in American history and it’s still not entirely certain what the ramifications will be when Trump invariably runs for president again. But if what GOP elites are looking for is someone who can excite the lizard brains of the GOP base without all that pesky criminal baggage, well, DeSantis just isn’t their guy. 

Sure, DeSantis is performing fairly well in some polling match-ups against Trump right now, but that doesn’t really mean much. It’s common for there to be flare-ups of interest in primary challengers this far out from an election. Most voters aren’t really paying attention and, likely, don’t really know much about DeSantis or have even heard him talk. Once people start tuning in, however, these kinds of polling wrinkles tend to be ironed out. 

Journalist Michael Cohen, in a recent newsletter, took a shot at explaining why feels like DeSantis-mentum is more fantasy than reality. DeSantis, Cohen argues, is “a smug and charmless jerk” who “struggles to keep his inner hater under wraps.” DeSantis, Cohen argues, has cultivated “an image as the country’s angriest, pettiest, and most vindictive cultural warrior.”

Trump speaks to people who like their white privilege, but also like Disney movies, having sex, and don’t really care if their gay neighbors get married.

Of course, all that is also true of Trump. Cohen tries to square that circle by arguing that Trump, unlike DeSantis, “is charming and charismatic” to many Americans, “as crazy as it might seem.” 

Cohen is right that Trump has an appeal that DeSantis doesn’t have. The Trump “charisma” is that of a schoolyard bully. His fans love his ease with insults and the total lack of shame Trump brings to sneering at people for being disabled, female, queer or people of color. His “shock jock” persona is aspirational, drawing in people who wish they, too, could just be shitty to people’s faces without having to pay social consequences like losing their job or being banned from their wife’s family gatherings.


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


DeSantis, meanwhile, has serial killer energy. His sadism has appeal to the hardcore fundamentalist Christian base of the GOP, but it has an intensity that is likely off-putting to a huge chunk of Trump voters. The key to understanding Trump’s popularity comes down to this: Trump has fooled huge numbers of people into believing he’s not a radical right-winger. 

That may sound nuts to political junkies who follow Trump’s every move and know, for instance, that Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have been overturned if not for Trump’s commitment to nominating anti-choice judges. But it’s worth remembering that a lot of Trump voters are people who don’t really follow politics very closely and have no idea how in tune Trump is with the religious right’s radical agenda.

On the contrary, what they know about Trump is that he’s been married three times, has kids with all his wives, and is a chronic adulterer who has probably caused an abortion or ten in his lifetime. Trump’s hilariously fake “Christianity,” perversely, is reassuring to the segment of Republican-leaning voters who are racist and sexist, but also like having sex and aren’t keen on having the Jesus police stationing themselves in American bedrooms. 

The “I’m a Republican, but not a fundie” crowd is bigger than is generally acknowledged in American political discourse. A new poll from CNN shows that a full 29% of Republicans oppose the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. What Trump offers those voters — call them Dirtbag-Americans — is a way to feel like they can both be a Republican without having to “agree” with the religious right’s stifling anti-sex attitudes. 

DeSantis, on the other hand, has made being a censorious fundamentalist his political identity, especially by enthusiastically backing the “don’t say gay” law in Florida and declaring war on Disney for resisting him.

Sure, it’s an irrational stance. You may not “personally” agree with abortion bans, but if you keep voting for politicians who ban abortion, it doesn’t really matter what’s in your heart. But, in America at least, voting is often not treated as rational decision-making based on policy preferences. Instead, it’s understood through a consumerist lens, as if it’s an expression of personal identity. Trump’s aesthetic is “oversexed sleaze” and, for the Joe Rogan/Barstool Sports voters that make up the Dirtbag vote, that matters more than Trump’s material support for anti-sex policies. They can feel that Trump doesn’t really mean it when he says he wants to ban abortion, so they ignore the fact that he is the one who actually made abortion bans happen. 


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


DeSantis, on the other hand, has made being a censorious fundamentalist his political identity, especially by enthusiastically backing the “don’t say gay” law in Florida and declaring war on Disney for resisting him. There’s nothing to hang onto for people looking for a reason to vote Republican, but who don’t want to see themselves as the book-banning sex police. Picking on Disney, in particular, doesn’t win you fans with people who rely on the company for their many fine products that keep kids entertained while you knock back brews with friends in the backyard. 

Trump’s death grip on the Republican Party really comes down to one thing: He turns out voters the party struggles to attract otherwise. The reason Trump’s power over the GOP only grew after he lost the 2020 election is that he managed to pull in over 74 million voters, which was 7 million fewer than Joe Biden got, but 15 million more than, say, Mitt Romney got in 2012. That comes down to Trump’s ability to pull in people who share the GOP’s bigotry, but also don’t want to be seen as prudes or killjoys. Trump speaks to people who like their white privilege, but also like Disney movies, having sex, and don’t really care if their gay neighbors get married. 

The January 6 insurrection may make it hard to ignore that Trump is a fascist, which could hurt him with the pro-choice/pro-Disney Republican voters. Interestingly, Rogan himself has turned on Trump, which is not good for keeping up goodwill with the dirtbag base. Still, focus group testing suggests Trump voters have found the rationalizations they need to disregard the Capitol riot.

But if Trump is going to be challenged in any meaningful way, Republicans need someone who has his ability to appeal to the Christian fundamentalists without scaring off that 29% of Republican voters that find all the anti-sex stuff off-putting. DeSantis, with his “don’t say gay” law and pro-censorship stance, just tips too far into the prudery camp to keep those voters from fading away. As with every other attempt the Republican elites have mounted to take Trump out, dangling DeSantis as an alternative looks like a failure. 

Alex Jones accuses judge still overseeing his trial of “corruption” after being forced to pay up

Alex Jones is deploying the curious tactic of going on the attack against the judge in his case as a jury in four lawsuits will decide how much Jones must give to the families of Sandy Hook victims.

Jones was sued for lying that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened and it was all fake. That prompted attacks from Jones’ viewers, who would send threats, and other forms of attacking the families. In one case, the family of a victim was forced to move 12 times to escape the attacks.

In a special live broadcast, Jones said that the judge in his case sanctioned him over $1 million after he failed to meet deadlines to produce documents and information. Jones swears he delivered everything that was requested.

“Discovery isn’t supposed to be a guessing game,” Fairfield District Superior Court, Judge Barbara Bellis said. She explained that a default judgment is a kind of sanction of last resort. That doesn’t fall under a jury’s decisions. “The court held off on scheduling the sanctions hearing in the hopes that many of these problems would be corrected and that the Jones defendants would ultimately comply with their discovery obligations.”

“I’m honored to be attacked by this system, but it’s still scary, up close, to see the corruption goes all the way down to the local court systems,” said Jones.

He’s also complaining that there was no jury in the case, though it’s unclear which case he’s talking about as there was a jury verdict in the Sandy Hook case.

Last month, Jones changed the name of the parent company InfoWars LLC to InfoW LLC so anyone reporting InfoWars was filing for bankruptcy could technically be incorrect, Texas Monthly reported.

“Two judges, one in Austin and one in Newtown, issued default judgments against the defense—finding that because Jones and his rotating cast of attorneys had failed over the course of three years to participate in the legal process in good faith, his liability would be accepted by the courts as a matter of fact,” the report characterized. “(Default judgments are highly uncommon, reserved for situations in which a judge has determined that one party’s lack of participation amounts to a failure to respond to the lawsuit.)”

Those aren’t jury decisions. If Jones had cooperated with the court his case would have appeared before a jury. The jury now will decide in four cases how much he owes to Sandy Hook victims.

Ahead of the verdict, Jones’ attorneys rushed to declare bankruptcy for their client. The bankruptcy court will still require Jones to publish his financial document unless he files as a small Texas business.

“There’s all sorts of protections that are supposed to be designed for a swift, quick bankruptcy with not a lot of oversight — the kind of oversight you’d see in a normal bankruptcy — because it’s designed for small businesses,” lawyer Avi Moshenberg told the Texas Tribune. He explained that Jones’ company, Free Speech Systems is trying to take advantage of that lack of oversight in these cases.

See a clip of his rant below or at this link.