Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Did “surprise witness” Cassidy Hutchinson save America from Trump’s comeback?

I must confess that I’ve written things in the last two days I never thought I’d write — at least not in a work of nonfiction.

For example: In my most feverish nightmares I never dreamed I’d have to tell people that a former adviser to the president, a decorated retired U.S. Army general with years of service to his country under his belt, would take the Fifth Amendment when asked by a Republican member of Congress, “Do you believe in a peaceful transfer of power?”

Mike Flynn did.

Sure, many people consider Flynn an idiot. I also never thought I’d hear a witness tell us that the president of the United States blurted out, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

A witness heard Donald Trump say that. Of course, many think Trump is an idiot as well.

And I certainly never thought I’d hear about a president becoming enraged over not being allowed to join an insurrection by armed assailants at the U.S. Capitol. Trump did that too. Not even the Secret Service disputes that fact. Whether or not Trump actually tried to wrestle the steering wheel from his driver as he lunged at him is the only fact in dispute — and guess what, if you know Trump that isn’t much of a stretch either. But that’s not the point. He wanted to go. Who in their worst alcohol-induced, Adderall-laced, psychotic-hallucinogenic rage would ever dream of having to report this? Not I, said the cat.

RELATED: What Cassidy Hutchinson told us — and why we should have known it already

If you don’t realize it yet, the nation is at war with itself. Call it what you want, but if you don’t recognize that simple fact, then you’re doomed to go down without a fight. And that’s fine with Donald Trump, Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani et al., who have fought hard for a Trump authoritarian regime and won’t support a peaceful transfer of power. 

That’s got our northern neighbor, Canada (remember Canada?), wondering whether they’ll need to erect a border wall to keep out Americans fleeing our fascist state.

Make no mistake, what we face here is a potential tyranny of the minority. For those who seek to overturn our democratic ideals under the guise of freedom, while wrapping themselves in the flag, it is all about fear and trust. They want you to fear the wrath of their imaginary God and trust them — though they obviously trust no one else. Strong with them is the dark side.

Donald Trump partnered with the most atavistic of all humans to get elected. He played the useful fool for them as they fed him an agenda he couldn’t have cared less about, since he only cared about power. And Trump’s power was always in promoting his brand. In God we trust — all others pay cash. That’s all the trust he understands.

But his minions, like Sen. Mitch McConnell from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, want you to trust in a God billions of people on the planet don’t recognize and the “good old days,” circa 1920, that never existed. It was a time filled with hate, prejudice and fear — themes the Republicans enjoy and promote — and have leveraged to set the Supreme Court back more than 50 years.

We are left with a country whose most hallowed ideals have been hollowed out, swallowed and regurgitated. We are struggling with the simple notion of being a nation of laws.  

We are left with a country whose most hallowed ideals have been hollowed out, swallowed and regurgitated as an empty mantra. It is apparent that we are struggling with the simple notion that we are a nation of laws. In one of the most valiant efforts of my lifetime, it is Republicans who are dominating the witness stand during the House Jan. 6 hearings, providing the most salient testimony against members of their own party who are guilty of so many crimes they make the mob flush with envy. This is all going on in congressional hearings run by Democrats who are eagerly assisting those Republicans in telling the truth. This is bipartisanship at its most enlightened — or at least as close as we can get to it in this reality. 

Those Republicans, like the Democrats guiding the hearings, should be lauded for their efforts. Every other Republican, especially those who sought pardons after the Insurrection — or in the case of Matt Gaetz, the feckless frat boy perpetually picked last for kickball, before the insurrection — should be prosecuted, removed from Congress and condemned to daily cleanup duty in cockroach-infested Mar-a-Lago for eternity.

Donald Trump told us, “I don’t care if they have weapons, they aren’t here to hurt me.” 

That’s another sentence I never thought I’d write. 

Trump’s response to Tuesday’s hearing was entirely typical. He said on his social media platform that he hardly knew who surprise witness Cassidy Hutchinson was (as if that had any bearing on her ability to witness his inappropriate actions) and that she was a “complete phony.” Later that day he sent out several emails to his supporters asking for more donations and discounts on a variety of swag he keeps pushing.


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


Trump’s retort is similar to when Rep. Paul Gosar literally shouted, “Liar, liar, pants on fire” at Michael Cohen, after Cohen’s testimony before Congress in 2019. It is juvenile.

There is no way to dismiss the spoiled-child nature of Trump’s senior staff and supporters. They are much like their boss — and Trump encourages that behavior. Though these are usually men anywhere from their mid 40s to their late 60s, they act less like adults and more like recalcitrant children who just wet their pants when their wet nurse isn’t around to change their soiled undies.

Juxtapose that with Hutchinson. She is 25, younger than my youngest son, and she acted more like an adult than almost everyone else in Trump’s administration, who by the way made a hell of a lot more money and lived in relative splendor, compared to a junior White House staffer. 

But character is what counts, and Cassidy Hutchinson is far richer in that than Mike Pence, Pat Cipollone, Jim Jordan, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn or any of the other freaks traveling in Dr. Trump’s Wild West show. She was quiet and professional as she testified before Congress. She was the one thing Trump never has been — an adult. Her testimony is destined for the history books, and she is the greatest testament yet that it’s time for the geriatric crowd to give up their hold on government in favor of younger, more vibrant yet even more grown-up voices. She’s also a testament to good legal counsel — but that’s another story.

The essence of Hutchinson’s testimony boiled down to witnessing Trump, his chief of staff Mark Meadows and other senior officials trying to bring about a tyranny of the minority. Hutchinson said she came to her job at the White House bright-eyed and eager to cheer for Trump’s policies. That was a naïve hope.

I spent four years covering that administration and I am unaware of any actual policy it pursued. Then and now, Trump’s only goal is to increase his personal revenue and power at the expense of anyone and everyone else. Hutchinson came to the administration closer to the end of Trump’s run than the beginning, and it didn’t take her long to catch on. 

“I was really saddened as an American. I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic. It was un-American. We were watching the Capitol get defaced over a lie,” she testified.

This has had a predictable effect on the QAnon crowd, not unlike smacking a hornet’s nest with a baseball bat. It won’t be long before Hutchinson is accused of drinking baby blood or being a lizard alien. But another former Trump chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, defended her. “I know her. I don’t think she’s lying,” he said.  

Some have compared Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony to that of John Dean during Watergate. Dean himself says it was closer to the testimony of Alexander Butterfield, another “surprise witness.”

Some called her appearance the “John Dean” moment in these hearings, referencing Richard Nixon’s former White House counsel, who testified before the Watergate committee. But Dean says it more accurately resembled testimony by Alexander Butterfield, until that moment a relatively obscure deputy assistant. “In both cases they were surprise witnesses and had testimony that changed the direction of the hearings,” Dean explained. Otherwise, he said, the two hearings have little in common.

“Watergate was so different and so mild. Nixon could at least experience shame,” he said. After Watergate “I hoped we would not have another authoritarian president,” Dean continued, “but the antiquated Electoral College, which is supposed to prevent these things from happening, gave us Donald Trump.”

That would be the guy who shouted that he was “the fucking president” while urging the Secret Service to drive him to the Capitol.

With Donald Trump, it is always about him and it always has been. Hutchinson testified to witnessing the aftermath of a Trump tantrum that ended up with broken plates and ketchup on the wall. Michael Cohen spoke of numerous tantrums from a man “who never got into a fistfight his whole life,” but used his temper to get his way — much like a toddler.

And there we are; a young woman, in her early 20s at the time, acting more responsible than the baby-boomer president she served. As a parent, I confess, I would be very proud of what she did.

The Jan. 6 committee hearings are the last chance we have of excising the primary infection that has spread to become a Donald Trump cancer. Should we fail, this country is headed down a very dark road, paved by the actions of a Supreme Court that has ignored well-established legal precedent in order to enact laws bound by religious beliefs and contrary to the will of the majority of Americans. The effect is to destroy the rule of law and place justice in the hands of those who oppose democracy.

Filtered through that light, Cassidy Hutchinson took on the whole authoritarian movement — not just Donald Trump — when she stepped up and testified this week.

How could a parent not be proud of that? Americans are a curious lot, I grant you. We are filled with foibles and fears, and at times the feckless fools seem to run amok. Then you see a young woman doing what we were all raised to do: Defend the rule of law. Testify honestly. Act rationally. Stand up. If that doesn’t give you hope, brothers and sisters, then I don’t know what will.

Now would be the time for another surprise witness: Pat Cipollone. (Well, OK: He was subpoenaed on Wednesday.) The former White House counsel is a fellow Kentucky-schooled, Roman Catholic brother. He has 10 children, a few of them approximately the same age as Hutchinson, including a daughter who once worked as a Fox News booker for Laura Ingraham. Maybe by following Hutchinson’s example, Cipollone could offer an example for his own children regarding Christian integrity. “I think he’s worried about losing Republican clients if he testifies,” Dean explained. “They believe in retribution. He’s worried about that when he should be worried about democracy.”

Finally, I  once again find myself having to write sentences I never thought I’d write — until today:

On Tuesday, the House Committee hearings into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection saw surprise testimony from former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson. She testified that  former President Donald Trump tried to commandeer a presidential SUV to join and lead a group of anti-democratic insurrectionists. Concurrent with her testimony and following it, Donald Trump sent emails to his supporters asking for donations while announcing an upcoming rally in Anchorage, Alaska.

It’s a short flight from Anchorage to Russia. Is that where he’s headed next?

He’d probably be thrilled if he were asked to go. He’s still a sucker for any type of attention. 

Read more on Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony and the Jan. 6 committee:

“Betrayal”: Biden cut deal with McConnell to appoint “extremist” anti-abortion judge, Democrat says

President Joe Biden reportedly cut a deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to appoint an anti-abortion judge in Kentucky, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Kentucky does not have any judicial openings but under the deal reported by the outlet, Biden would nominate Federalist Society member Chad Meredith, an anti-abortion attorney, when a vacancy comes up. Under the deal, McConnell agreed not to hold up Biden’s future federal nominations, according to the report.

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., told the outlet that he “strongly opposes” the trade.

“Given that a judicial position isn’t currently open on the Eastern District Court, it’s clear that this is part of some larger deal on judicial nominations between the president and Mitch McConnell,” he told the outlet. “The last thing we need is another extremist on the bench.”

The deal comes after the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections last week. Biden vowed after the decision to “do all in my power to protect a woman’s right in states where they will face the consequences of today’s decision.”

RELATED: Democrats face rage after Roe disaster: “It feels like they couldn’t care less”

Meredith, the former Kentucky solicitor general, has represented numerous Republicans in court cases seeking to restrict abortion access and limit pandemic health measures. He previously served as deputy counsel to right-wing former Gov. Matt Bevin and defended a 2017 Kentucky law requiring doctors who perform abortions to perform ultrasounds and describe the images to patients.

Meredith in 2018 defended the law in court, arguing that “not every patient understands the consequences of the abortion procedure.”

“This is right in the heartland of what states are permitted to do to regulate medicine,” he said at the time. “There are a number of patients who don’t understand the nature of the fetus within them.”

In 2019, he represented Bevin in a case seeking to require abortion clinics to have written transfer agreements with a hospital and ambulance service, according to the Associated Press. A judge blocked the law, writing that it would effectively eliminate abortion in the state. Meredith argued that the impact of shuttering the state’s last abortion clinic would be “essentially none” because women would still have access to out-of-state clinics.

Kentucky Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, in 2020 praised Meredith for defending the state’s abortion restrictions.

Meredith also defended a law that stripped Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear of his powers to impose emergency pandemic measures.

He is listed as a contributor to the Federalist Society, a conservative group that has played a key role in stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges ahead of last week’s Dobbs ruling overturning federal abortion rights.


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


Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates—East, whose region includes Kentucky, condemned Biden’s deal.

“Lifetime appointments to federal courts for people with records like Chad Meredith are unacceptable and the reason we have lost the federal right to abortion,” the group said on Twitter. “We deserve better.”

Democratic Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Charles Booker called it a “deal with the devil.”

“At a time when we are fighting to protect human rights, this is a complete slap in the face,” he tweeted. “This is some bullshit.”

Jezebel’s Laura Bassett called the deal a “massive betrayal,” criticizing Democrats for urging supporters to “vote” in response the Supreme Court ruling.

“Biden is under a lot of pressure to fill the current court vacancies he has with judges who are friendly to reproductive rights. And instead, he is making deals with McConnell to allow more anti-abortion judges into the fray,” Bassett wrote. “There is no excuse for it.”

Biden has come under pressure to act in response to the assault on reproductive rights but the White House has been tamping down expectations. Vice President Kamala Harris said the administration is not discussing a proposal from progressives to allow abortions on federal land in states where the procedure is banned.

The White House is instead pursuing a “more limited set of policy responses while urging voters and Congress to act,” Reuters reported on Wednesday. The administration plans to issue several executive actions and vowed to support medical abortion and protect who travel across state lines to get the procedure, according to the report.

McConnell, meanwhile, has staked his legacy on his judicial machinations. On Wednesday he touted his decision to block former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland because it helped lead to the overturn of abortion rights.

“It’s the single-most consequential decision I’ve made in my public career,” McConnell said, according to Bloomberg, calling last week’s ruling “a huge step in the right direction.”

Read more:

Democrats, here’s a thought: Stop retreating. Stand up for your own voters for once

Right after the draft of the Roe v. Wade opinion leaked, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, condemned peaceful protests near Supreme Court judges’ houses as “reprehensible” and promptly voted to provide more security for Brett McBeer and company. I wasn’t surprised that my senator was quicker to protect Sam Alito from candlelight vigils than he was to protect me and my family from Sam Alito. But as a novelist and a woman, I’m furious and terrified Democrats have lost the entire plot, and the American experiment is next, not least because Dems have no idea how to tell a story.  

Wannabe tyrants represent only about a quarter to a third of the population, but you wouldn’t know it by the behavior of the Democratic Party. Cowering, dithering Dems accept the most ludicrous Fox News framing of every issue from inflation to policing to abortion, perpetually stumped by right-wing mud-slinging. In response to rabid authoritarianism, they hem and haw, shuffle policy papers, babble about “bipartisanship” and attempt to negotiate with GOP grifters who call them pedophiles. And then these same Democrats turn around and blame a handful of progressives, when it’s conservatives from both parties who block and shred every scrap of legislation that might make all our lives a little less apocalyptic. And the administration wonders why Biden’s approval numbers are tanking? 

RELATED: Democrats face rage after Roe disaster: “It feels like they couldn’t care less”

I’m no politician, and I’m certainly not one of those high-paid Democratic consultants who keeps pushing talking points from 1991. I am, however, a writer, and I understand the power of communication. Why hasn’t the Democratic Party crafted a clear narrative that its own voters can understand?

Here’s a story that all Democrats could tell right now: Today’s GOP is engaged in a giant smash-and-grab. A grand looting. A coordinated, decades-long, multi-pronged effort to bring back the good old days of…1850. Everything they do falls under this umbrella. Why not talk about the unholy alliance of religious extremists and bloodsucking billionaires intent on subverting the will of voters? Because of this alliance, religious extremists take a hammer to our civil rights, ban books, work to dismantle public schools, vomit racist, homophobic and antisemitic garbage, and insist on genital inspections and forced birth, while the billionaires smash regulations to drive up inflation, loot institutions and rob their own employees, abuse workers, fund the spread of conspiracy theories, buy up all available housing, avoid taxes and pack the courts with political hacks who rule that all of this is just fine, democracy be damned. 

Of course, most Americans don’t want any of it, which is why the GOP has won the popular vote only once in the last three decades. So, right-wingers must keep smashing and grabbing everything they possibly can. They broke the Senate. They stuffed the Supreme Court with aggrieved theocrats and the lower courts with incompetents. They disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters. They supported a literal coup. Now, they’re hounding school boards to destroy public education, stuffing their creepy faces into the private lives of families, and threatening state officials so they can steal every future election, all while using Nazi and slaver logic to turn anyone with a uterus into a brood mare for the state. Smash and grab. Smash and grab. Maybe the Democrats might want to talk about this? 

Republicans accuse Democrats of being baby-killers, but do nothing to help struggling parents and families. They screamed about the formula shortage, then voted against the bill that could have helped address it.

Here’s another story Dems could tell: that the right-wing tells lies, projects its own misdeeds onto others and then lies again. Take the issue of abortion. Republicans accuse Democrats of being baby killers and bray about being “pro-life” when the overwhelming majority of them have done nothing to help struggling parents and families. They don’t support universal (or any kind of) health care. Or parental leave, tax credits, affordable child care, food stamps, free school lunches, universal preschool or gun safety. Republican lawmakers screamed about the formula shortage and then voted against the bill that would help address it. Their words mean nothing because we can see what they do; their actions reveal they don’t care about the born, let alone the unborn.   

They’re not pro-life. They’re pro-control. They’re pro-cruelty. Pro-punishment. Pro-death. They believe people with uteruses are livestock, less than human, bodies to be bred or sterilized according to the most extreme right-wing demands, while kindergartners remain cannon fodder for gun fetishists. This is absurd and obscene. Maybe Democrats can say so, and keep repeating it. 

And while they love to label the Democrats as “groomers” or “pedos,” the GOP regularly supports and elevates men linked to all kinds of sex scandals, including accused rapist Donald Trump himself, along with Jim Jordan, Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, just to name a few. (It’s no coincidence that accused harasser Clarence Thomas and accused rapist Brett Kavanaugh provided two of the votes to strip women of their bodily autonomy.) It’s the GOP that wants to creep on children in classrooms and inspect the genitals of high school kids. Maybe Democrats could point out who the real pedos are? 


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


Maybe, when asked “What is a woman?” Democrats might answer: “A person.”

Maybe, when asked “What is a trans child?” Democrats might answer: “A child.”

Maybe, when a GOP politician shrieks, “All lives matter,” a Democrat might say: “No lives matter to you except yours.”

Maybe, when a right-winger targets vulnerable kids, a Democrat from a purple state might quote the Republican governor of Utah and say, “I don’t have to understand exactly what the kids are going through. I just want them to live.” 

Maybe, when a GOP congressman yammers on about “religious freedom,” a Democrat can say, “Freedom means that Americans cannot be forced to abide by your extremist version of Christianity.” 

Here’s another thing Democratic leaders need to understand: the truth does not speak for itself. Lies must be confronted and refuted, and the truth must be defended — over and over and over again. And the truth is that the GOP won’t be satisfied with gutting the Voting Rights Act and overturning Roe. To mollify their addled, hateful base, they’re coming after contraception, marriage equality, desegregation, separation of church and state, free speech. They want to use the courts to repeal the last two centuries. 

If the GOP retakes control of the House, Senate and presidency, the entire country will follow the trends of red states, which means higher mortality, higher poverty, fewer jobs, more voter suppression, further defunding and dismantling of public education, more failing students, more abuse victims bearing babies of rapists, more pregnant women murdered by violent partners, more parents charged and/or jailed for miscarriages and stillbirths, more doctors and nurses arrested, more books banned and teachers and librarians fired, more guns for more mass shootings, more Black and brown and LGBTQIA people targeted and killed, more neighbors spying on neighbors and more devastated families and communities — but no free and fair elections to fix any of it. 

Maybe the Democrats could say: “This is Jim Crow 2.0.” “This is the New KKK.” “This is the zombie Confederacy.” Because it is all of these things. 

Finally, instead of nagging terrified people for more money, Democrats could tell us what their vision for the country is, and clearly lay out their agenda. They can start with the idea that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not belong to Republicans alone, that we all should have the freedom to decide how we live, who we marry, how we build our families and how we worship. Democrats should talk about the legislation they’ve passed — the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the historic gun safety law — as well as the numerous bills the GOP has blocked. And then Democrats could talk about the specific measures they intend to take right now to protect us from this corrupt and illegitimate Supreme Court, as well as what they’ll do after the November election if they hold the House and increase numbers in the Senate (i.e., “Give us two more seats and we will make Roe the law of the land.” Or, “Give us 60 seats in the Senate and we’ll expand the Supreme Court to 13.”)

Instead of nagging terrified people for money, maybe Democrats could tell us what their vision is: We should all have the freedom to decide how we live, who we marry, how we build our families and how we worship.

And then, just maybe, Democrats can back up those messages with bold and immediate action. Urge the president to declare a public health emergency. Repeal the Hyde Amendment. If possible, set up reproductive health care clinics on federal lands and/or military bases and make sure those clinics are well defended from right-wing extremists. Pass bills to ensure the right to birth control and marriage equality. Introduce bills for a federal right to abortion in case of rape or incest, a federal right to abortion in the first trimester, a federal right to an abortion when the woman’s life is at risk (as it is with ectopic pregnancies), a federal prohibition on criminal penalties for women who seek or obtain abortions, a federal prohibition on criminal penalties for non-medical providers who assist women in seeking reproductive care, and so on. Hold a vote on a “pro-life” bill that includes expanded health care, prenatal care, paid family leave, child care, universal preschool and free lunch. Force the Republicans to show their hand again and again. 

And how about reintroducing voting rights bills and court reform bills that include ethics rules for judges, and twist Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema’s arms till they agree to filibuster carve-outs? How about introducing legislation to rebuke the Supreme Court and nullify the wave of horrific decisions it has issued? How about using executive orders to get rid of student debt? Dragging CEOs into Congress to explain why they’re pocketing record profits and still raising prices on consumers? And if Democrats are not sure if any of that will work, they should try anyway, to prove to voters that they’re ready to meet the moment. As writer Alexandra Erin tweeted, even if those efforts fail in the short term, Democrats would learn what resonates with the public, expose weaknesses in GOP positions and fire up their own base.

Most importantly, Democrats should not stop telling these stories. Hammer at the message and the specific plans in every interview, every ad, every post or tweet. When you give your base a coherent tale to tell, when you show them you’re backing up that story with action, they won’t just vote for you, they’ll take on some of the burden of persuading real swing voters. Plus, the clearer and more specific the message is, the more likely the press will report on it. 

If Democrats finally, at long last, go on the offensive, will Mitch McConnell bitch and moan? Sure. Will Marjorie Space Laser and Fox News ditto-heads increase the flood of racist swill, bonkers attacks and doublespeak? Of course. But it’s time for Democrats to stop being surprised by that, and stop backing down every time it happens. Right-wingers have weaponized shamelessness to favor the powerful. Dems must weaponize shamelessness to protect the rest of us, and to protect democracy itself. Republicans want to plunder our bodies, loot our bank accounts and rob us of our futures. Democrats need to throw out the old playbooks and fight as if all our lives depend on it, because they do.  

Read more on the current state of the Democratic Party:

Jan. 6 panel subpoenas former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone

A day after a key witness dropped “bombshell after bombshell” during a surprise hearing of the panel probing last year’s insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the committee on Wednesday subpoenaed former White House counsel Pasquale “Pat” Cipollone for “on-the-record testimony.”

Cassidy Hutchinson — a former special assistant to Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s last chief of staff — testified Tuesday that Cipollone urged her to prevent Trump from joining a violent mob of his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

RELATED: Officials who disputed Cassidy Hutchinson bombshell testimony were Trump’s “yes men”

As Hutchinson told the House select committee investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol:

Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.”

In a Wednesday morning tweet, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the committee’s vice chair, referenced Hutchinson’s testimony that Cipollone “had significant concerns” regarding Trump’s activities that day and declared that “it’s time” for him “to testify on the record.”

The committee announced the subpoena Wednesday evening in a statement echoing Cheney’s earlier messages.

Cheney and the panel’s chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in the statement that “the select committee’s investigation has revealed evidence that Mr. Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump’s activities on January 6th and in the days that preceded.”

“While the select committee appreciates Mr. Cipollone’s earlier informal engagement with our investigation, the committee needs to hear from him on the record, as other former White House counsels have done in other congressional investigations,” they added. “Any concerns Mr. Cipollone has about the institutional prerogatives of the office he previously held are clearly outweighed by the need for his testimony.”

Thompson’s letter to Cipollone on Wednesday explains that given his refusal to cooperate with the committee beyond an informal interview in April, “we are left with no choice but to issue you this subpoena.”

Read more on Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony and the Jan. 6 committee:

NATO and the Ukraine war: It took 30 years for Russia and the West to create this disaster

As NATO holds its summit in Madrid this week, the war in Ukraine is taking center stage. During a pre-summit June 22 talk with Politico, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg bragged about how well-prepared NATO was for this fight because, he said: “This was an invasion that was predicted, foreseen by our intelligence services.” Stoltenberg was talking about Western intelligence predictions in the months leading up to the Feb. 24 invasion, when Russia insisted it was not going to attack. Stoltenberg, however, could well have been talking about predictions that went back not just months before the invasion, but decades. 

Stoltenberg could have looked all the way back to when the USSR was dissolving, and highlighted a 1990 State Department memo warning that creating an “anti-Soviet coalition” of NATO countries along the USSR’s border “would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets.”

Stoltenberg could have reflected on the consequences of all the broken promises by Western officials that NATO would not expand eastward. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous assurance to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was just one example. Declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted by the National Security Archive reveal multiple assurances by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and 1991. 

RELATED: What really caused the war in Ukraine? Global anarchy — and there’s a way to fix it

The NATO secretary general could have recalled the 1997 letter by 50 prominent foreign policy experts, calling Bill Clinton’s plans to enlarge NATO a policy error of “historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” But Clinton had already made a commitment to invite Poland into the club, reportedly out of concern that saying “no” to Poland would lose him critical Polish-American votes in the Midwest in the 1996 election.

Stoltenberg could have remembered the prediction made by George Kennan, the intellectual father of U.S. containment policy during the Cold War, when NATO moved ahead and incorporated Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1998. In a New York Times interview, Kennan called NATO expansion a “tragic mistake” that marked the beginning of a new Cold War, and warned that the Russians would “gradually react quite adversely.”

George Kennan, the father of U.S. Cold War policy, warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a “tragic mistake” that could lead the Russians to “react quite adversely.”

After seven more Eastern European countries joined NATO in 2004, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which had actually been part of the former Soviet Union, the hostility increased further. Stoltenberg could have just considered the words of President Vladimir Putin himself, who said on many occasions that NATO enlargement represented “a serious provocation.” In 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin asked, “What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?” 

But it was the 2008 NATO summit, when NATO ignored Russia’s vehement opposition and promised that Ukraine would join NATO, that really set off alarm bells. 

William Burns, then the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, sent an urgent memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”


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


Instead of comprehending the danger of crossing “the brightest of all redlines,” President George W. Bush persisted and pushed through internal opposition within NATO to proclaim, in 2008, that Ukraine would indeed be granted membership, but at an unspecified date. Stoltenberg could well have traced the present conflict back to that NATO summit — which took place well before the 2014 Euromaidan coup or Russia’s seizure of Crimea or the failure of the Minsk Agreements to end the civil war in the Donbas.

This was indeed a war foretold. Thirty years of warnings and predictions turned out to be all too accurate. But they all went unheeded by an institution that measured its success only in terms of its own endless expansion instead of by the security it promised but repeatedly failed to deliver, most of all to the victims of its own aggression in Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya. 

Now Russia has launched a brutal, illegal war that has uprooted millions of innocent Ukrainians from their homes, killed and injured thousands of civilians and is taking the lives of more than a hundred Ukrainian soldiers every day. NATO is determined to keep sending massive amounts of weapons to fuel the war, while millions around the world suffer from the growing economic fallout of the conflict.

We can’t go back and undo Russia’s catastrophic decision to invade Ukraine or NATO’s historic blunders. But Western leaders can make wiser strategic decisions going forward. Those should include a commitment to allow Ukraine to become a neutral, non-NATO state, something that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself agreed to in principle early on in the war. 

We can’t undo Russia’s catastrophic decision to invade Ukraine. But Western leaders could make wiser decisions going forward.

And instead of exploiting this crisis to expand even further, NATO should suspend all new or pending membership applications until the current crisis has been resolved. That is what a genuine mutual security organization would do, in sharp contrast to the opportunistic behavior of this aggressive military alliance.

But we’ll make our own prediction based on NATO’s past behavior. Instead of calling for compromises on all sides to end the bloodshed, this dangerous alliance will instead promise an endless supply of weapons to help Ukraine “win” an unwinnable war, and will continue to seek out and seize every chance to engorge itself at the expense of human life and global security. 

While the world determines how to hold Russia accountable for the horrors it is committing in Ukraine, the members of NATO should do some honest self-reflection. They should realize that the only permanent solution to the hostility generated by this exclusive, divisive alliance is to dismantle NATO and replace it with an inclusive framework that provides security to all of Europe’s countries and people, without threatening Russia or blindly following the United States in its insatiable and anachronistic hegemonic ambitions. 

Read more on the conflict with Ukraine:

Biden administration sued for oil leasing on public lands

Several environmental groups sued the Biden administration on Tuesday for resuming oil and gas leasing on public lands despite ample evidence that doing so will exacerbate the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis.

The lawsuit came as the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and its Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared to hold oil and gas lease sales in Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and Utah beginning on Wednesday—the first onshore auctions since President Joe Biden paused the federal leasing program shortly after taking office—with more scheduled in Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Plaintiffs estimate that these lease sales will open more than 140,000 acres of public land to fossil fuel production.

“Overwhelming scientific evidence shows us that burning fossil fuels from existing leases on federal lands is incompatible with a livable climate,” Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, said in a statement.

The DOI’s failure to acknowledge the local and planetary impacts of these new lease sales, said Hornbein, “is an attempt to water down the climate effects of the decision to continue leasing, and is a clear abdication of BLM’s responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.”

As the plaintiffs explained in a statement:

The groups assert that BLM has violated environmental laws by continuing to authorize fossil fuel extraction on public lands. The challenged lease sales are expected to result in billions of dollars in social and environmental harm, including negative impacts on public health, air and water quality, and local wildlife,such as the embattled greater sage grouse and other endangered species.

The lawsuit cites a failure of the Interior Department and BLM to uphold their responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires Interior to prevent “permanent impairment” and “unnecessary or undue degradation” of public lands from oil and gas development. It also calls for BLM to prepare a comprehensive environmental impact statement. That should analyze the compatibility of the predicted increased greenhouse gas emissions with the urgent need to avoid the catastrophe of 1.5ºC of global warming, rather than in piecemeal analyses.

“We’re out of time and our climate can’t afford any new fossil fuel developments,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “By leasing more of our public lands to oil companies, President Biden is breaking campaign promises and falling dangerously short of the global leadership required to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

Several analyses show that continuing to exploit the world’s already-existing oil and gas fields is incompatible with meeting the Paris agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5ºC above preindustrial levels by the end of the century.

To avoid blowing past that threshold—beyond which the consequences of the climate emergency are projected to grow increasingly deadly, especially for the low-income populations least responsible for planet-heating pollution—governments must halt new fossil fuel projects and rapidly phase out existing production.

“Moving forward with these lease sales flies in the face of science and any chance for us to meet our climate goals,” said Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club’s Lands, Water, Wildlife campaign. “For the sake of our environment and our future, we must transition away from the toxic fossil fuel industry that prioritizes handouts to oil and gas companies over the interests of local communities, wildlife, and conservation efforts.”

Earlier this year, a coalition of more than 360 progressive advocacy groups submitted a legal petition calling on the Biden administration to use its executive authority to end fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters. The petition comes equipped with a regulatory framework to wind down oil and gas production by 98% by 2035. According to the coalition, the Biden administration can achieve this goal by using long-dormant provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the National Emergencies Act.

The DOI has argued that it is required to resume lease sales because of a preliminary injunction issued last June by a Trump-appointed judge in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of Republican attorneys general who are bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry and oppose Biden’s executive order suspending new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters.

However, in a memorandum of opposition filed last August by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), federal government lawyers wrote that while Judge Terry A. Doughty’s ruling “enjoins and restrains Interior from implementing the pause, it does not compel Interior to take the actions specified by plaintiffs, let alone on the urgent timeline specified in plaintiffs’ contempt motion.”

The president has already come under fire for ignoring the DOJ’s legal advice and plowing ahead with the nation’s largest-ever offshore lease sale in November. That auction, which saw more than 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico offered to the highest-bidding oil and gas companies, was blocked in January by a federal judge who wrote that the Biden administration violated federal law by not adequately accounting for its emissions impact.

The president’s pause of the federal leasing program was meant to give the DOI time to conduct a comprehensive review of the “potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands or in offshore waters.”

The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that roughly 25% of the nation’s total carbon emissions can be attributed to fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters, and according to the DOI, the social costs of burning oil and gas obtained through drilling and fracking on government-owned parcels—including rising sea levels, extreme weather disasters, and adverse public health effects—range from $630 million to about $7 billion.

Nevertheless, the DOI’s long-awaited review of its oil and gas leasing program largely ignored the climate crisis, leading environmental justice campaigners to describe the November report as a “shocking capitulation to the needs of corporate polluters.”

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, “Federal fossil fuels that have not been leased to industry contain up to 450 billion tons of potential climate pollution; those already leased to industry contain up to 43 billion tons.”

Peer-reviewed research, meanwhile, has estimated that a nationwide ban on federal fossil fuel leasing would reduce carbon emissions by 280 million tons per year.

The moratorium the White House enacted last January did not affect existing leases. The Biden administration approved 34% more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year than the Trump administration did in 2017, prompting environmental groups to file a separate lawsuit two weeks ago.

“The public is absorbing substantial economic and ecological costs from fossil fuel-driven climate disruption, including massive fires, biodiversity loss, superstorms, and extended drought,” Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, said Tuesday.

“Federal minerals belong to the public and should be managed in the public interest,” he added, “which clearly dictates keeping federal fossil fuel deposits safely buried underground.”

“Infowars” host Alex Jones says Trump will announce 2024 presidency run on July 4th

Infowars host Alex Jones claimed on Wednesday that a source close to former President Donald Trump told him that Trump is planning to declare his candidacy for a 2024 White House bid on Monday, July 4th.

“Donald Trump is set to announce his run for 2024 on Monday, which is a very special day. We’re shooting this right now during a break during my live show on June 29th, Wednesday edition. That means in five days, on July 4th, President Trump is gonna announce he’s running for his second term,” Jones said. “Imagine the explosive political, cultural, economic, medical, financial implications of that.”

Jones noted that Trump’s “confidant” and veteran Republican operative Roger Stone, whom Trump pardoned last December after he was convicted on multiple counts of making false statements, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, “confirmed that the first six months of last year, Trump wasn’t gonna run. They messed with him so bad, they ran America into the ground so bad, he said, ‘okay, I’m gonna run.’ And the question became, when will he run? It became, when will he make that decision? Right now, he is planning to announce – this is exclusive – this next Monday, July 4th, that he’s running for president again. Unbelievable.”

Watch below via Ron Filipkowski:

Melania Trump gave a one-word response to the option of promoting peace on Jan. 6

On January 6, 2021, while MAGA enthusiasts rioted in and around the U.S. Capitol, Melania Trump was asked if she’d like to tweet a statement encouraging peace and the former First Lady responded with a one-word answer.

According to ex-aide Stephanie Grisham, she personally sent a text to Melania on Jan. 6 asking “Do you want to tweet that peaceful protests are the right of every American, but there is no place for lawlessness & violence?” 

Melania’s response was a simple “No.”

 

Grisham, who was Melania’s chief of staff during the time of this exchange, and a former White House press secretary and communications director, resigned later that day without making mention of what had happened. Tweeting a farewell message, Grisham said “It has been an honor to serve the country in the White House. I am very proud to have been a part of Melania Trump’s mission to help children everywhere, & proud of the many accomplishments of this Administration.”


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


While it’s not clear why Grisham waited until now to share her text exchange with Melania from Jan. 6, Huffington Post highlights that it “backs an anecdote” from Grisham’s tell-all book, “I’ll Take Your Questions Now: What I Saw at the Trump White House,” which was released on October 5, 2021.

“Do you want a participation award? Do you think this absolves you of your complicity in what went on in that WH for 4 years? You sat by as Rome burned and did nothing,” a commenter replied to Grisham’s share of the text exchange on Twitter yesterday. “The entire lot of you should be in jail.”

“Nope. I don’t believe in participation awards. I’m not trying to be absolved of anything, what I am doing is trying not to let history repeat itself,” Grisham responded.

Read more

about this topic

Say gay

I don’t have kids in Florida. Or any of the other states – the list seems to be growing by the day – that have passed or are considering versions of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, which is set to go into effect on July 1. 

My three children go to public school on the westside of Los Angeles, which is basically the opposite of Florida.  Out here, kids say gay at school, on the playground, and – brace yourself – in church.  And lately, mine have been saying it at the dinner table, since their mom unexpectedly found herself inside the umbrella of LGBTQIA when she discovered at 40 that she’s attracted to women. Because I’ve written a novel with a queer romance at the center of it, my midlife coming out has been more public than it otherwise would have been, and my desire to make sure my kids weren’t the last to know about their mom’s evolution meant that I shared with them early that I suspected my next partner would be a woman.  It went a little like this:

My 11-year-old daughter (with a really on point eye-roll):  You, too?  Everyone’s a lesbian now.
My 7-year-old son:  That’s great, Mommy!  I’m a lesbian, too!  
My 11-year-old daughter (to her brother, with another, more intense eye roll):  You can’t be a lesbian. You’re a cisgender boy.
My 7-year-old son:  But I want to marry a girl like Mommy does!
My 4-year-old son:  I want to marry Mommy!

RELATED: What my gay childhood in a “Don’t Say Gay” landscape was really like

It was hilarious, and tender, and wonderful, and I have California to thank for it. Not just the schools, but also our affirming Methodist church and our progressive neighborhood, where Pride flags are ubiquitous and family diversity is celebrated. How would my queerness have been metabolized by my children if we lived in Florida, or even in Georgia, where I grew up? 

I’d like to understand how acknowledging what’s true – that not everyone identifies with the biological sex they were assigned at birth and that some families have parents of the same gender – “sexualizes” young kids.

I have a guess. It’s not a wild guess, either, because I’ve participated in countless discussions about gender expression and sexual orientation with friends and family in my home state, where Bible verses are slung around out of context to shame and repress. But don’t get me wrong. I’m not asking how the raised-in-Georgia versions of my kids might have made me feel when I came out to them. I am a grown woman with a healthy self-concept, plenty of therapy under her belt, and strong faith in a God who delights in the diversity of the creatures they created (to those who object to my choice of pronouns for God, may I direct you to Genesis 1:1).  

I’m asking about them. My children. The humans I care most about in this world, whose wellness is my responsibility. And I’m asking about other people’s kids, the ones growing up in the dozen or so states seeking to prohibit the discussion of topics of gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary schools and to punish students and faculty who attempt to speak out anyway. Not the gay and non-binary and trans kids, though I worry about them all the time and feel sick to my stomach when I think about the lasting harm of LGBTQIA erasure in early education. I’m focused right now on the straight kids of queer parents, particularly queer parents like me, who discovered their queerness later in life and are attempting to live joyfully and authentically for their own well-being and the well-being of their children.  My hunch?  My kids would be much less OK right now if we lived somewhere else.

I can imagine what Ron DeSantis or Kay Ivey would say.  Something about woke ideology and the insidious harm it’s doing to my kids. But please direct me to the pediatricians and child psychologists and social workers who would agree with them. I’d like to understand how acknowledging what’s true – that not everyone identifies with the biological sex they were assigned at birth and that some families have parents of the same gender – “sexualizes” young kids. I’d like to see the evidence – any evidence! – that the “woke” kids in California are suffering as a result of LGBTQIA-inclusive curriculum. I can tell you mine aren’t. On the contrary, they’re navigating a tricky new normal – divorced parents, two households, a newly gay mom who isn’t even sure yet if gay is the right adjective for her – with astounding, beautiful ease.  

The opposite of ease?  Trauma.  

What these (straight, cisgender) lawmakers are afraid of are stories like my family’s story. Where queerness is just a piece of information.  Where exchanging pronouns is an act of deep compassion.

I try to avoid black and white thinking, but this one seems pretty black and white to me.  LGBTQIA erasure in schools lays the groundwork for deep and lasting trauma.  Despite all the clever wordplay, these “parental rights bills” don’t “protect children.” They hurt children, while at the same time advancing a political agenda that protects the power of straight, cisgender conservatives and reinforces patriarchal heteronormativity so that anyone outside that norm will continue to feel othered and shamed. The cynic in me wonders if maybe that’s the point.  Because if queerness and gender nonconformity continue to be associated with lifelong psychological harm, then far right conservatives can make the case that it’s the human conscience at work, because deep down LGBTQIA+ folks know that their lives are not in accordance with God’s plan.

What these (straight, cisgender) lawmakers are afraid of are stories like my family’s story. Where queerness is just a piece of information.  Where exchanging pronouns is an act of deep compassion. Where gender non-conformity is just another form of self-expression.  Where the foundation of our family identity isn’t conformity but belonging, because we believe that belonging is the very best synonym for love.  

This Sunday, my kids and I will stand in a church sanctuary where there is a rainbow flag on the wall and the female pastor affirmatively welcomes humans of all gender expressions and sexual orientations every single week. We will sing hymns that congregants in churches in the Bible belt will also be singing that day, and we will sing them without fear, or self-loathing, or shame. We will not spend one second of our day worried about what “woke” culture is doing to us, because we will be too busy celebrating the beautiful diversity of the world God created, the inherent pleasure of compassion, and the joy of being fully awake.

Read more

about this topic

 

Martha Stewart’s cauliflower-and-chickpea pitas are a vegetarian delight perfect for summer lunches

Incorporating more plant-based meals into your daily lunch menu just got a little easier, thanks to Martha Stewart’s recipe for a Mediterranean inspired sandwich. Her hearty cauliflower-and-chickpea pitas are a creative rendition of classic falafel sandwiches and are both quick to make and oh-so satisfying.  

“Everyone will enjoy this plant-based meal,” Martha claimed on Instagram, which is enough to convince us that this sandwich is a summer must-try.  

RELATED: 12 Martha Stewart recipes we can’t stop making — from one-pan pasta to slab pie

To start, arrange your cauliflower florets and chickpeas on a rimmed baking sheet and generously season them with cumin, salt, pepper and oil, preferably extra-virgin olive oil. Pop the tray into the oven and roast for 30 to 35 minutes, making sure to flip the cauliflower once and that both the veggies and chickpeas are crisp and golden.    

In the meantime, prep the lime-jalapeño yogurt sauce by blending garlic, cilantro, jalapeño (be sure to remove the seeds), fresh lime juice and yogurt. Martha recommends using 5 percent-fat Greek yogurt, but non-dairy alternatives made with cashew milk or almond milk also work great.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CfUp1pdOE7t/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

If the sauce is too thick, add in a tablespoon of water and blend before finishing it off with salt and pepper. Assemble the sandwiches by stuffing the cauliflower-chickpea mixture into warm, split pitas. Top it off with a drizzle of yogurt sauce, garnish with cilantro leaves for a nice pop of color and then enjoy!

Click here for the full recipe.  

More stories you might like:

Alec Baldwin’s interview with Woody Allen was shoddy, shallow & glitchy – why did this happen again?

If you’ve ever wanted to see two gross grandfathers struggle with social media on social media while talking about “kids these days,” Alec Baldwin and Woody Allen have a treat for you. On Tuesday, Baldwin interviewed Allen for nearly an hour on Baldwin’s Instagram Live, though a portion of that time was taken up by technical difficulties. 

In theory, Allen was being interviewed to promote his new book, a collection of short humor pieces titled “Zero Gravity.” It was a rare interview for the 86-year-old Allen, but one in which he was certain never to be asked any difficult questions (or, in the course of the rambling interview, very many questions at all). But the fact of the interview itself leads to a question: why was this allowed to happen? 

RELATED: Hachette employees protest publisher’s decision to release Woody Allen memoir

Allen, Academy Award-winning filmmaker of such films as “Annie Hall” and “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask),” has spent the last few decades mired in controversy. In 1992, Allen was first accused of sexual abuse when a babysitter observed him with his young daughter, Dylan Farrow. A judge in 1993, when Allen attempted to obtain custody of the children with actor Mia Farrow, called Allen’s behavior “grossly inappropriate.” No charges were officially filed but Dylan Farrow continued to attest that Allen had sexually abused her. As Vanity Fair wrote, “For 30 years this has remained one of the most disturbing stories in Hollywood.”

While real consequences for sexual assault and abuse continue to be rare for men, the public appetite for Allen’s work has soured.

Allen was also accused of physically abusing his children, including son Moses. In 1992, Mia Farrow discovered in Allen’s apartment nude photos of daughter Soon-Yi, whom she had adopted in 1977 and who had been raised by Farrow and Allen. Soon-Yi was about 21 at the time of the photos and had met Allen at age 7. When Soon-Yi was 27, she and Allen, who was then 62, married. They adopted two little girls.

One of Allen’s children with Mia Farrow grew up to become Ronan Farrow, the highly-respected New Yorker writer and journalist known for his work reporting sexual abuse crimes, including the alleged crimes of his father. After Dylan wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times called “Why has the #MeToo revolution spared Woody Allen?” many actors who had worked with Allen previously such as Colin FirthKate Winslet and Timothée Chalamet distanced themselves from the director, including donating their salaries from his films and publicly vowing to never work with him again.

While real consequences for sexual assault and abuse continue to be rare for men, the public appetite for Allen’s work has soured. Allen’s films have consistently tanked the last few years. In 2019, Amazon canceled a $68 million deal with him. His film released this year “Rifkin’s Festival” grossed a paltry $24,000 at the box office. In 2021, HBO aired a four-part docuseries about the allegations against him, titled “Allen v. Farrow.” As Melanie McFarland wrote in her review, “If you’re still watching Woody Allen’s films, this scathing four-part documentary series asks you to ponder why.” 

Baldwin is perhaps a good match for Allen, having been mired in muck of his own for years. In 1995, he allegedly assaulted a photographer. In 2011, he was forcibly escorted off a plane after becoming belligerent. An angry voicemail he left his daughter, calling her a “rude, thoughtless pig,” went public in 2007. He had been banned by a court from seeing his daughter, who was 11 years old at the time.

More recently, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died on the 2021 set of Baldwin’s film “Rust” after a live round was discharged from a prop gun fired by Baldwin. Director Joel Souza was also injured. The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office is continuing to investigate the incident, and Baldwin is the subject of multiple lawsuits. 

Baldwin has a podcast, “Here’s the Thing.” But his interview with Allen did not happen on that podcast, and it shows.

The first chunk of the interview is taken up by technical difficulties. The men do not seem to understand the video is live. Allen complains about a delay and does not know how to adjust the camera so more of his face can be seen. At one point, dogs begin barking on Baldwin’s end, and he leaps up to yell at an apparent staff member in bad Spanish.

The tech glitches inspire the men to talk at length about how they hate social media (even though the video is airing on social media) with Baldwin saying young people have turned into zombies and worship screens like monkeys in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Allen says about his Facebook page: “Someone else handles that for me.” “I’ve never been interested in gadgetry, cameras,” says the director who, one presumes, has used a camera.

Did staffers on Baldwin’s podcast protest, as in 2020 when publishing employees walked out to protest the publication of Allen’s memoir?

Produced by iHeartPodcasts, the Baldwin podcast “Here’s the Thing” features the actor interviewing celebrities, described as Baldwin “tak[ing] listeners into the lives of artists, policy makers and performers.” Emphasis on performers. Past guests have included David Letterman, Chris Rock and Barbara Streisand as “Alec sidesteps the predictable by going inside the dressing rooms, apartments, and offices of people we want to understand better.” Allen seems like a good fit to add to that list, and it’s not immediately clear why the lengthy interview aired on the glitch-laden, personal livestream with neither Baldwin nor Allen having access to an army of producers, tech whizzes and others to help.

The production value on the interview is predictably bad. Baldwin is wearing a visor, like he just came in from golfing, and sits before a cluttered mantle Room Rater would not score highly. Allen looks like he’s in a haunted inn in Westchester. There is a lot of freezing, lost video. Baldwin criticizes Allen’s wi-fi situation. Who greenlit this? Anyone? Or, is this a case of a quasi-canceled man wanting to give airtime to another?

In announcing the interview, again on social media, Baldwin, who giggled when he said the name of his guest as if Allen is a backroom secret, wrote defiantly in the caption: “I have ZERO INTEREST in anyone’s judgments.” 

Does that include his producing and podcast staff? His publicists and anyone who might have said told him no? Did staffers on Baldwin’s podcast protest, as in 2020 when publishing employees walked out of the Hachette Book Group’s offices in New York to protest the publication of Allen’s memoir “Apropos of Nothing”? (Baldwin loved that book, by the way.) 

Representatives from iHeartPodcasts and CalvaryMedia, which also produces “Here’s the Thing,” did not respond to requests for comment.

Allen’s book dedication mentions “our two lovely daughters who have grown up before our eyes” and compares his wife, whom he first met as a young daughter, to a vampire.

After strong criticism, Hachette announced it would no longer publish Allen’s memoir, which was released instead by Arcade Publishing. Allen’s new book is published by Skyhorse, which has a reputation for giving a platform to writers of ill repute. In an article, which also examines allegations of extreme workplace misconduct, toxicity and abuse at the small publisher, Vanity Fair described Skyhorse as a “House of Horrors.”  

Perhaps a good place for Allen, whose book dedication mentions “our two lovely daughters who have grown up before our eyes” and compares his wife, whom he first met as a young daughter, to a vampire. And perhaps a spotty, interrupted and sparsely attended livestream is the best and only place for this talk. 


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


But #BookTok, never fear. Baldwin is not coming for your work. Not once in the long interview does Baldwin show the cover of Allen’s book or sell it in a meaningful way. Of course, Baldwin raises no questions about Allen’s abuse allegations; it is inconceivable that Allen would agree to the interview unless he knew it was a soft coddling. But the two men don’t talk about much at all. As one of my colleagues said, their conversation manages to be both offensive and boring, something you would move away from at a coffeeshop. 

“It’s still the greatest day of your life, isn’t it?” Baldwin says to Allen in the way of men who have been left behind by a world which would rather forget them. “Being on Instagram?”

More stories like this

This riff on a chocolate-packed cookie classic is so good it might make you cry

When I was a child, I used to put our store-bought cookies on the radiator in my bedroom to warm them up before eating. I don’t know how I developed the habit. What it a cry for an Easy Bake oven? I only know that there is a specific and beautiful aroma that will fill your home, and then for the rest of your life your memory, when you leave a few Nilla wafers out on your family’s heating unit. It’s a heady perfume, one that I’ve recently become re-addicted to.

This past spring, New York City’s Magnolia Bakery announced month that they were rolling out a cookie version of their legendary banana pudding. When I heard the news, I all but left a Road Runner style cloud of dust in my wake to get my hands on one. What I didn’t yet know was how transformative a cookie baked inside a cookie can be.

The result of six months of meticulous development, the cookie is an almost magical manifestation of the silky flavor of the bakery’s pudding in a crunchy, chewy form. “I wanted a real banana flavor to shine through,” Bobbie Lloyd, chief executive officer and chief baking officer of Magnolia, recently told Delish.

RELATED: Why stand in line for TikTok famous cookie pies when you can bake them yourself?

Magnolia’s creation features banana pudding mix and crushed vanilla wafers, two non-negotiable elements of anything that carries the name “banana pudding.” But in this new incarnation, both elements become something different and special. Added to baked goods, pudding mix yields unbelievable texture and depth. But it’s the crushed wafers that send everything completely over the top. There’s something about the smell, the flavor of them inside of the cookie, like something you would have grabbed out of the cupboard after school but also something you would have had fresh from the oven at your best friend’s slumber party, that makes for a veritable nesting doll of nostalgia. Tasting one of these cookies at Magnolia, I felt downright emotional. I had to make them, and I had to make them my own.


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


The Magnolia cookie contains mashed bananas and white chocolate chips, and while those are fine in context, I’m not the biggest fan of either. For my home version, I found inspiration from a Taste of Home recipe to omit the fresh banana, and then I swapped dark chocolate for the white. It was like adding yet another layer of retro to the experience, a banana pudding that’s also a Nilla wafer that’s also a Toll House cookie. If an “Afterschool Special” had a flavor, it would be this.

You can, of course, use white chocolate here for a more banana-forward experience, but give these a try. A credible Magnolia knockoff? Absolutely not. But the pudding-cookie hybrid is somehow the best of all dessert worlds, a treat so good it might make you cry.

***

Inspired by Taste of Home and Two Peas and Their Pod

Chocolate Chip Banana Pudding Cookies
Yields
24 cookies
Prep Time
 10 minutes, plus chilling
Cook Time
 10 minutes

Ingredients

  • 2 sticks softened butter
  • 1/2 cup white sugar
  • 1/2 cup light brown sugar
  • 2 eggs
  • 1 tablespoon pure vanilla extract
  • 1 box instant banana cream pudding
  • 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 teaspoon baking soda
  • 1/2 teaspoon salt
  • 1 cup dark chocolate chips
  • 3/4 cup crushed Nilla Wafers

 

Directions

  1. Line 2 baking sheets with parchment paper.

  2. In a big bowl, beat the butter and sugars until light and fluffy.

  3. Beat in the eggs, vanilla extract and dry pudding mix until combined.

  4. Beat in the flour, baking soda and salt until just combined. Stir in the chocolate chips and crushed cookies.

  5. Drop tablespoon-sized scoops of cookie dough on the lined baking sheets, about 2 inches apart. 

  6. Chill the dough in the refrigerator for 30 minutes. (The cookies will turn out better if you do so, but it’s not a tragedy if you don’t have the time and need to skip straight to baking.)

  7. Preheat the oven to 350°F. 

  8. Bake for 8 to 12 minutes, until the edges just begin to turn golden brown.

  9. Remove the baking sheets from the oven and let the cookies cool for 8 to 10 minutes before transferring them to a wire cooling rack.


Cook’s Notes

I believe fresh-baked cookies are the best cookies. Once you’ve portioned out and chilled the dough, you can store these cookies covered in the fridge and bake them to order. Pop a few in the oven right when you’re sitting down to dinner so they’re ready to enjoy for dessert.

More of our favorite cookies: 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

Soju is the refreshing summer drink you’ve been waiting for

As the temperature rises, our collective palate starts to shift towards light and refreshing kinds of beverages. Enter: soju, the beloved national liquor of choice in Korea that should be on your radar.

For a long time—at least in the U.S.—soju was primarily associated with Korean barbecue joints and Korean restaurants in general. But it’s now popping up in liquor stores across the country, with a selection of brands and flavors. This fragrant and crisp liquor is easy to drink, yet will still surely give you a buzz. And now, like many aspects of Korean culture, it’s making its way across the Pacific Ocean in a big way.

What Is Soju

Soju is a colorless grain-based distilled liquor with an average alcohol content of about 15 percent, with the exception of some high-proof sojus up to 50 percent. Traditionally made with rice, soju can be distilled from other types of grains, partly due to a ban that stopped using rice in soju production during past years of hardship in South Korea. These days, soju is made largely using rice with other grains mixed in, such as wheat and barley. Its flavors vary depending on the brand, but general notes include sweetness accented with plum, malt, and a light hint of buttery richness, similar to Japanese sake.

How To Drink It

Like in many Asian drinking cultures, soju is typically consumed neat as a sipping beverage to accompany meals. As the average soju is low-proof with a similar alcohol content to Japanese sake, soju can be as mellow as a glass of red wine, which is why it pairs so well with food. In the traditional way, soju is sold by the bottle at restaurants in Korea. But a U.S. law forbids such practice and requires restaurants to sell soju by the glass. To find a middle ground, restaurant staff typically bring out the bottle and pour the first round of soju for you.

There are many soju brands, some of which are available in the U.S. market. Jinro is the most well-known brand producing soju, with its quadruple-filtered Chamisul line being the most popular soju product in Korea. Other brands, such as Cheoeum-Cheoreom (the maker of Soonhari flavored soju) and Good Day, are also widely distributed and loved by many fans worldwide.

In contrast to soju’s long history in the Korean peninsula, flavored versions are more of a contemporary iteration of the old spirit, and some may see them as an attempt to market the drink to younger Koreans, who are drawn to the lower alcohol content and fruity sweetness. Popular flavors were developed largely based on fruits that are popular in Asia, with mango, lychee, and pear topping the popularity list. As the flavors of plain soju are largely neutral with a subtle hint of sweetness, the added fruit flavors tend to take dominance, resulting in a playful, fruit-forward, and smooth drink that may get you drunk before you know it.

Then there’s the yogurt-flavored soju, which has seen unmatched popularity in overseas markets outside South Korea, such as Australia, ever since its debut. As compared to western yogurt, the “yogurt” replicated in this soju is a fermented, probiotic beverage that uses a different strain of bacteria and is lighter in texture and sweeter. Yakult, a Japanese company that is credited with the original formulation of this yogurt drink, is the most popular brand. As many people across East and Southeast Asia started drinking this yogurt as kids, its flavor is synonymous with their childhood memories.

To make it easy on the nose and refreshing for the hot summer time, chilling soju prior to serving is an approach popular in Korean restaurants. Because of its alcohol content, you don’t have to worry about the beverage freezing easily, unless you have a particularly cold freezer. After chilling, the strong alcohol flavor becomes subdued and the refreshing fruity and sweet notes take center stage.

In addition to drinking it straight, soju has a place in cocktails, too. One of the most popular soju cocktail varieties is the refreshingly delicious soju slushie, which blends soju with Yakult yogurt, lime juice, and ice, similar to a smoothie.

For those who prefer something fizzy and stronger, seven parts beer and three parts soju put together makes a new drink called somaek, which merges two words—soju and maekju—together and is literally translated as “soju and beer.” Regardless of what route you’re taking, grab a bottle of soju next time you visit a liquor store and make sure to enjoy it with family and friends as it’s a social drink in Korea.

Lauren Boebert complains that she is “tired of this separation of church and state junk”

Far-right politician Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., won her primary by nearly 30 points on Tuesday night after calling for an end to the separation of Church and State. Boebert, who has been a steadfast supporter of right wing conspiracy group QAnon, gave a speech at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, Colo., on Sunday claiming that the constitution does not support a government free from Christian influence.

Instead, Boebert called for the opposite. “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it,” she said.

Boebert has built her political career around taking radical stances on national issues beginning with her surprising defeat of five-time incumbent Rep Scott Tipton, R-Colo., back in 2020. In her first term as a congresswoman, Boebert introduced a bill to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Earlier this year, Boebert made national headlines when she and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga., repeatedly heckled President Joe Biden during his State of the Union address.

Now making national news again, the video of Boebert’s speech has gone viral, having been shared on Twitter over 770,000 times.

Her speech falls in line with an overall push from the Republican Party, most notably by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, to chip away at the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. 

“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk — that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like they say it does,” Boebert said in her Sunday speech.

While many cite the Constitution’s First Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as grounds for separation of church and state, Boebert is among the group of right-wing individuals that disputes this interpretation.

The letter that Boebert is referring to is a private note written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802 in which he states that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God” and that the American people have chosen to build a “wall of separation between Church & State.”

In accordance with Boebert’s understanding of the non-constitutional origins of the separation between church and state, the Supreme court ruled earlier this month that Maine cannot prohibit religiously affiliated schools from participating in a taxpayer-funded tuition program.

In May, the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of the church, stating that the Boston City Council had acted unconstitutionally when they prohibited a Christian organization from hanging their flag in the city hall.

And while Friday’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling does not mention religion as grounds for the verdict, many conservatives attribute their anti-abortion political beliefs to the Bible. Referring to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Boebert applauded members of the Church for fighting against abortion. “Look at what happened this week. This is the fruit of your labor, of your votes and of your prayers – this is your harvest,” she said.

Elon Musk makes climate change worse: A new study confirms space tourism is destroying the planet

Ever since billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk launched private space travel for the world’s elites, everyone from actor William Shatner to former football star Michael Strahan has taken merry jaunts into outer space. (Or, more precisely, the outer limits of Earth’s atmosphere.)

It seems like a sci-fi dream come true, albeit limited to Earth’s rich and famous. Yet a new study published in the scientific journal Earth’s Future reveals that this particular dream could wind up exacerbating the planet’s ongoing climate change nightmare — at least, if current trends continue unabated.

RELATED: Elon Musk allegedly asked a SpaceX flight attendant to “do more” during a massage

“It is imperative that we understand the current and future risks to Earth’s atmosphere posed by pollution from rocket launches and re-entry heating of reusable and discarded rocket parts and historical debris,” the authors write. They note that because rockets directly emit gaseous and solid chemicals into Earth’s upper atmosphere, they are fundamentally different from other man-made sources of air pollution.

“We compile inventories of these chemicals from rocket launches in 2019 and projections of future growth and speculative space tourism activity,” they add. “We incorporate these in a 3D atmospheric chemistry model to simulate the impact on climate and the protective stratospheric ozone layer.”


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


The good news is that, because the space moguls have not been able to arrange many private launches, the current impact to our atmosphere has been minimal. The bad news is that things will get worse as more launches occur — and that is exactly what the moguls are planning.

“Our results demonstrate that while the climate impact of the contemporary space industry is small, due to small launch numbers, the impact is likely to be significant if launch rates increase,” Robert Ryan, lead author of the paper, told Salon by email. “Space tourism projections suggest it could provide that surge in launch rates. The climate impact of rocket launches is primarily due to soot released at high altitudes, where its ability to hold heat in the atmosphere is up to 500 times greater than any other soot source.”

Whereas electric cars offer an alternative to fossil fuel-burning vehicles, there really is no adequately green alternative to the existing methods of putting people in space. In the end, the only way to protect the planet from the astronomical aspirations of the world’s elite is for the rich to simply stop making unnecessary space trips.

“There is no strictly climate-safe way for space tourism to proceed because even rockets burning liquid hydrogen, which produces no soot, result in nitrogen oxide emissions,” Ryan pointed out. “These are harmful for the stratospheric ozone layer. Producing rockets and rocket fuels is also a carbon-intensive process. Space tourism launches are unnecessary and should be minimized and regulated.”

He later added, “Our results project the impact of future space tourism launches, should the industry reach significant (daily or weekly) launch rates. The impact in such a scenario would be to warm the stratosphere with the potential for ongoing detrimental climate consequences.”

Environmentalists and scientists are not the only ones dismayed with the new trend of wealthy people going into space. Last year the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seemed to redefine the word “astronaut” as a specific rebuttal to Bezos describing himself and his fellow space travelers with that term. According to the new policy order, a person must perform functions during a space mission that are “essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety” in order to be considered an astronaut. Only the FAA, the United States military and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are legally allowed to designate someone as an astronaut. Then again, the scorn from much of the scientific community may do little to dissuade Bezos, Musk and their cohorts.

“I think the motivation for space tourism is that people just want to have that experience,” space historian and author Andrew Chaikin told NBC News. “I don’t think the wider world pays that much attention to whether or not the FAA awards astronaut wings to one person over another.”

Chaikin added, with a prediction that runs athwart scientific concerns about sustainability, that so-called “space travelers” “might go up to space not for science but just as a requirement to do their job. Maybe it’s a manager of an orbiting hotel. I don’t know that you would call that person an astronaut. But you would call them a space traveler.”

For more Salon articles about space billionaires:

SCOTUS upholds Louisiana GOP map despite two courts finding that it violates the Voting Rights Act

Civil rights advocates on Tuesday decried the U.S. Supreme Court’s reinstatement of Louisiana’s Republican-drawn congressional map, which a federal judge said will cause “irreparable harm” to Black voters in the 2022 midterm elections and likely violates the Voting Rights Act.

The nation’s highest court voted 6-3—with liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting—to temporarily block a ruling by U.S. District Judge Shelly D. Dick, who found that Louisiana’s new congressional district map was racially discriminatory.

Following Dick’s decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the GOP map, calling evidence presented by Black voters who challenged the redistricting “stronger” than the arguments of its Republican defenders.

Louisiana’s contested congressional map—which leaves only one majority Black district in a state where Black people make up one-third of the population and are a majority in seven parishes—was passed in March after the Republican-controlled state Legislature overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards.

“The Supreme Court’s unwarranted decision is a blow to justice and fair representation that Black Louisianans have long fought for,” said Stuart Naifeh, manager of the Legal Defense Fund’s (LDF) Redistricting Project, in a statement.

“Two courts have looked at the facts and agree that Louisiana’s congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act, and that using it in the upcoming election will rob Black voters of their right to participate in the political process on an equal footing,” Naifeh added.

The high court’s order came via the “shadow docket,” or expedited and usually unsigned rulings issued without oral arguments or full briefings. The justices added the case to next term’s docket, which includes scheduled oral arguments in a Voting Rights Act challenge to what critics call a racially rigged congressional map in Alabama.

Plaintiffs in the Louisiana case—who include prominent civil rights groups and individual voters—argued in their lawsuit that the map boosts “political power for white citizens” by packing most Black voters into a single district and scattering the rest among five others where they lack the numbers to elect their preferred candidates.

In her ruling, Dick, who cited Louisiana’s “repugnant history” of racist discrimination, wrote that plaintiffs “have demonstrated that they will suffer an irreparable harm if voting takes place in the 2022 Louisiana congressional elections based on a redistricting plan that violates federal law.”

Naifeh said that “the Voting Rights Act was created precisely to prevent the kind of manipulation of district lines to undermine the voices and power of Black people that we see in Louisiana.” 

Responding to Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision, ACLU Voting Rights Project senior staff attorney Alora Thomas said that “to live up to the tenets of a representative democracy, the Louisiana congressional map must reflect the richly diverse population it serves.”

“We won’t stop fighting in court until Louisiana has a fair congressional map,” she vowed.

Racial justice campaigners have identified gerrymandering as a core component—along with voter suppression, intimidation, and misinformation—of a coordinated right-wing effort to entrench Republican power by dismantling voting rights and disenfranchising people of color.

“Let us be clear: The fight for racial justice and equality in Louisiana is far from over,” LDF’s Naifeh stressed. “Black Louisianans deserve congressional representatives who hear and understand their needs and concerns. Anything less is simply unacceptable.”

Post-Roe polls: Midterm support for Democrats soars after Supreme Court strikes down abortion access

At least three generic congressional polls show that Democrats hold a significant lead over Republicans following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the watershed case that established America’s constitutional right to abortion.

According to a Yahoo/News Gov poll released just this week, 45% of U.S. voters say they’d now vote for a Democratic congressional candidate, while roughly 38% meanwhile said they’d vote Republican – a 7% gap that has reportedly doubled since last week. 

Those findings were affirmed in another poll, conducted this week by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist, which similarly observed a 7% gap –  48% for Democrats and 41% for Republicans. That gap has reportedly widened by 2% since last week. 

Morning Consult likewise found a 3% gap, with 45% of the electorate saying they’d vote for a Democrat and 42% for a Republican. Last week, support for the two parties was equal.

RELATED: Supreme Court plummets to all-time low: Poll shows Americans have no confidence in conservatives


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


All of these findings appear to validate concerns amongst some Republicans that the Supreme Court’s ruling would activate Democratic voters in the coming midterms. 

This week, over a dozen Republican strategists and party officials told Politico that the decision could spell electoral defeats for the party, when the GOP’s platform has mostly involved critiquing the Biden agenda. 

“This is not a conversation we want to have,” John Thomas, a GOP House campaign strategist, told the outlet. “We want to have a conversation about the economy. We want to have a conversation about Joe Biden, about pretty much anything else besides Roe … This is a losing issue for Republicans.”

While Donald Trump publicly took credit for the decision – three out of the court’s nine justices are his own appointees – the former president is also reportedly not pleased with the timing of the ruling. 

RELATED: Supreme Court sets GOP up for midterm trouble: Poll shows Roe overturn big motivator for Dem turnout

“He keeps shitting all over his greatest accomplishment. When you speak to him, it’s the response of someone fearing the backlash and fearing the politics of what happens when conservatives actually get what they want [on abortion],” one source told the outlet. “I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are, to be honest with you.”

Although indicates that the ruling on Roe might spur greater Democratic turnout, Democrats have historically ranked abortion relatively low on their list of policy priorities, rendering the potential electoral impact of the ruling unclear.

The other cancel culture: How a public university is bowing to a conservative crusade

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

In August 2020, Boise State University chose a doctoral student in public policy, Melanie Fillmore, to deliver what is called a “land acknowledgment” speech at a convocation for incoming freshmen. Fillmore, who is part Indigenous, would recognize the tribes that lived in the Boise Valley before they were banished to reservations to make way for white settlers.

Fillmore considered it an honor. She was devoted to Boise State, where she had earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees, taught undergraduate courses and served on job search committees. She also admired Marlene Tromp, a feminist literary scholar who came from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2019 to become Boise State’s first female president. Tromp had been hired with a mandate to promote diversity, and including an Indigenous speaker in the ceremony marking the start of students’ higher education would advance that agenda.

The convocation was to be virtual, because of the pandemic. Fillmore put on beaded Native American jewelry and recorded an eight-minute video on her phone. She began by naming the “rightful owners of this land,” the Boise Valley Indigenous tribes, and then described her own “complicated” background. Her father was Hunkpapa Lakota, her mother white. “I can trace eight generations of my Lakota ancestors being removed from the land of their lifeblood to the reservation, just as I can trace seven generations of Norwegian and English ancestors taking that land,” she said.

Fillmore urged viewers to “find a way to share your story here at Boise State” and to learn the history of Indigenous people. “When we acknowledge the Boise Valley ancestors and their land, we make room for that story of removal that was genocidal in purpose,” she said. “When we tell those stories honestly and fully, we heal, and our ancestors heal with us.”

She submitted her speech to the university, but the students never heard it. Boise State higher-ups thought that it was too long and too provocative to roll out in a politically precarious climate, one former official said. They consulted another administrator about whether to drop the speech. “I communicated that pulling it was a bad idea and incredibly wrong,” said this person, who has also left the university. “I don’t believe in de-platforming Indigenous voices.”

The advice was disregarded. Two days before the convocation, the vice president for student affairs told Fillmore that her appearance was canceled, explaining that her safety might be at risk or that she might be trolled or doxxed online.

Fillmore was devastated. She had encouraged the students to tell their stories, and now hers was being erased. She wondered if administrators were worried about the timing. The Idaho Legislature — which normally meets from January to March, when it decides how much money to give to public education, including Boise State — would hold a special session three days after the convocation to consider COVID-19 measures. Conservative legislators, who ever since Tromp’s arrival had been attacking Boise State’s diversity initiatives, might hear about Fillmore’s talk and seize on it to bash the university.

“I didn’t say anything that I haven’t already been sharing with my research and work,” she wrote to a faculty mentor, political scientist Stephen Utych, in an email the next day.

“I was incredibly frustrated for Melanie, but also that the university caved on something so relatively benign, because there’s so much pressure coming externally,” Utych said in an interview. He added that concerns about the Legislature’s impact on Boise State were one reason he quit his tenured professorship this year to work in market research.

When the university’s convocation committee, which organized the event, was informed of the decision, Amy Vecchione expressed misgivings. “I remember saying, ‘Typically, what we do is allow speech to take place, regardless of the content,'” said Vecchione, assistant director of the university’s center for developing online courses, who was the faculty senate liaison to the committee. “‘We process reactions if there are any. That’s part of academic freedom.'”

After the convocation, Tromp commiserated with Fillmore over Zoom. “She told me it was a sad outcome,” Fillmore said. Tromp did not respond to questions about the incident. Alicia Estey, chief of staff and vice president for university affairs, said in an email that “safety was a concern.”

Almost two years later, Fillmore still broods about how she was treated. Although she loves teaching, she’s rethinking her aspirations for an academic career. “I really lost a lot of faith in Boise State,” she said. “It was more important for the university to cope with whatever the Legislature wanted than to advocate for students. I feel more like a liability than a part of the community.”

Across the country, elected officials in red states are seeking to impose their political views on public universities. Even as they decry liberal cancel culture, they’re leveraging the threat of budget cuts to scale back diversity initiatives, sanitize the teaching of American history and interfere with university policies and appointments.

In Georgia, the governor’s appointees have made it easier to fire tenured professors. Florida passed a law requiring public universities to survey faculty and students annually about “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented,” and allowing students to record professors’ lectures as evidence of possible bias. In North Carolina, the Republican-dominated legislature, through its control over key positions, is “inappropriately seeking to expand [its] purview into the day-to-day operations” of state campuses, the American Association of University Professors reported in April. In Texas, the lieutenant governor and conservative donors worked with the state university’s flagship Austin campus to start an institute “dedicated to the study and teaching of individual liberty, limited government, private enterprise and free markets,” according to The Texas Tribune.

Perhaps reflecting such tensions, the average tenure of public university presidents has declined from nine years to seven over the past two decades, and they are increasingly being fired or forced to resign, according to data prepared for this article by Sondra Barringer and Michael Harris, professors of higher education at Southern Methodist University. Between 2014 and 2020, 29% of departures by presidents of NCAA Division 1 public universities were involuntary, up from 19% between 2007 and 2013, and 10% between 2000 and 2006. Moreover, based on media reports and other sources, micromanaging or hyperpartisan boards were responsible for 24% of involuntary turnover at such universities in red states from 2014 to 2020, a rate more than four times higher than in blue states, Barringer and Harris found.

“One way to weaken these institutions is to weaken the leadership of these institutions,” Harris said. “Higher education is under attack in a way that it has never quite been before. These are direct assaults on the core tenets of the institutions. … Boards are running leaders out of town. It’s scary stuff.”

The pressure has been intense in Idaho — and especially at its largest university, Boise State. Egged on by the Idaho Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit group dedicated to “exposing, defeating, and replacing the state’s socialist public policies,” conservative legislators have pushed to prevent an overwhelmingly white institution from considering diversity in its policies and programs.

In 2020, Idaho banned affirmative action at public universities. Last year, the state trimmed $1.5 million from Boise State’s budget, targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs, along with a total of $1 million from the other two state universities. Idaho also became thefirst of seven states to adopt laws aimed at restricting colleges’ teaching or training related to critical race theory, which examines how racism is ingrained in America’s laws and power structure. The lieutenant governor convened a task force to “protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism and Marxism” in higher education. This year, the Legislature adopted a nonbinding resolution condemning critical race theory and The New York Times’s 1619 Project for “divisive content” that “seeks to disregard the history of the United States and the nation’s journey to becoming a pillar of freedom in the world.”

Boise State is a revealing prism through which to examine how public universities, meant to be bastions of academic freedom, are responding to red-state pressures. The school would seem to be in a strong position to resist them. It receives a relatively modest 18% of its budget from the state, with the balance from tuition, student fees, federal student financial aid, research grants and donors. Buoyed by its nationally known football team, which plays on a blue field that has come to rival the potato as Idaho’s most recognizable symbol, and located in one of the nation’s fastest-growing metropolitan areas, Boise State has seen its academic stature and private fundraising rise. It received $41.8 million in donations in fiscal 2021, up from $34.2 million in 2020, although one prominent donor vowed to reduce his giving, complaining that the university was trending leftward.

But for all its seeming clout and independence, Boise State has yielded again and again. It has canceled events, like Fillmore’s speech, that might alienate conservatives; avoided using the terms “diversity” and “inclusion”; and suspended a course on ethics and diversity with 1,300 students over a legislator’s unfounded allegation of misconduct by a teacher.

University administrators “seem to want to placate the conservatives,” said sociology lecturer Michael Kreiter, who was an instructor in the suspended course and teaches classes on racism. “Their goal, in my view, is just to stay out of sight, hoping that all of this backlash won’t get focused on them.”

Idaho’s anti-critical race theory law “has chilled some Boise State educators and shut down their teaching and speech about race and gender in the classroom,” said Aadika Singh, legal director at the ACLU of Idaho, which investigated potentially unconstitutional enforcement of the law. “But it is also clear that some courageous educators have doubled down and reacted to the legislature’s attacks on education by teaching more controversial topics. The university administration has not been courageous; they haven’t had their faculty’s backs.” While the investigation remains open, Singh said, the ACLU of Idaho shifted its focus to educating faculty members on their academic freedom and free-speech rights in the classroom.

Boise State spokesperson Mike Sharp said that the 18% slice of its budget doesn’t convey the full scope of the state’s support for the university. Its land is titled in the name of the state Board of Education, and its buildings are all state buildings, he said. If Boise State had to cut programs to meet payroll, he added, enrollment would decline, and its credit rating might be downgraded. Without state support, “Boise State as it exists today would disappear,” Sharp said.

In an email to ProPublica, Tromp explained her strategy. “My aim is to support our faculty, students and staff and to open lines of dialogue with those in our community who are certain universities don’t see or hear them,” she wrote. “The work we are doing has the potential to be truly transformative — not just here but more broadly.” She declined to comment further, saying it is “a delicate moment, in which it continues to be easy to harm the best efforts in almost any direction.”

Some professors worry that the unanswered attacks are hurting Boise State’s credibility. When faculty members and community organizations recently sponsored a symposium on how to adjust property taxes to help homeowners affected by Boise’s soaring housing values, they held it off campus and didn’t list the university as a sponsor, in contrast to a similar symposium that the university conducted on campus 15 years ago.

“I am saddened by what’s happened in the last couple of years,” said Boise State political scientist Stephanie Witt, who helped organize the discussion. “There’s the perception that working with us is somehow connected to this taint on all higher education. We can’t be trusted.”

As it searched for a president in 2019, Boise State was increasingly gaining national recognition — and not just for athletics. Founded as a junior college by the Episcopal church in 1932, it entered the state system in 1969 and became a university in 1974. For years thereafter it was largely a commuter school for working adults. But now enrollment was steadily growing, especially from out of state; 17% of its undergraduates come from California. Its status had recently been upgraded to “high research activity” under the Carnegie system for classifying universities, and U.S. News & World Report had named it one of the country’s 50 most innovative universities.

One shortcoming stood in the way of its aspirations: a lack of diversity. Its faculty is 83% white, 5% Latino, 5% Asian and 1% Black. Even though 43% of degree-seeking undergraduates come from outside predominantly white Idaho, fewer than 2% are Black. Latinos make up 14%. The services needed to attract faculty and students of color, as well as low-income and LGBTQ students, and make them feel at home were scanty compared with many universities.

“We are a modern day Cinderella story,” a university commission concluded in 2017. “Unfortunately … it is not clear that everyone is being invited nor supported to participate in the ball.” It called for creating “an infrastructure with executive leadership, and with the appropriate resources.”

During the presidential search, faculty, staff and students emphasized the importance of diversity. But some candidates were wary of Idaho politics. One finalist, Andrew Marcus, former dean of arts and sciences at the University of Oregon, cited “limited state funding and a climate of growing national concern about universities” as challenges in his job application. A Boise State staffer warned Marcus that Idaho was a one-party state in which Republicans were split into three factions: Mormons, who supported state funding for higher education; and libertarians and Trump acolytes, who didn’t.

Another hopeful bowed out after researching state politics. “I felt my values may not be shared by the governance structures in Idaho,” she said. “I didn’t want to have those fights.”

Tromp was the clear choice for the job. Born in 1966, she was raised a two-hour drive from the Idaho border, in Green River, Wyoming. Her father was a mechanic in a trona mine, a mineral processed into baking soda, and her mother was a telephone operator. Her high school guidance counselor applied to colleges for her, because she couldn’t afford the application fees. When an East Coast university offered her a full scholarship, her father said, “Honey, what would happen if you got all the way across the country and this turned out not to be real?” She enrolled at Creighton University in Nebraska, where she was smitten by Victorian poetry.

After earning her doctorate at the University of Florida, she spent 14 years at Denison University, a liberal arts college in Ohio. An English professor and director of women’s studies, she earned teaching awards and churned out books and articles. She advocated for nontraditional departments such as queer studies, said Toni King, a professor of Black studies and women’s and gender studies at Denison. “She cares very deeply about individual people, she pulls talent together, she innovates beyond,” King said. “She was always, ‘We can get there quicker, sooner, bigger.'”

Tromp immersed herself in campus life, speaking at “Take Back the Night” marches to raise awareness of violence against women. She was married on the steps of Denison’s library in 2007. Music department faculty played in the reception band. When she left for Arizona State, King thought, “There goes a college president.”

At Arizona State, Tromp served as dean of a college that offered interdisciplinary programs across the sciences, social sciences and humanities. At UC Santa Cruz, which she joined in 2017 as executive vice chancellor, she launched a mentoring program for faculty from underrepresented groups. She also proposed a new strategic plan too quickly, without enough familiarity with campus culture, according to Ronnie Lipschutz, an emeritus professor of politics.

“Marlene swept in and wanted to make an impact,” said Lipschutz, who is the author of an institutional history of UC Santa Cruz that examines why numerous strategic plans there have failed. “She didn’t talk to many people about how the place operated.” Tromp did not respond to questions about the strategic plan and her experience at Santa Cruz.

The battle over her plan was dragging on when Tromp left. She told the Santa Cruz academic senate that “incidents involving her personal and family’s safety” led her to accept the Boise State presidency, according to meeting minutes summarizing her talk. She also “expressed fear that there may be a lack of understanding of how easy it is to incite rage against the leaders in our community.” Santa Cruz colleagues said that she had been alarmed when people threatened and jeered her while she was jogging along a coastal road. They may have been unhoused students for whom dormitory space wasn’t available, and who had been denied permission to live in their cars and park in a campus lot, one friend said.

For a feminist university president, Idaho seemed unlikely to provide a safer, less volatile environment. “We were all surprised” at her departure, “especially since her project had not finished,” Lipschutz said. “The fact that she was going to Idaho was also a bit of a surprise. It was like, ‘Why on earth would you go to Idaho?'”

Tromp had no such doubts. “She was very enthusiastic and very much felt that she was coming home to the region that shaped her,” King said.

The Legislature wasn’t about to give her a honeymoon. In June 2019, Boise State’s interim president had highlighted the university’s diversity initiatives in a newsletter. They included graduation fetes for Black and LGBTQ students, six graduate fellowships for underrepresented minority students, recruiting a Black sorority or fraternity and implicit bias training for employees.

The next month, eight days after Tromp started, half of the 56 Republicans in Idaho’s House of Representatives wrote to her, assailing these programs as “divisive and exclusionary” and “antithetical to the purpose of a public university in Idaho.”

Through no fault of her own, Tromp was boxed in. She responded by calling for “meaningful dialogue,” thanking legislators for their “genuine engagement” and saying she looked forward to hearing their concerns.

In the midst of this firestorm, she met with three student activists. Ushered into her office, they noticed her treadmill desk and the bookshelves featuring her own works. When they told her about racism on campus, including swastikas painted on dormitory walls, Tromp started crying, according to two students, Ryann Banks and Abby Barzee.

“Didn’t you know about this before you took the job?” Banks asked her.

“I did not know,” Tromp said.

About 10 days after the legislators’ letter, cartoon postcards were mailed anonymously to state officials and lawmakers, depicting Tromp as a clown. Other attacks ensued. Although Tromp had spent only two years at UC Santa Cruz, the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s sister organization, Idaho Freedom Action, lampooned her as a “California liberal … Turning Boise State Into a Taxpayer-Funded Marxist Indoctrination Center.” A scholar of xenophobia in Victorian England, Tromp was experiencing fear of outsiders firsthand.

After the foundation encouraged its supporters to troll her, Tromp received “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of some of the most venomous hateful emails I could possibly imagine,” she said at a private 2021 meeting, according to a recording the Idaho Freedom Foundation obtained and posted. “Threats to drag me out in the street and sexually assault me and kill me. Messages of hatred. … It’s a manifestation of the toxicity of the political climate across our country.”

Much as former President Barack Obama once courted congressional Republicans, Tromp sought to conciliate the conservative legislators. In one-on-one meetings, she assured them that she took the free-speech rights of a student wearing a Make America Great Again hat as seriously as anyone else’s. “All means all” became her mantra. Previously either a Democrat or undeclared, she registered to vote in Idaho as a Republican.

But she faced several disadvantages, starting with her gender. “These extremists think that it’s easier to pick off a woman than a man, and so they go after” her, said former Boise State President Bob Kustra.

Tromp’s striking appearance — she’s tall and slender, with close-cropped hair, glasses (often red) and multiple ear piercings — may have disconcerted some Idahoans. “I sometimes wonder if Dr. Tromp isn’t an easier target because she looks like a modern woman,” said Witt, the political scientist. “People say, ‘She’s got more than one hole in her ears, she’s got short hair.'”

As Idaho’s only urban university, Boise State attracts disproportionate media attention and conservative skepticism. It also has few of the natural allies on whom universities often lean politically: alumni in key government posts. Tromp reports to the state Board of Education, which has only one Boise State graduate among its eight members.

While its campus is a mile from the state Capitol building, Boise State’s presence there is sparse. About 10% of legislators are Boise State alumni, which may be partly attributable to its lack of a law school. Two Mormon institutions, Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and Brigham Young University-Idaho in Rexburg, together have about twice as many alumni in the Legislature as Boise State does. The University of Idaho has almost double Boise State’s representation. Gov. Brad Little is a University of Idaho graduate.

The disparity is even greater on the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, which sets the higher education budget. Six members of the Republican majority on JFAC graduated from the University of Idaho, including a co-chair, and none from Boise State.

As Idaho’s only land-grant university, with the state’s only public law school, the University of Idaho possesses in-state cachet and connections that Boise State is hard-pressed to match. Its diversity initiatives are comparable to Boise State’s. It has a chief diversity officer, as well as a director of diversity and inclusion for its engineering college. Boise State has neither position. Yet the Legislature appropriated 72% more per student to the University of Idaho in fiscal 2022 than to Boise State.

The University of Idaho’s president, C. Scott Green, called out the freedom foundation this past January, denouncing “a false narrative created by conflict entrepreneurs who make their living sowing fear and doubt with legislators and voters.”

Green avoided any pushback because “he has friends in key positions,” said Rep. Brent Crane, a committee chairman and former House assistant majority leader, who graduated from Boise State in 2005.

Even though Crane is an alumnus, Boise State can’t count on his support. His father, a former state legislator and treasurer, is treasurer of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, with which Crane agrees 82% of the time, according to its rankings.

The 47-year-old Crane represents the Boise suburb of Nampa, where he was born and grew up, and where he’s vice president of his family’s security and fire alarm business. He and his brother also own a fire sprinkler company. At a nearby coffeehouse, he said that, when he was a political science major at Boise State, his teachers never revealed their opinions. “What I respected most about my professors was that I didn’t know if they were Democrats or Republicans,” he said. “Whatever the student thought, the professor took the opposite tack. In my perfect world, I’d like to see Boise State get back to where it was when I was there.”

Crane, who is white, said that he disagrees with critical race theory: “There’s no racism in my life.” In his boyhood, he said, “African Americans were revered and looked up to. They were the athletes who played on the football and basketball teams. They were the heroes.”

Under immediate pressure, Tromp began rethinking her agenda. “From day one, when she came in, and the letter from the legislators came in saying, ‘You’re under a microscope, you’d better start scrubbing your campus of these programs,’ that changed the operating environment from her perspective, and probably the perspective of everyone,” one insider said.

“There was a quiet reassessment of what can we reasonably accomplish and an ongoing conversation about how do we serve our students best without unnecessarily inflaming the rage and the accusations of these legislators?'”

Crane, the legislator and Boise State alumnus, had a role in one of the university’s early concessions. Boise State was advertising for a new position: vice provost for equity and inclusion. It would be the top diversity job at the university, implementing Tromp’s agenda. The vice provost would oversee recruiting and retaining faculty, building diversity into the curriculum and monitoring the campus climate.

The search produced two finalists. One of them, Brandy Bryson, looked into Idaho politics and withdrew her name from consideration. “There was no way the institution was going to survive the political strong-arming that was coming from the Legislature,” said Bryson, director of inclusive excellence at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. “Boise State’s desire to hire a vice provost for equity and inclusion was a clear commitment to academic excellence and the empirically proven benefits of diversity, which the Legislature didn’t seem to understand or value.”

The other finalist, John Miller Jr., then chair of social work at a liberal arts college in the South, noticed that someone from the Idaho Freedom Foundation was tracking him on social media. Nevertheless, he accepted an invitation to visit Boise State, where he met in March 2020 with Tromp and other leaders, and gave a presentation.

Some search committee members had reservations about Miller, who wasn’t a shoo-in, insiders said. Still, “the vibe I got, when I was dropped off at the airport, I fully expected an offer,” Miller said. “I was definitely under strong consideration.”

After the student newspaper reported on the opening, though, Boise State’s critics weighed in. Idaho Freedom Foundation President Wayne Hoffman wrote on the group’s website that “BSU didn’t get the message” from the “written rebuke” by the 28 legislators. Shortly after Miller returned to South Carolina, Crane denounced his alma mater for hiring a “vice president of diversity,” calling it “a direct affront” to the Legislature and “me personally.” Despite getting the job title wrong, Crane clearly meant the vice provost position.

Crane also conveyed his concerns privately to Tromp. He regarded the new position as part of “the woke agenda sweeping the country: I don’t want to see Boise State caught up in that,” he told ProPublica. The House had already killed the higher education budget twice. If Tromp had forged ahead, other Boise State priorities might not have been funded, Crane said.

“She and I disagree on the vice provost of diversity,” he told ProPublica. “That’s not a hill she wants to die on. She chose to pay deference.” A week later, Boise State notified Miller that it had halted the search. It never filled the position.

Crane continued to lambaste Boise State. During an April 2021 debate on the higher education budget, Crane read aloud what he said was an email from an unnamed Boise State music student complaining that a professor had asked a class to discuss how Black composers are superior to white composers. The student protested that skin color has nothing to do with the quality of music but was purportedly told to be quiet. (The incident could not be confirmed.)

“I’m disgusted. I’m embarrassed and I’m ashamed,” Crane told the legislature. “There has been a direct shift in the ideology that’s being taught at Boise State University. … Our tax dollars” do not “need to be spent silencing kids’ voices on our college campuses.”

One way that Boise State sought to reduce legislative pushback was by adjusting its language. For example, Tromp asked a university planning committee to avoid the words “diversity” and “inclusion,” which legislators would be searching for, said Angel Cantu, a former student government president on the committee. Boise State’s 2022-26 strategic plan doesn’t mention “diversity” or “inclusion,” while the phrase “equity gaps” appears four times. By contrast, the University of Idaho’s plan calls for building an “inclusive, diverse community” and creating an “inclusive learning environment.”

Boise State administrators discussed the importance of terminology at several meetings, a former official recalled. The message was that “you can use different words to have the same meaning. Equity and words like that are less incendiary.”

The university tweaked job titles similarly. In August 2020, Francisco Salinas, then the university’s top diversity officer, moved from “director of student diversity and inclusion” to “assistant to the vice president for equity initiatives.”

Although his responsibilities did change, Salinas said, the new description wasn’t his choice, and he disagreed with scrubbing words like diversity. “The tactics being used” against Boise State, he said, “were bullying tactics. It’s the same thing you learn as a kid. If a bully is successful at taking your lunch money, they’re going to keep going. You have to stand up and let them know they can’t do that to you.”

Discouraged, Salinas left Boise State in April to become dean of equity, diversity and inclusion at Spokane Falls Community College in Washington. He said other diversity officials have fled. “I know what Dr. Tromp’s heart is,” he said. “I was very pleased she was hired. I thought she’d be able to make progress along this axis. But the environment did not afford that.”

The legislative barrage also affected recruitment. “I’ve been on hiring committees and I see who applies for jobs here,” said Utych, the former political science professor. “They are a lot whiter than they are at other universities. Part of that is the location, but part of that is also the Legislature attacking diversity and inclusion.”

Tromp “described being very, very disheartened that the best thing to do might be to pull back because of the resistance,” her friend King recalled. “There was concern, with all the information she had before her, how could she move forward? She had to think about the university as a whole.”

When the university did move forward with a lightning-rod event, it took precautions to avoid a backlash. Republican legislators had attacked the “Rainbow Graduation,” which honors LGBTQ students, in their letter to Tromp, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation had accused Boise State of holding “segregationist” commencements. At this spring’s Rainbow Graduation, Boise State’s dean of students pointedly reminded the 30 or so seniors that “this is not a commencement ceremony.” Since they were aware that they would actually graduate nine days later, the disclaimer appeared to be intended for critics outside the university.

Some faculty were undaunted. The sociology department has doubled the number of its courses focusing on race and racism from two to four, and it opened an Anti-Racism Collective that brings in speakers. “This is a great opportunity in some sense,” said sociology department chairman Arthur Scarritt. Added Kreiter, who doesn’t have tenure: “I feel I don’t have a lot of longevity here. I’m just going to teach this as fiery as I can.”

Several professors and administrators urged Tromp to fight back. “There were a lot of people on campus, even in senior leadership, who said, ‘You can’t get out of this by taking the high road,'” one recalled. “I would have preferred a more direct approach.”

Tromp drew the line at cultivating the Idaho Freedom Foundation. Hoffman said he has asked to meet with her on multiple occasions and has been refused. “Nothing has changed at Boise State,” he said in an email. “It’s just handled more carefully.”

There is some evidence for the contention by Crane and other critics that conservative students at Boise State tend to feel squelched in class. A state Board of Education survey completed last November found that 36% of Boise State students who self-identified as right of center felt pressured often or very frequently to accept beliefs they found offensive, as opposed to 12% of students in the center and 6% on the left. Conservative students were more apt to feel this pressure from professors; liberals, from classmates.

Still, the faculty encompasses a range of views. Anne Walker, chair of the economics department, holds a fellowship in free enterprise capitalism. One member of the lieutenant governor’s task force on communism in higher education was Scott Yenor, a Boise State political scientist and occasional Tucker Carlson guest. In December 2020, Yenor and an Idaho Freedom Foundation analyst co-authored a report urging the Legislature to “direct the university to eliminate courses that are infused with social justice ideology.” In a speech last fall, Yenor mocked feminists as “medicated, meddlesome and quarrelsome” and universities as “the citadels of our gynecocracy.”

Boise State’s donors also span the political spectrum. Timber and cattle ranching magnate Larry Williams served for 20 years on the Boise State Foundation board and has donated millions of dollars for athletics and business programs. He has also given six figures to the Idaho Freedom Foundation. In this year’s Republican primary campaign, he gave about $125,000 to more than 30 conservative candidates, including $1,000 to Crane.

Throughout 2020, Williams pressed Boise State to scuttle the programs identified by the 28 Republican legislators, to no avail. Although he found Tromp to be open and engaging, he told legislators in February 2021 that he would no longer donate to Boise State, with the exception of its football program, “until this is turned around.”

“It appears BSU no longer shares our Idaho values,” Williams wrote. “Students are taught … that our honest, hardworking rural farmers, ranchers, miners and loggers are ‘white privileged’ with ‘implicit bias’ toward minorities and Native Americans.”

The Idaho Freedom Foundation’s Hoffman acknowledged that Boise State has fewer diversity initiatives than some big universities in other states. “We recognize that it’s a small but growing dedication of resources to this enterprise,” he said. “I don’t care how big it is. I care if any taxpayer dollars are wasted on these efforts. We want to catch it now before it becomes an even bigger problem.”

Like white students from rural Idaho who are exposed for the first time to concepts like white privilege and systemic racism, some students of color, especially from other states, endure culture shock on campus. After Kennyetta Coulter, a biology major from Long Beach, California, arrived at Boise State last year, accompanied by her mother, they hardly saw another Black person for two weeks. “If you don’t like Boise, don’t be afraid to tell me,” her mother said on leaving.

In a “Difficult Conversations” class, Coulter, who describes herself as a political moderate, found that she was the only student in her discussion group who favored background checks for gun buyers or was open to letting transgender athletes participate in sports based on their gender identity. Her three roommates, all of whom had blue eyes and blond hair, were nice to her. But sometimes she felt peer pressure to suppress her views. At Boise State football games, she squirmed in the student section while “big, buff white boys with cowboy boots” chanted, “Fuck Joe Biden.”

Coulter became so depressed that she sought counseling. “Sometimes I just feel I’m all alone,” she said, “and I’m the only one who understands what I’m going through.” She didn’t have the energy to go to class and stayed in bed and watched television.

The administration’s reluctance to challenge legislators dispirited her. “Why isn’t the university saying anything?” Coulter wondered.

In some red states, public universities have fought back. The University of Nebraska has been especially effective in warding off political pressure. It’s the only public university in Nebraska, and about half of the state’s legislators earned degrees from institutions within the University of Nebraska system. So did all eight regents. And as a retired vice admiral and former superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, Nebraska president Ted Carter has the kind of military credentials that make it hard to call him a communist.

University regent Jim Pillen, a veterinarian and former Nebraska football star who is running for governor, proposed a resolution last year that critical race theory “seeks to silence opposing views and disparage important American ideals” and should not be “imposed in curriculum, training and programming.”

Aided by the ACLU of Nebraska and other advocacy groups, the university’s administration, faculty and student government mobilized against the resolution. At a hearing last August before the regents, almost 40 people testified against it, while only a handful supported it. Defenders of critical race theory noted that the Declaration of Independence refers to “merciless Indian Savages.” A retired English professor pleaded with the board: “If you pass this, you repudiate my whole career.”

The four nonvoting student regents also voiced their opposition, including Batool Ibrahim, the first Black student government president of Nebraska’s flagship Lincoln campus. Ibrahim considers herself a native Nebraskan, although technically she isn’t. Her Sudanese parents were flying to the U.S. in 1999, hoping she would be born on American soil so she could become president someday, when her mother went into labor on the plane. The pilot hurriedly landed in Dubai, where Ibrahim was born. The family soon moved to Lincoln, where she grew up.

Critical race theory “is the history of people of color in this nation,” Ibrahim said. “It is my history. So when we talk about whether critical race theory should be taught or it should not be taught, you’re telling me that my history does not belong in the classroom.”

Pillen defended his resolution, saying that it did not violate academic freedom and that “Nebraskans deserve the confidence of knowing their hard-earned tax dollars cannot be used to force critical race theory on anyone.”

The board upheld teaching critical race theory by a 5-3 vote. But the battle was just starting. One regent in the majority warned that 400 of 550 constituents who contacted him supported the resolution — a promising sign for Pillen, who would go on to win the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

In November 2021, the chancellor of the University of Nebraska’s Lincoln campus, saying he had been “shaken” by the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd, announced a plan to “recruit, retain and support the success of students, faculty and staff who are people of color.” Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, who can’t seek reelection because of term limits and has endorsed Pillen, called the plan “ideological indoctrination” that would “inject critical race theory into every corner of campus.”

Then a Nebraska legislator proposed withholding funds from colleges or public schools that engaged in “race or sex scapegoating.” In a rerun of the regents’ hearing, 40 people testified against the bill in February, while three supported it. Speaking for the university, Richard Moberly, dean of the law school, warned that the bill could be interpreted to prohibit legitimate discussion of systemic racism and unconscious bias. It died in committee.

Pillen isn’t giving up. “As governor, I’ll fight CRT and other un-American, far-left ideologies in our classrooms,” he told ProPublica.

Despite Tromp’s conciliatory approach, a controversy in October 2020 further roiled the university’s critics. It pitted a popular downtown establishment, Big City Coffee, which had just opened a branch in Boise State’s library, against student activists galvanized by Floyd’s killing five months before.

Big City Coffee’s name appears to be ironic. Agricultural signs hang from the walls and rafters: “Duroc Hog,” “Strawberries for Sale,” “Cattle Crossing.” But it was another aspect of the downtown location’s decor that prompted student complaints, even though it wasn’t replicated in the library shop: a “thin blue line” flag. The students argued that such flags can signify support for white supremacists and hostility to the Black Lives Matter movement, and that a business with those sentiments should not have a campus outlet.

The coffee shop owner, who describes herself as a political moderate, explained that she was engaged to a former police officer who had been shot and disabled in the line of duty, and that she only meant to support law enforcement. Student government President Angel Cantu agreed that the shop should not be kicked off campus simply for being sympathetic to first responders.

The protesters weren’t mollified. They were already upset with Cantu because they wanted the university to cancel its security contract with Boise police. He felt Boise State shouldn’t do so without first knowing how to replace the department’s services.

The wrangle escalated as Big City Coffee shut down the campus branch, and other student government leaders impeached Cantu. The coffee shop owner sued Boise State, Tromp and three other university officials, accusing them of forcing her off campus. Charges against the university and Tromp were dismissed, while the case is proceeding against the other defendants, who have denied wrongdoing.

The branch’s demise and Cantu’s impeachment galvanized conservative students. Jacinta Rigi, a sophomore who had opposed the impeachment, posted a video accusing the student government of ignoring her and others on campus. “Freedom of speech is being abused and stolen from many students at the university and our voices are being silenced,” she said. The video drew almost 8,300 views, and Rigi ran for student government president in 2021.

Although Rigi lost — she now works at Fox News in New York while completing her Boise State degree online — the political momentum on campus had shifted. This past March, Adam Jones, a former intern in the Republican Party’s Boise office who urged Boise State to reconcile with the Legislature, was elected student government president. “Too often it is looked at that the state is being the bad guy,” Jones told ProPublica.

Jones is a Boise native. His father, a lawyer, and his mother, a banker, both graduated from Boise State. He campaigned in a 1993 white Ford pickup truck he rebuilt himself, with “Blue Lives Matter” and “God Bless America” stickers on its rear windshield, a mounted American flag and a “USA4EVA” license plate. Asked about public safety at a candidates’ debate, he said, “Every time I see a Boise police officer go by, I feel safe.”

In March 2021, about 1,300 Boise State students were taking University Foundations 200, “Foundations of Ethics and Diversity.” The course, which predated Tromp, was split into more than 50 sections. Each tackled the topic through a different lens, from the “Star Wars” saga to how lack of access to technology affects rural Americans and other groups.

Sociology professor Dora Ramírez was teaching a section on censorship. She was about to start a unit about a bill, under consideration in the Idaho Legislature, attacking critical race theory. Then, Ramírez said, she and the other UF 200 instructors got a lesson in censorship from their own university.

Boise State had received a complaint from a legislator, who has never been publicly identified. The legislator said he had seen a video of a UF 200 class in which an instructor had demeaned a female student’s intelligence and forced her to apologize in front of the class for being white. She was supposedly taunted by other students and left the class in tears.

Without seeing the video, Tromp suspended all UF 200 sections for a week and hired a law firm to investigate. “Isn’t it ironic?” to suspend a censorship class, Ramírez recalled thinking. “What a way to undermine the authority of all those instructors. You work so hard to build a rapport with all those students. Then they’re thinking, ‘What did she do wrong?'”

Some faculty members were appalled. “A lot of us were quickly pointing out, ‘We have students of color made to feel bad every day of the week,'” said sociologist Martin Orr, a former president of the faculty senate. “One white student feels bad, all hell breaks loose.”

When the course resumed, Kreiter used the suspension as fodder for his UF 200 section on inequality in higher education. “The university is robbing you of your education because of politics,” he told students. “You’re still out the same tuition bill, but you’re getting less education.”

The law firm’s report, which came out in May, concluded that no student was mistreated and no instructor acted improperly. The complaint apparently mischaracterized a class discussion about universal health care in which a student had called an instructor’s logic “stupid” — not the other way around. “There were no reports of anyone being forced to apologize for being white.” The legislator told investigators that he didn’t have the video, which has never surfaced publicly.

Tromp told the Inlander, a community newspaper in Spokane, Washington, that since she hadn’t known in which class section the alleged incident took place, she had been forced to suspend the entire course. Other university presidents whom she consulted agreed with her decision, she said. “It’s a little bit like being told there’s a gas leak in the building, but you don’t know where it is,” Tromp said. “It always feels dramatic to clear the building to find the gas leak.”

For one UF 200 instructor, who was teaching a section on misinformation, the incident was “very much” what his class was about. Legislators were “trying to craft a completely unwarranted narrative for political reasons in order to shut something down.”

Nevertheless, Tromp redoubled catering to them. She established an “Institute for Advancing American Values” to inspire “us to talk and listen to each other respectfully.” Its first speaker was conservative pundit Jason Riley.

Boise State also scaled back an annual tradition, “Day at the Capitol.” In the past, a dozen student government members would set up a booth in the Capitol rotunda and chat with legislators. Other students were invited to watch from the gallery.

Mostly, Democratic lawmakers dropped by. Republicans sent aides to say they were busy. “We got used to being avoided by them,” Cantu said. “We still went out of our way to invite them.”

This year, there was no booth. “The university’s concern was that the students would protest or do something inappropriate,” Jones said. Two student leaders met briefly with the governor as he declared it “Boise State University Day.” Three other students delivered gifts — 105 jars of honey, courtesy of Boise State’s beekeeping team — to the offices of each of the 70 representatives and 35 senators.

While reining in students, Boise State invited Crane, the alumnus who had opposed hiring a vice provost for equity and inclusion, to introduce its leadership team on that special day to the House chambers. Crane was delighted to help.

Legal expert uses Ohio State wrestling scandal to school Jim Jordan on Jan. 6 “hearsay evidence”

An attorney quickly fired back on Twitter when an account linked to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, openly criticized the House Select Committee hearings by describing the groundbreaking Tuesday testimony as “all hearsay.”

According to HuffPost, the attorney responded to a verified Twitter account for the House Judiciary GOP. The account, which names the Republican lawmaker as its ranking member, offered a critical assessment of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony.

“It’s literally all hearsay evidence. What a joke,” the tweet mockingly said Hutchinson’s testimony about former President Donald Trump’s final days in office.

Hutchinson, who previously worked as an aide for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, “testified Tuesday that Trump said he ‘didn’t f-ing care’ that his supporters at a ‘Stop the Steal’ rally on Jan. 6, 2021 had weapons.” Hutchinson also said that the former president “lunged at a Secret Service agent in the presidential limo when the agent refused to take Trump to the Capitol and instead insisted they return to the White House.”

A Twitter account for attorney Ken White quickly weighed in to disagree with the House Judiciary GOP’s post. “Only some of it is hearsay,” the account tweeted. “Need help understanding the difference? I’m here to help you. I’m hoping to help you.”

He also offered a quick analogy to support his arguments. “So if a player comes up to you and says ‘hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead,’ that’s not hearsay because he’s not repeating an out-of-court statement, it’s something that person perceived,” he argued.

He added, “But if people came to you and said ‘hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous genital exams’,” that would be hearsay, because they’re talking about other people’s statements.

“Now, say you were being sued for something — say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care — and a witness said ‘I told coach about it and he said I have nothing to do with this.'”

In conclusion, the account tweeted: “That’s not hearsay either, because in that case you’re a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump.”

Our summer of misogynist rage: Toxic men unleash a wave of violent threats aimed at outspoken women

Shortly after Cassidy Hutchinson finished her searing testimony that correctly painted Donald Trump as a violent but cowardly bully, desperate right-wingers tried to make “Amber Heard 2.0” a thing on Twitter. The choice was a telling one, though not in the way the MAGA heads think. The abuse aimed at the former aide for Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, who spoke before the January 6 committee on Tuesday, does resemble the harassment of movie star Johnny Depp’s ex-wife. In both cases, misogynists launched an intimidation campaign to silence a woman. Not, importantly, because she’s lying, but because her haters fear she’s telling the truth. 

The committee kept Hutchinson’s plans to testify publicly under wraps until the very morning she was sworn in, and only announced the hearing the day before it happened. There are likely multiple reasons for this, but reports suggest that a major concern was Hutchinson’s safety. The implications of that are chilling, of course. Until yesterday, it wasn’t widely known in public how much Hutchinson had witnessed and was prepared to speak about. The people who did know what she witnessed would be those close to Trump and who know how he behaves when cameras aren’t on him. 

RELATED: Cassidy Hutchinson’s surprise Jan. 6 testimony exposes the violence that fuels Trumpism

Now the whole country has been told about the petulant, violent, and fascistic behavior that Trump’s inner circle goes to great pains to conceal. And Trump is reacting with the same strategy he used to sic the mob on the Capitol: Winking at his violent followers, providing them a target for their rage, and trusting that they know what he wants from them. Not that Trump needs to be a rocket scientist to know his biggest fans happen to be the same people who fly into an incandescent rage when a woman speaks out against injustice. The heightened concerns about her safety, compared to the older white men who have largely been witnesses to Trump’s behavior, is also a reminder that the Trump base has a particular hatred of a disobedient woman who happens to be young and pretty — another reason they went straight for the Amber Heard comparison.

The entirely predictable campaign of threats and lies aimed at Hutchinson is part of a larger pattern of vicious misogyny that is coming to define the summer of 2022.

The entirely predictable campaign of threats and lies aimed at Hutchinson is part of a larger pattern of vicious misogyny that is coming to define the summer of 2022. It’s being described as a “backlash” against feminism, but that word feels inadequate to capture the savage fury that is erupting across the country. We’re seeing a boiling over of the anger so many men (and even some women) have against women who speak out — or even women who are just trying to live their lives in peace. 


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


We saw this over the weekend, as Salon’s Kathryn Joyce reported, in the reaction to protests that broke out across the country in response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The largely peaceful protesters were subject to violence across the country, both at the hands of police and angry civilian men, including at least two reported car attacks. Groups of Proud Boys showed up at protests to intimidate the largely female protesters, using a tactic that the far-right group has been increasingly using against LGBTQ people who dare do things like go to a drag show or attend a Pride parade. 

Terrorism has always been a major part of the anti-choice movement. It reflects the sadism baked directly into abortion bans. And not just against women who want abortions and can’t get them legally anymore, either, but against anyone capable of getting pregnant. There are already reports of patients being denied care for ectopic pregnancies and arthritis because doctors fear violating abortion bans. There are real concerns that doctors will also have to deny miscarriage management and cancer treatments, as well, because a fertilized egg — or even a hypothetical pregnancy — is legally more valuable than a woman in many states. 

RELATED: The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard verdict: A victory for the war on free speech

As plenty of people have pointed out, the vitriol spewing from Trump right now towards Hutchinson sounds exactly like the boilerplate sexist lies he aims at women who have accused him of sexual violence, a crime he bragged about on tape. He even tried the “I hardly know” her lie about Hutchinson that he’s used against sexual assault accusers, even though Hutchinson, as the committee demonstrated, worked a few steps from Trump’s office and had to clean up ketchup after he had one of his plate-throwing tantrums.

It is possible that Trump didn’t pay Hutchinson much mind, much like he likely has forgotten the names, if he even knew them in the first place, of many of the women that he’s assaulted.  There’s little doubt he views most of the young women around him as a nameless servant class of pussies to grab. But that doesn’t mean they don’t remember him, his violence, and his bullying. Hutchinson’s memories were extremely vivid and extremely believable, fitting perfectly with the idiotic man-child that we’ve all unfortunately grown to understand all too well. 


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


Despite the self-important preening from conservative men about “chivalry,” the reality that too many women know too well is this: Male supremacy has always been maintained through violence. It’s why one out of six women has been the victim of rape or attempted rape. It’s yhy one out of every four women has been the victim of domestic violence. And why 81% of women report experiencing sexual harassment. (Frankly, the other 19% are probably just downplaying or don’t get out of the house much.) In my experience, it’s rare to go very long without being sexually harassed on the street. It’s such a common occurrence that I often forget about it, except for those truly scary times when men follow me or grab at me. 

We’re seeing a boiling over of the anger so many men (and even some women) have against women who speak out — or even women who are just trying to live their lives in peace. 

A lot of the people trying to discredit Hutchinson have landed on what they think is a killer “gotcha”: If Trump’s behavior was so bad, why didn’t she leave or speak out sooner?  This drumbeat of statistics, however, tells us why. Tyrannical behavior from men is completely normalized in our society, especially in the conservative circles that Hutchinson moves in. Trump’s behavior may have been on the high end of the shitty male behavior spectrum, but it still falls within the parameters of what a lot of people are socialized to accept, especially when the bully is rich and powerful like Trump. He, like many men who behave the way he does, gets away with it because far too many people believe that being a bad-tempered thug is just what being a man is about. 

RELATED: Did violence follow Roe decision? Yes — almost all of it against pro-choice protesters

Trump is the epitome of a toxic man. The tough guy bluster is a thin disguise over his true self, which is a sniveling coward. He can’t even admit that he wanted to lead the mob that stormed the Capitol, quaking in his weenie boots over the fear of legal consequences. Cowards like Trump turn to violence against women because of their fear. They know in their hearts that they can’t defend their views with facts or rationality. Even more importantly, they fear that, without unearned male privilege, they’ll be exposed as the mediocrities that they actually are. So they turn to violence to get their way and enforce their status. If they ever played fair, they know full well that they’d lose. 

Ginni Thomas said she “can’t wait” for Jan. 6 interview. Now her lawyer says it’s too “stressful”

An attorney for Virginia “Ginni” Thomas argued that she should not have to testify before the Jan. 6 Committee because she has been subjected to a “particularly stressful time.”

The Daily Caller first reported that attorney Mark R. Paoletta provided the committee with a letter on behalf of the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“Before I can recommend that she meet with you, I am asking the Committee to provide a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose,” Paoletta wrote in the eight-page letter.

The attorney added: “I would also note that this has been a particularly stressful time as the Thomases have been subjected to an avalanche of death threats and other abuse by the unprecedented assault on the conservative Supreme Court Justices and their families.”

The committee has reportedly obtained text messages in which Thomas plots with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Thomas has previously said that she “can’t wait” to be interviewed by members of the House Jan. 6 Committee.

Bouillon powder is your pantry’s new secret weapon

Have you ever known the acute panic that comes from calling your favorite takeout place only to learn the line has been disconnected? Faced with the prospect of never tasting the world’s best—that’s right, best—chicken shawarma ever again, you may slip into denial, as I did. Maybe you drive by the shuttered storefront a few times, desperate for signage indicating this is only temporary. Then you begin ordering shawarma after shawarma, hoping someone else miraculously makes it exactly the same—garlicky, redolent of lemon and warming turmeric, and unmistakably chickeny.

Eventually, you have to move on, or, in my case, get in the kitchen and tinker until your weekly shawarma injection is restored. After several unsuccessful trials and far too much time spent scouring the internet for shawarma variations, I stumbled across chef and cookbook author Molly Yeh’s recipe for chicken shawarma tacos, which called for a sprinkling of that vintage pantry denizen: bouillon powder.

Bouillon powder is sort of unfashionable these days. Bone broth is in, long-simmered homemade stock is in, while manufactured bouillon cubes are decidedly out. But if you are searching for that elusive super-chickeny chicken flavor, reconsider. After marinating chicken breast slices for half a day in garlic, onion, olive oil, lemon juice, turmeric, chile flakes, a touch of cinnamon and a few shakes of the good stuff, I eased them into the cast iron skillet for a quick sear. I stole an impatient bite right from the pan, and there it was once more: The unmistakable umami that only comes from ground-up dried chicken seasoned with salt and spices. It wasn’t an exact replica of my beloved takeout version, but close enough to satisfy me within the realm of reasonable sodium consumption.

Since reacquainting with my old friend bouillon, I’ve begun sprinkling dashes of it into my paella, egg-and-vegetable stir-fries, and almost every soup and stew. I dust it over simmered roasted green chiles, which I cap with blistered asadero cheese for a Borderlands-style chile con queso. Bouillon also makes roasted potatoes sing and lends a lovely, secret umami note to biscuits when subbed in for some of the salt. The same holds true for drinking snacks like roasted nuts or popcorn, by the way.

“It’s like the Lipton Onion Soup flavoring, it’s just really, really good,” says Israeli-born restaurateur and chef Michael Solomonov, of Philadelphia restaurants including Zahav and Abe Fisher. “Osem Chicken Consomme is widely used in Israel today, and it’s a holdover from the food rationing that started in the 1940s, (when) it was used as a substitute for chicken stock in staple recipes like matzo ball soup.”

Solomonov even commissioned New York spice shop La Boîte to make a custom bouillon blend, which he used in the matzo ball soup served at his now-closed charity-minded restaurant Rooster Soup Co. To this day, Israelis use bouillon to punch up everything from casseroles to chopped liver, kugel and hummus.

While we’re on the subject, Michele Casadei Massari, executive chef and owner of Lucciola in New York City, would like to dispel the myth that Italians only cook with real meat stock.

“Chicken bouillon powder is the key to many traditional Italian recipes,” he says. When Massari makes risotto at the restaurant and at home, he simmers a pinch of chicken bouillon powder with white wine until reduced to deepen the dish’s slow-cooked flavors. He also adds it to the dry herb blend of thyme, chile flakes and dry onion flakes that flavors his arrabbiata pasta sauce. He likes to thin his spicy tomato sauce with water, then cook the pasta right there in one pot for a cozy, warming weeknight dinner.

The invention of the bouillon cube as we know it occurred around the turn of the last century in Europe, as the food companies Maggi, OXO, and Knorr took turns innovating their way toward inexpensive portable soups by concentrating beef solids into extracts. Yet people have been making flavor concentrates out of dried meat, salt and spices—aka the precursors to Cup-o-Soup—all over the world for thousands of years, from the Americas to Eastern Europe. It’s easy to see why: Name me a culture in which soup and stock haven’t played a crucial role as a sustaining and economic meal.

You don’t need meat to make bouillon, of course. A recent edition of my weekly 101 Cookbooks email from veg-focused food blogger, photographer and cookbook author Heidi Swanson—who’s lately been big into just-add-water meals in jars—offered up a homespun, vegan alternative featuring nutritional yeast, onion powder, coconut milk powder and nostalgic dried oregano and thyme.

Does all this mean #bouillon is trending once more? I prefer to think it never left us. It was just waiting in the back of our pantries, frozen in infinite preservation, wondering when we’d remember that after centuries, it still holds the key to savory je ne sai quois.

Fox News flips on Donald Trump during Jan. 6 hearings

After spending more than a year promoting Donald Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, Fox News appears to be changing its tune as the January 6 committee presents increasingly damning evidence of the former president’s complicity in the Capitol riot.

As the committee probe has gone public, at least four Fox News hosts and one analyst have cast doubt over Trump’s grandiose claims of fraud, for which there continues to be no evidence to speak of. Some have also questioned the former president’s mental fitness, suggesting that Trump cannot be trusted to steer the country in 2024 after spreading such spurious conspiracy theories about 2020. 

One such instance played out just last month, when Fox News guest host Sandra Smith, an apparent skeptic of Trump’s claims from the start, engaged in a fiery exchange with Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., over the former president’s legal failure to prove that he won in any states he lost. 

RELATED: Dinesh D’Souza’s new film drives the Big Lie: Here’s the truth about “ballot harvesting”

“The courts are not the final arbiter of who wins federal election contests,” Brooks told Smith, citing the film “2000 Mules,” which bandies unsubstantiated claims that unnamed Democratic-aligned nonprofits engaged in a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. 

“And that [film] has been looked at and fact-checked by multiple outlets, including Reuters, who have [reported] there isn’t any proof that there was widespread voter fraud,” Smith rebutted.


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


Roughly a week later, Fox News host Martha MacCallum, who at one point called the Capitol riot “a huge victory,” echoed Smith’s rhetoric, arguing that there was a “stunning” lack of evidence to support allegations of widespread fraud. 

“The lack of evidence is the huge stunning clear moment here where these people are saying, ‘Look I supported you, please give me something to work with,’ and it simply doesn’t materialize,” MacCallum said, speaking of the select committee’s fourth public hearing.

RELATED: Fox News host left shocked by Jan. 6 hearing: “Stunning” lack of evidence for Trump’s fraud claims

This week, Fox News host Brett Baier, one of the network’s noted critics of Trump, also joined the chorus, arguing with a pro-Trump gubernatorial candidate that no evidence of fraud has emerged. 

“I understand what you are saying,” Baier told the MAGA-backed Kari Lake, who is running to unseat Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. “But there have been, as you know, more than 70 court cases where there was not evidence and there was not any state legislature or governor that failed to certify an election, including your own Republican Doug Ducey.”

Meanwhile, other Fox News personalities have expressed concerns about Trump’s mental faculties.

“Fox and Friends” host Brian Kilmeade, who reportedly had a direct line to the former president during the Capitol riot, said this week that Trump was “unhinged” in the aftermath of the election. 

“The president was unhinged during that period,” Kilmeade said in a “Media Buzz” segment. “I interviewed him at West Point, and he was kind enough to give me a few minutes. I’ve never seen him so angry. That was in between the election and Jan. 6.”  

Kilmeade also called it “the worst moment of Donald Trump’s political career,” adding: “I think how you lose in life defines who you are … A lot of times things don’t work out, and are so-called unfair. Your team couldn’t prove [the election was rigged], move on.”

RELATED: Fox News host calls Trump “unhinged,” says Jan. 6 was “the worst moment of” his political career

During last week’s hearings, Fox News analyst Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, likewise suggested that Trump was not stable enough to lead to the country, saying, “the evidence pretty clearly shows his unfitness.”

It wouldn’t be the first time that Fox News had abruptly pivoted its messaging based on change in the political winds. During the 2020 election, shortly after Trump bashed the network for calling Arizona in President Biden’s favor, the network reportedly issued a memo to its anchors to refrain from calling Biden the “president-elect,” according to CNN.

“This is clear witness intimidation”: Jan. 6 committee teases evidence of cover-up effort

Congresswoman Liz Cheney on Tuesday revealed some attempts to intimidate witnesses cooperating with the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection and signaled that the panel plans to share additional details at future hearings.

The Wyoming Republican provided examples during her closing remarks at a surprise hearing that focused on bombshell testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as a special assistant to Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s chief of staff.

“While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness—and we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern,” explained Cheney, vice chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

“Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump’s administration or campaign whether they’ve been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony,” Cheney continued.

The congresswoman then shared two samples of answers the panel received to that question, without identifying any of the involved parties.

In response to the examples—which were also shared in full on the committee’s Twitter account—Congresswoman Marie Newman, D-Ill., who is not on the panel, said: “Witness intimidation. Clear as day.”

That was a widely shared sentiment, and some viewers of the hearing called for action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—specifically, Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“Your move, Merrick,” tweeted Salon politics writer Amanda Marcotte.

Aki Peritz, a former counterterrorism analyst for the U.S. government, said that “this is mob boss/clear witness intimidation behavior. DOJ, I hope you’re taking notes.”

Journalist Aaron Rupar similarly asserted that the messages featured “big mob boss energy.”

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman agreed that this is “how mobsters do witness intimidation.”

Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, pointed out that “you don’t tamper with witnesses like this if you have nothing to hide,” and called the revelations “one more layer of Trump’s criminal conspiracy.”

Cheney said that “I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. We will be discussing these issues as a committee, carefully considering our next steps.”

Some legal experts observing the hearing highlighted 18 U.S. Code § 1512, which addresses tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.

“Make no mistake, those texts we just saw will certainly lead to criminal investigation and perhaps prosecution under 18 USC 1512, which punishes witness intimidation with fines, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both,” said Brookings Institution senior fellow Norm Eisen.

Even some former Trump allies acknowledged the significance of the development. Mick Mulvaney—who held multiple posts in the administration, including acting White House chief of staff—said that “Cheney’s closing is stunning: They think they have evidence of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.”

“There is an old maxim: It’s never the crime, it’s always the cover-up,” Mulvaney added. “Things went very badly for the former president today. My guess is that it will get worse from here.”

The panel’s last-minute hearing was announced Monday. As Punchbowl News reported early Tuesday:

Most importantly, we’re told Hutchinson’s firsthand account—her direct testimony and evidence—meaningfully informs the hearings the panel has planned for July. There have also been “sincere concerns” about Hutchinson’s physical security because of what she knows and has revealed to the committee, we’re told.

Due to these reasons, select committee members felt they had to hold the hearing today and couldn’t wait until the House returns from recess in mid-July.

For nearly two hours Tuesday afternoon, Hutchinson testified about various events related to January 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, from Meadows and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani seeking pardons to alleged actions by the former president—including throwing his lunch against a White House wall in a fit of rage, demanding that armed supporters be allowed into a designated rally area, and assaulting a member of his security team who wouldn’t take him to the Capitol.