Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Jan. 6 panel moved up hearing over fear that Meadows aide is in danger due to what she knows: report

The House Jan. 6 committee on Monday abruptly announced a surprise hearing for Tuesday despite previously pushing its schedule back to July.

The panel on Monday said it would hold a hearing Tuesday to “present recently obtained evidence and receive witness testimony.”

The committee’s surprise witness is Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to Punchbowl News and other reports. Hutchinson, who had frequent contact with former President Donald Trump and his inner circle, was the main point of contact for lawmakers who sought pardons in connection to their involvement in the plot to overturn Trump’s loss on Jan. 6.

Hutchinson has already appeared in committee hearings in clips, listing members of Congress who asked her for pardons, and has testified before the committee four times, including once in the last 10 days, according to Punchbowl News.

RELATED: Jan. 6 committee abruptly calls surprise Tuesday hearing, citing “recently obtained evidence”

Hutchinson has been “much more cooperative” with the committee since replacing attorney Stefan Passantino, a former Trump White House ethics lawyer, with Jody Hunt, a former chief of staff to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The committee moved up the hearing amid “sincere concerns” about Hutchinson’s “physical security because of what she knows and has revealed to the committee,” according to the report. Because of the concerns, members “felt they couldn’t wait until the House returns from recess in mid-July.”

Hutchinson since replacing her lawyer has emerged as a potential key witness in the committee’s investigation, having been “in the middle of almost everything that happened in the West Wing” leading up to the deadly riot, according to the report.

Hutchinson was in contact with Georgia officials during Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the state. Hutchinson also told the committee that Trump suggested to Meadows that he approved of the “hang Mike Pence” chants from his supporters at the Capitol, according to CNN. She also testified that she saw Meadows burn papers in his office after meeting with Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., ahead of Jan. 6., according to Politico.

Hutchinson in a clip of her deposition played at a recent hearing listed the members of Congress who sought pardons, including Perry and Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.; Mo Brooks, R-Ala.; Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

The committee is likely to ask about events they had hoped to interview Meadows about. Meadows refused to testify before the committee despite previously turning over thousands of text messages, including his interactions with lawmakers. The House voted last year to recommend contempt charges against Meadows but the Justice Department declined to charge him.

Hutchinson told the committee that she was well aware of the goings-on around the January 6 plotting in the White House.

“Almost all, if not all, meetings Mr. Trump had, I had insight on,” she told the panel in March, according to Politico.


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


Hutchinson told the committee that the White House counsel’s office told Meadows and former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that their plan to have “alternate” slates of electors meet and cast votes for Trump was illegal even as they continued with it anyway. She described conversations about “invoking martial law,” seizing voting machines, and appointing former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell as a special counsel — plans that got shot down after “it became clear that there would be mass resignations, including lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office.”

Hutchinson also testified that a Secret Service agent warned Meadows about the threat of violence on January 6.

While clips of her interviews have been played during the hearings, it’s unclear what Hutchinson will discuss on Tuesday and some members of the committee are also “in the dark about the urgency of the meeting,” according to Politico.

“BETTER BE A BIG DEAL,” tweeted former White House counsel John Dean, a key witness against Richard Nixon in the Watergate hearings. “There was only one surprise witness during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings. On July 16, 1973 an unannounced witness appeared: Alex Butterfield, who testified to Nixon’s secret taping system — forever changing history!”

Read more:

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

Before the Supreme Court even announced its decision overturning Roe v. Wade last Friday, right-wing politicians and media had begun warning of a wave of violent demonstrations or riots by pro-choice protesters. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., called on “all patriots” to defend local churches and crisis pregnancy centers, while Fox News hyped warnings about a “night” or “summer of rage” and various far-right activists — from the America First/groyper movement to the Proud Boys to a staffer for Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake — issued threats against leftists they claimed were about to become violent. 

But it appears that most of the violence that occurred in response to the Roe decision this past weekend was directed at pro-choice demonstrators, not caused by them. 

On Friday night, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a man drove his pickup truck into a group of women protesters, hitting several and driving over the ankle of one woman. Iowa journalist Lyz Lenz, who was covering the protest, noted on Twitter that the attack came at the end of a peaceful event, as demonstrators were crossing the road at a crosswalk while the man had a red light. “The truck drove around other cars in order to hit protesters,” Lenz wrote, adding that the driver “was screaming” while a woman in the truck with him begged him to stop.

As Andy Campbell and Alanna Vagianos reported at HuffPost, a number of other protesters ran after the truck, trying to stop it, but the driver continued on, knocking over several people. The woman whose ankle was run over was sent to the hospital. As of Saturday, the man had not been charged with any crime. 

RELATED: Amid all the gloating, anti-abortion right dreams of bigger wins — and possible violence

That same night, at a pro-choice protest in Providence, Rhode Island, an off-duty police officer named Jeann Lugo — who, until this weekend, was a Republican candidate for state Senate — punched his Democratic opponent, reproductive rights organizer Jennifer Rourke, in the face. 

Providence police arrested Lugo and charged him with assault and disorderly conduct, placing him on administrative leave. On Saturday, Lugo dropped out of the Senate race and announced he would not be seeking any political office before apparently deactivating his Twitter account. 

In Atlanta, photographer Matthew Pearson documented a group of more than a dozen Proud Boys coming to counterprotest a pro-choice demonstration, while an Atlanta antifascist group posted photos of the group boarding a Humvee painted with the Proud Boys’ logo.

In several other states, police responded to demonstrations against the SCOTUS ruling with heavy-handed tactics and violence. 

In Greenville, South Carolina, multiple videos seemed to show police arresting and dragging pro-choice protesters away, as others in the crowd screamed at them to stop. In one video, a young woman is violently shoved backward into the street, where she falls and appears to hit her head. When an older woman comes over, apparently to help her, she is also put in handcuffs and taken away. 

In a statement, the Greenville Police Department said it was conducting an internal review of the incident. 

At the Arizona state capitol in Phoenix, police shot tear gas canisters into a crowd of protesters on Friday night, allegedly without warning, after some protesters began banging on the windows of the building, and, a video taken from inside the capitol indicates, one person kicked a glass door several times. 

Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers, who has called for hanging “traitors” who refused to overturn the election, declared a protest that resulted in no arrests or injuries the “#J24 Arizona Capitol Insurrection.”

Republican lawmakers claimed in a statement that “extremist demonstrators” had tried to “make entry by breaking windows and pushing down doors” and described themselves as having faced a “hostage” situation and an “insurrection” meant to overthrow the state’s government, although there were no arrests, injuries or broken glass. State Sen. Wendy Rogers — who called for building gallows and hanging “traitors who betrayed our country” during a speech to the white nationalist America First movement this February — declared the protest the “#J24 Arizona Capitol Insurrection,” and, along with her GOP colleagues, called for more arrests. At HuffPost, Sebastian Murdock reports that after the protesters dispersed and moved to a park downtown, they were tear-gassed again. According to AZ Central, at a subsequent protest on Saturday, numerous legal observers were handcuffed and detained, one for around two hours.


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


In Los Angeles, videos show numerous violent confrontations between police and both protesters and the press. In one video, taken by photographer Michael Ade, LAPD officers are seen pushing protesters to the ground and striking at least one with a baton after the group tried to occupy or shut down the 101 freeway. In another video taken by Ade, which subsequently went viral, police shove former “Full House” actor Jodie Sweetin backward off a highway embankment — where, Ade tweeted, Sweetin was trying to lead protesters away from the road — and sent her sprawling to the pavement. 

In downtown L.A., video by documentarian Vishal Singh depicts a woman protester shoved backward onto the ground and shot in the stomach with a riot gun projectile. In another video, police appear to beat a man who is being arrested, banging his head against a concrete curb before dragging him away while other protesters yell that the man is having a seizure. 

Although the man has since been charged with attempted murder — for allegedly using an aerosol can as a makeshift flamethrower against an officer — Singh said, “It was one of the most brutal arrests I’ve ever seen, if not the most brutal.” 

When local journalist Tina Desiree Berg, who was wearing press credentials and took extensive footage of the protests throughout the weekend, tried to get a better angle of the man being arrested, one police officer punched her in the head before another shoved her to the ground, later telling her on video, “We’re trying to protect you.” 

“If he had just walked over and said, ‘Can you move over a foot,’ I would have complied,” said Berg in an interview with Salon. “I don’t think this protest would have escalated to any violence if the protesters had just been left alone.”

Berg, it turns out, was far from the only journalist hit or manhandled by LAPD officers last weekend, and, as Los Angeles Times journalist Kevin Rector writes, LAPD officers on Saturday repeatedly violated protections for journalists covering protests that were recently expanded by both state law and LAPD policy. Singh himself turned around at one point to find an LAPD officer pointing a riot gun, which fires lead beanbag rounds, at his head from just a few feet away. And a video from Beverly Hills Courier journalist Samuel Braslow shows a national legal observer being shoved to the ground by an officer. 

Southern California right-wing extremists “will take any excuse to get in the streets and fight with ‘antifa.’ But these guys view anybody as ‘antifa.'”

Singh also noted that a far-right activist associated with the white supremacist Rise Above Movement, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as “a Southern California-based racist fight club,” posted a message on Telegram claiming that an allied “nationalist” had infiltrated the pro-choice protest. On Monday afternoon, the same activist published a video clip, taken from a short distance, of Singh standing at the protest, with the caption, “Hi Vishal.”

Already over the last three days, right-wing groups in the area have threatened to counterprotest pro-choice demonstrations, and Singh said he’s seen several people from those circles at protests over the weekend, including a man who assaulted him at an anti-vaccination rally last year. 

“Typically [that man] shows up at right-wing or Proud Boys protests,” said Singh. “But at every one of the protests over the last few days, he was following [protesters] around.”

Berg notes that clashes between far-right extremists and counterprotesters have become a regular occurrence in Southern California. “These events are monthly at this point,” she said. “This group is incredibly radicalized. They are very homophobic, very misogynistic, incredibly racist. They want white nationalism and the hood is off. So they’ll take any excuse to get in the streets and fight with ‘antifa.’ But people should understand: these guys view everybody as ‘antifa.’ We’ve seen them call LAPD officers ‘antifa.'” 

However ludicrous that might seem, she continued, “They also really believe they are on a mission that is morally correct and that they’re the good guys. When you view it through that lens, it’s easy to see how things have become so violent in the way that they have. And I think it’s going to get worse.”

While conservative media and politicians have raised the issue of vandalism or violence against crisis pregnancy centers since the draft SCOTUS opinion was leaked in May, successfully calling for an FBI investigation, a new report released Friday by the National Abortion Federation noted a sharp increase in incidents of vandalism, assault and battery and hoax bomb threats against actual abortion clinics in 2021, including a 200% increase in reports of stalking clinic staff.

Read more on America after the fall of Roe v. Wade:

“King Trump” dreams of a glorious return: It seems preposterous, but we laugh at our peril

The House Jan. 6 select committee has Donald Trump dead to rights. Over the course of four public hearings — with a fifth unexpectedly scheduled for Tuesday — the committee has presented a compelling de facto indictment of Trump and his coup cabal for their crimes on and around Jan. 6, 2021, including treason. The evidence is so conclusive that if Attorney General Merrick Garland does not prosecute Trump, that choice will itself be a crime against American democracy and society.

Ultimately, if Garland refuses to act, future history books will forever connect him to Trump’s coup attempt. Such hypothetical accounts may observe that after a defeated president and his confederates attempted to overthrow American democracy, the nation’s top law enforcement official declined to hold him accountable — and that led directly to the collapse of democracy and the rise of a fascist regime. 

How has Trump himself reacted to the Jan. 6 hearings and their devastating depiction of his gross criminality and bottomless ignominy? He is a criminal mastermind and apparent sociopath, who throughout his life has demonstrated a profound ability to evade responsibility for his misdeeds. He has learned from his experience in hundreds of lawsuits and dozens of accusations: He never accepts responsibility for any wrongdoing, always depicts himself as the real victim and always goes on the attack.

RELATED: Dr. Lance Dodes: Trump is a dangerous sociopath — but he’s sane enough to stand trial

True to form, Trump has responded to the hearings by inciting violence against Democrats, liberals and other individuals and groups he deems to be his enemies — exactly the same offense he so clearly committed in connection with the coup attempt and Capitol attack on Jan. 6.

In a speech at the “Faith and Freedom” conference two Fridays ago in Nashville, Trump basically promised to pardon his followers who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. He told the audience that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Liz Cheney should be prosecuted for investigating him and his cabal. Needless to say, he showed no contrition for willfully endangering the life of Vice President Mike Pence. As legal experts have observed, these statements offer more evidence of Trump’s state of mind and malice aforethought in connection with the events of Jan. 6.

Trump has no fear of speaking out in public, since to this point the Department of Justice has not shown any substantive indications that he will face prosecution. Trump also believes, with good reason, that he can command his followers to engage in acts of violence if he is indicted or prosecuted, and that they will obey.

On his Truth Social site, Trump has unleashed a number of enraged diatribes in response to the committee hearings:

The Fake News Networks are perpetuating lies, falsehoods, and Russia, Russia, Russia type disinformation (same sick people, here we go again!) by allowing the low rated but nevertheless one sided and slanderous Unselect Committee hearings to go endlessly and aimlessly on (and on and on!)

It is a one sided, highly partisan Witch Hunt, the likes of which has never been seen in Congress before. Therefore, I am hereby demanding EQUAL TIME to spell out the massive Voter Fraud & Dem Security Breach! I demand equal time!!!

For Trump to accuse anyone else of telling lies is of course massive projection  He is a professional victimologist. Nonetheless, Trump’s followers hear his repeated demands for violence (whether explicit or implied) for violence very clearly.


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


As such, Trump’s Truth Social platform has also featured an increase in threats of assassination or other acts of political violence against members of the House Jan. 6 committee. CNN reports that users on Truth Social and other right-wing sites “are openly calling for the execution of committee members, with Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney appearing to be a specific target. Calls for former Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged … continue to be echoed online”:

An analysis by the group Advance Democracy, a not-for-profit that conducts public interest investigations, shared with CNN found posts on Truth Social calling for the execution of January 6 committee members and others. The researchers searched for specific terms on the platforms like “execute.”

One post on Truth Social includes a picture of a noose and reads, “The J6 committee are guilty of treason. Perpetuation of a insurrection hang them all.”

On another post referencing Cheney, a user posted a GIF of a guillotine with the message, “#MGGA #MakeGuillotinesGreatAgain.”

Trump and his spokespeople continue to circulate the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden and the Democrats through “voter fraud” — effectively meaning any or all votes cast by Black and brown people. That is part of a larger propaganda strategy to justify Trump’s coup attempt and the Capitol attack, as well as future right-wing political violence.

This propaganda is working: A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that a large majority of Republicans believe that “Trump bears not much of the responsibility (25 percent) or none at all (44 percent) for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

Trump has ramped up the fundraising grift during the Jan. 6 hearings: He recently offered to include his followers in a “top secret poll,” urging them not to share it with anyone else.

As the Jan. 6 hearings continue, Donald Trump and his acolytes have ramped up their email messaging and fundraising campaign, urging supporters to send Father’s Day cards to Trump, who will supposedly read a list of his “favorite” followers at a rally. He continues to seek constant validation and demands that followers boost his self-esteem by responding to polls asking if he is “the greatest president” of all time. He is also giving away “limited edition” autographed MAGA hats and photos of himself — for a donation, of course. Trump is also titillating his followers by offering to include them in a “top secret poll,” which they must promise not to share with anyone else.

As always, Donald Trump wants more money. He asks and pleads for it. He browbeats and threatens his followers for it. The House Jan. 6 committee has shown that Trump raised more than $250 million from his followers, supposedly to investigate nonexistent voter fraud, by way of a fund that also did not exist. The money instead went to Trump’s political action committee, his personal and family businesses and various other members of his inner circle. Trump’s fundraising is in all likelihood an act of criminal fraud, although exceedingly unlikely to be prosecuted as such. 

Those facts are of little importance to the Trumpists, they are cult followers who will continue to give him money as an act of love and loyalty. For them, the money is a way to become one of the chosen, the MAGA elect.

Trump’s fundraising emails have become dangerously absurd. One recent example appears to describe Trump as a godlike authority with the power to confer “GREAT MAGA KING STATUS” on a fortunate few among his followers. Here is the explanation:

The Patriots that have reached this status are the ones that President Trump has always been able to count on to answer the call when the Left comes after us — his MOST RELIABLE and DEDICATED supporters.

It’s too easy to dismiss such an email as buffoonish and ridiculous, or to declare that Trump’s followers are “idiots” for responding to such a shameless grift. But that laughter and mockery are a form of defensive humor or contempt by liberals (and others) who are terrified of Trumpism and the larger American fascist movement.

Fascists and authoritarians can often be buffoonish, and sometimes highly entertaining. That is part of their power and charm over their followers, especially if they wield “populism” as one of their primary weapons. Adolf Hitler was described by a prominent magazine editor in 1930 as a “big mouth,” a “half-insane rascal,” a “pathetic dunderhead” and a “nowhere fool.”

Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist and may be so mentally unwell that he actually believes that he is some type of king. Many of his followers are prepared to kill and die at his command, and a significant number believe that he is a divinely inspired ruler.

Under the European feudal system, kings had no regard for democracy, human rights or the rule of law. There was no contradiction: They were literally the state, and possessed the arbitrary power of life and death over their subjects. Donald Trump desires such power for himself.

Donald Trump would love to have the power of a king, who was literally the state and had no regard for human rights, popular opinion or the rule of law.

The Trump movement’s coup attempt and its ongoing assault on American democracy clearly resemble the actions of a would-be king, explicitly rejecting the idea that the legitimate majority will of the people should govern a democracy. Trump and his allies also reject other basic principles of democracy, such as that a government should be transparent and accountable to the people, and should be viewed as holding legitimate authority through the consent of the governed. None of that is important to Trump and his followers in the larger white right, who would prefer tyranny in the form of an Apartheid Christian-fascist plutocracy.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution personally understood the dangers of kings and their tyranny. Trump and his fascist insurgency represent exactly the type of authoritarian force that the framers rejected.

What will King Trump do if he (or another younger and more vigorous aspiring monarch) returns to power in 2024 or thereafter? Like the kings of old, the Trump regime will pursue violent retribution against everyone they believe has wronged them. Those who laugh at King Trump now are trying to find safety and comfort in gallows humor. It will not be enough. Such laughter will not save them.

Read more on our 45th president and the ongoing threat to democracy:

Christian fascism is right here, right now: After Roe, can we finally see it?

The Supreme Court is relentlessly funding and empowering Christian fascism. It not only overturned Roe v. Wade, ending a constitutional right to an abortion, but ruled on June 21 that Maine may not exclude religious schools from a state tuition program. It has ruled that a Montana state program to support private schools must include religious schools. It ruled that a 40-foot cross could remain on state property in suburban Maryland. It upheld the Trump administration regulation allowing employers to deny birth control coverage to female employees on religious grounds. It ruled that employment discrimination laws do not apply to teachers at religious schools. It ruled that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could ignore city rules and refuse to screen same-sex couples applying to take in foster children. It neutered the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It watered down laws allowing workers to combat sexual and racial harassment in court. It reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions to permit corporations, private groups and oligarchs to spend unlimited funds on elections, a system of legalized bribery, in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. It permitted states to opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. It undercut the ability of public sector unions to raise funds. It forced workers with legal grievances to submit their complaints to privatized arbitration boards. It ruled that states cannot restrict the right to carry concealed weapons in public. It ruled that suspects cannot sue police who neglect to read them their Miranda warnings and use their statements against them in court. Outlawing contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex consensual relations are probably next. Only 25 percent of those polled say they have confidence in Supreme Court decisions.

I do not use the word fascist lightly. My father was a Presbyterian minister. My mother, a professor, was a seminary graduate. I received my Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School. I am an ordained Presbyterian minister. Most importantly, I spent two years reporting from megachurches, creationist seminars, right-to-life retreats, Christian broadcasting networks and conducted hundreds of hours of interviews with members and leaders of the Christian right for my book “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America,” which is banned at most “Christian” schools and universities. Before the book was published, I met at length with Fritz Stern, the author of “The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the German Ideology,” and Robert O. Paxton, who wrote “The Anatomy of Fascism,” two of the country’s most eminent scholars of fascism, to make sure the word fascist was appropriate.

RELATED: Exclusive: Self-described “Christian fascist” movement trying to sabotage Pride Month

The book was a warning that an American fascism, wrapped in the flag and clutching the Christian cross, was organizing to extinguish our anemic democracy. This assault is very far advanced. The connecting tissue among the disparate militia groups, QAnon conspiracy theorists, anti-abortion activists, right-wing patriot organizations, Second Amendment advocates, neo-Confederates and Trump supporters that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 is this frightening Christian fascism.

Fascists achieve power by creating parallel institutions — schools, universities, media platforms and paramilitary forces — and seizing the organs of internal security and the judiciary. They deform the law, including electoral law, to serve their ends. They are rarely in the majority. The Nazis never polled above 37 percent in free elections in Germany. Christian fascists constitute less than a third of the U.S. electorate, about the same percentage of those who consider abortion to be murder. 

Fascists win power by creating parallel institutions and seizing the internal security organs and the the judiciary. They don’t need a majority.

This flagrant manipulation of law was displayed in two of the most recent Supreme Court decisions, where those who support this ideology have a 5-3 majority, with the less extremist Chief Justice John Roberts often adding a sixth vote. In overturning Roe v. Wade, the court, in a 6-3 decision, argued that states have the power to decide whether abortion is legal. The same court conversely came down against “states’ rights,” in striking down strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms.  

What the ideology demands is law. What the ideology opposes is a crime. Once a legal system is subservient to dogma an open society is impossible.  

Blow by blow, autocratic power is being solidified by this monstrous Christian fascism which is bankrolled by the most retrograde forces of corporate capitalism. It looks set to take control of the U.S. Congress in the midterm elections. If Trump, or a Trump-like clone, is elected in 2024, what is left of our democracy will likely be extinguished.

These Christian fascists are clear about the society they intend to create.

In their ideal America, our “secular humanist” society based on science and reason will be destroyed. The Ten Commandments will form the basis of the legal system. Creationism or “Intelligent Design” will be taught in public schools, many of which will be overtly “Christian.” Those branded as social deviants, including the LGBTQ community, immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims, criminals and those dismissed as “nominal Christians” — meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible — will be silenced, imprisoned or killed. The role of the federal government will be reduced to protecting property rights, “homeland” security and waging war. Most government assistance programs and federal departments, including education, will be terminated. Church organizations will be funded and empowered to run social welfare agencies and schools. The poor, condemned for sloth, indolence and sinfulness, will be denied help. The death penalty will be expanded to include “moral crimes,” including apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft, as well as abortion, which will be treated as murder. Women, denied contraception, access to abortion and equality under the law, will be subordinate to men. Those who practice other faiths will become, at best, second-class citizens. The wars waged by the American empire will be defined as religious crusades. Victims of police violence and those in prison will have no redress. There will be no separation of church and state. The only legitimate voices in public discourse and the media will be “Christian.” America will be sacralized as an agent of God. Those who defy the “Christian” authorities, at home and abroad, will be condemned as agents of Satan.


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


How did the historians of Weimar Germany and Nazism, the professors of Holocaust studies, the sociologists and the religious scholars manage to miss the rise of our homegrown Christian fascism? Immersed in the writings of Hannah Arendt, Raul Hilberg, Saul Friedländer, Joachim Fest, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Theodor Adorno, they never connected the dots. Why didn’t church leaders thunder in denunciation at the grotesque perversion of the Gospel by the Christian fascists as they sacralized the get-rich-with-Jesus schemes of the prosperity gospel, imperialism, militarism, capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and other forms of bigotry? Why didn’t reporters see the flashing red lights that lit up decades ago?

How did the historians, the sociologists and the religious scholars miss the rise of Christian fascism? They told us, “Never again,” but refused to use the lessons of the past to explain the present. It was not ignorance. It was cowardice.

Most of those tasked with reporting on and interpreting history, social movements and religious beliefs have failed us. They spoke about the past, vowing “Never again,” but refused to use the lessons of the past to explain the present. It was not ignorance. It was cowardice. To confront the Christian fascists, even in universities, meant career-canceling accusations of religious bigotry and intolerance. It meant credible threats of violence from conspiracy theorists who believed they were called by God to murder abortion providers, Muslims and “secular humanists.”

It was easier, as many academics did in Weimar Germany, to believe that the fascists did not mean what they said, that there were strains within the movement that could be reasoned with, that opening channels of dialogue and communication could see the fascists domesticated, that in power the fascists would not act on their extremist and violent rhetoric. With few exceptions, German academics did not protest the Nazi assumption of power and the wholesale dismissal of their liberal, socialist and Jewish colleagues.

Although my book was a New York Times bestseller, Harvard told my publisher it was not interested in my appearing at the school. I gave a lecture on the book at Colgate University, where I had earned my undergraduate degree, organized by my mentor Coleman Brown, a professor of ethics. I held a seminar, also organized by Coleman, with the professors of philosophy and religion after the talk. These professors wanted nothing to do with the critique. When we left the room, Coleman muttered, “The problem is they do not believe in heretics.”

I was asked in 2006 to speak at the inauguration of the LGBT center at Princeton University when I was the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow in American Studies. To my dismay, the faculty facilitators had invited representatives from the right-wing Christian student group who see any deviation from heterosexuality as a psychological and moral abnormality. Christian fascist pastors in Texas and Idaho, who have driven countless young people struggling with their sexual identity to suicide, have called for the execution of gay people as recently as a few days ago.

“There is no dialogue with those who deny your legitimate right to be,” I said, looking pointedly at the LGBTQ students. “At that point it is a fight for survival.”

The faculty member organizing the event leapt from her chair.

“This is a university,” she said to me curtly. “Your talk is over. You can’t say those kinds of things here.”

I sat down. But I had made my point.

All those tasked in our society with interpreting the world around us forgot, as philosopher Karl Popper wrote in “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” that “unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

Scholars, intellectuals and journalists bear much of the blame: They stood by as the working class was stripped of rights by the billionaires, fertilizing the ground for American fascism.

These scholars, writers, intellectuals and journalists, like those in Weimar Germany, bear much of the blame. They preferred accommodation over confrontation. They stood by as the working class was stripped of rights and impoverished by the billionaire class, fertilizing the ground for an American fascism. Those who orchestrated the economic, political and social assault are the major donors to the universities. They control trustee boards, grants, academic prizes, think tanks, promotion, publishing and tenure. Academics, looking for an exit, ignored the attacks by the ruling oligarchy. They ascribed to the Christian fascists, bankrolled by huge corporations such as Tyson Foods, Purdue, Walmart and Sam’s Warehouse, attributes that did not exist. They tacitly gave the Christian fascists religious legitimacy. These Christian fascists are an updated version of the so-called German Christian Church, or Deutsche Christen, which fused the iconography and symbols of the Christian religion with the Nazi party. The theologian Paul Tillich, the first non-Jewish German professor to be blacklisted from German universities by the Nazis, angrily chastised those who refused to fight “the paganism of the swastika” and retreated into a myopic preoccupation with personal piety.

Victor Klemperer, stripped of his position as a professor of Romance languages at the Technical University of Dresden when the Nazis came to power in 1933 because he was Jewish, mused in his diary in 1936 what he would do in post-Nazi Germany if “the fate of the vanquished lay in my hands.” He wrote that he would “let all the ordinary folk go and even some of the leaders. … But I would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest; they would be left hanging from the lamp posts for as long as was compatible with hygiene.”

Fascists promise moral renewal, a return to a lost golden age. They use campaigns of moral purity to justify state repression. Adolf Hitler, days after he took power in January 1933, imposed a ban on all homosexual organizations. He ordered raids on homosexual clubs and bars, including the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin, and the permanent exile of its director, Magnus Hirschfeld. Thousands of volumes from the institute’s library were tossed into a bonfire. This “moral cleansing” was cheered on by the German public, including German churches. But the tactics, outside the law, swiftly legitimized what would soon be done to others.

I studied at Harvard with theologian James Luther Adams. Adams was a member of the underground anti-Nazi Confessing Church in Germany led by the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller. Adams was arrested in 1936 by the Gestapo and expelled from the country. He was one of the very few to see the deadly strains of fascism in the nascent Christian right.

“When you are my age,” he told us (he was then 80), “you will all be fighting the Christian fascists.”

And here we are.

The billionaire class, while sometimes socially liberal, dispossessed working men and women through deindustrialization, austerity, a legalized tax boycott, looting the U.S. Treasury and deregulation. It triggered the widespread despair and rage that pushed many of the betrayed into the arms of these con artists and demagogues. It is more than willing to accommodate the Christian fascists, even if it means abandoning the liberal veneer of inclusiveness. It has no intention of supporting social equality, which is why it thwarted the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. 

In the end, even the liberal class will choose fascism over empowering the left wing and organized labor. The only thing the ruling oligarchy truly cares about is unfettered exploitation and profit. They, like the industrialists in Nazi Germany, will happily make an alliance with the Christian fascists, no matter how bizarre and buffoonish, and embrace the blood sacrifices of the condemned.   

Read more on the fusion of right-wing Christianity and fascist politics:

“Embarrassment to our district”: Democrats trying to unseat Lauren Boebert — but so are Republicans

Although Colorado is far from a red state at this point, it has its Republican-leaning districts — and one of Colorado’s most infamous GOP politicians is Rep. Lauren Boebert. Colorado has a Democratic governor (Jared Polis) and two Democratic U.S. senators (John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet), and Democrats have majorities in both the Colorado State Senate and the Colorado House of Representatives.

But Boebert, a far-right MAGA extremist, conspiracy theorist and QAnon supporter along the lines of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, has been a consistent source of embarrassment to Colorado — and journalist Nick Bowlin, in an article published by “The Guardian” on June 27, describes efforts by both Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans to get her voted out of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms.

Bowlin explains, “Boebert’s extreme right-wing stances range from absolute opposition to gun control to questioning the effectiveness of vaccines and the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections. All are conveyed by a social media persona fine-tuned to inflame the culture wars…. Along with Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, J.D. Vance and others, she is among a vanguard of younger, stridently conservative politicians following former President Donald Trump’s path to prominence.”

Boebert is running for a second term in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms.

But her critics, Bowlin explains, are hoping to prevent her from being reelected. And they have two opportunities to defeat her: a GOP primary this Tuesday, June 28, and the general election — both of which are longshots.

“Colorado holds what are known as open primaries,” Bowlin notes. “This means independent voters automatically receive election ballots for both Republican and Democratic Party elections. These unaffiliated voters outnumber both Republicans and Democrats in Colorado’s third district, making up about 44% of active voters. With the Democratic Party’s failure to come up with a high-profile candidate, there has been a concerted anti-Boebert push among quietly dissenting Republicans, angry unaffiliated voters and even Democrats who renounce their party registration to vote in the GOP primary against Boebert.”

One of the residents of Boebert’s district who would like to see her voted out of office is Susan Reed, a retired cultural archeologist who changed her registration from Democrat to unaffiliated.

Reed told the Guardian, “Boebert is an embarrassment to our district. We need a legislator and not a ‘Fox News’ personality.”

A variety of Boebert opponents, according to Bowlin, are rallying around Colorado State Sen. Don Coram — a Republican and moderate conservative who is challenging Boebert in the primary. In the Colorado State Senate, Coram has a reputation for making deals with Democrats.

“At times, Coram’s politics veer beyond the normal GOP boundaries,” Bowlin observes. “In 2015, he helped write a bill to provide millions in state funding to provide free contraceptives to teenagers. Coram opposes abortions. Preventing them, in his view, requires easily available contraception.”

Not surprisingly, Boebert has been slamming Coram as a RINO: Republican In Name Only.

Coram told The Guardian, “We’re concentrating on what we refer to as kitchen-table Republicans, the more moderate Republicans that aren’t all driven by theories and agendas. We’re concentrated on them and the unaffiliated vote.”

Coram is facing an uphill climb, as Boebert is popular with the MAGA crowd and is running in Colorado’s conservative 3rd Congressional District. Nonetheless, J. Miles Coleman, an election analyst for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, believes that the June 28 primary is the best chance to get Boebert out of Congress.

Coleman predicts that if Boebert wins the primary, she will also win the general election. And Coleman doesn’t think that any of the Democratic primary candidates — who include Alex Walker, Sol Sandoval and Adam Frisch — would be able to defeat her.

Coleman told The Guardian, “It’s a conservative seat with a libertarian streak, especially on guns, taxes and government regulation. Boebert checks a lot of those boxes.”

“Interesting shift”: America’s religious groups are divided on abortion

Since the first indications that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, following a leaked draft opinion on May 2, 2022, religious leaders from many denominations have been working to preserve access to abortion care, even as others prayed for Roe to indeed be overruled. A minister in Texas was among those working on coordinating abortion care, including flying women to New Mexico to get abortions.

Religious communities in the U.S. have long been divided over the issue of abortion. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that 57% of Americans were supportive of legal abortion. A majority of those who identified as evangelical were opposed to abortion.

Before June 24, 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, The Conversation asked several scholars to explain the multiple views across faith groups and also the differences within denominations. Here are five articles from our archives:

1. Abortion rights as religious freedom

Steven K. Green, director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University, explained why restricting abortion interferes with religious freedom.

The strong opposition of some Christian churches, such as the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention, is based on their views about the time of “ensoulment,” the moment at which the soul is believed to enter the fetus. Conservative Christians believe this happens at the moment of conception.

Not all Christian denominations agree. As Green wrote, the United Church of Christ, for example, passed a resolution in 1981 that said “every woman must have the freedom of choice to follow her personal and religious convictions concerning the completion or termination of a pregnancy.”

Additionally, other faith groups such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism have differing beliefs about ensoulment.

2. What Jewish texts say

Judaism allows for abortion and even requires it when a woman’s health is endangered, according to Rachel Mikva, professor of Jewish studies at Chicago Theological Seminary. The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.

There is some difference of opinion among Orthodox rabbis, but there is room to consider diverse perspectives.

Overall, according to a 2017 Pew survey, 83% of American Jews believed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Even ultra-Orthodox leaders, as Mikva found, have resisted anti-abortion measures that do not allow religious exceptions.

3. Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist views

Beliefs from other faith traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam also show that religions place ensoulment at different moments and give it varying degrees of importance, according to Samira Mehta, assistant professor of women and gender studies and Jewish studies at University of Colorado, Boulder.

Muslim scholars and clerics, for example, have a range of positions on abortion. “Some believe abortion is never permitted, and many allow it until ensoulment, which is often placed at 120 days’ gestation, just shy of 18 weeks,” according to Mehta. In general, classical Islamic law sees legal personhood as beginning at birth, and many Muslim religious leaders therefore permit abortion to save the life of the mother.

Views in Hinduism and Buddhism are diverse. “Most Hindus believe in reincarnation, which means that while one may enter bodies with birth and leave with death, life itself does not, precisely, begin or end. Rather, any given moment in a human body is seen as part of an unending cycle of life – making the question of when life begins quite different than in Abrahamic religions,” wrote Mehta. For Buddhists, a decision about abortion is treated with compassion and considered to be a “moral choice,” depending on the circumstances.

4. Shift in views of Southern Baptists

Scholars have also pointed out how in conservative faith groups, beliefs have shifted over time. Scholar Susan M. Shaw, who has long studied the Southern Baptists, explained that they have not always been opposed to abortion.

According to Shaw, the change in Southern Baptist views started in the 1980s, when a more conservative group took charge of the denomination. At that time a “resolution on abortion” was drafted that declared that “abortion ends the life of a developing human being” and called for legal measures “prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother.”

Additionally, as Shaw found, another “interesting shift” happened in that resolution – instead of referring to fetal life, as earlier resolutions did, the 1980 resolution called fetuses “unborn” or “pre-born” human life or “persons.” The fetus, as she wrote, “was no longer a developing organism dependent on a woman’s body, but rather it was a full human being with the same status and human rights as the women.”

5. Reproductive options in premodern Christianity

Scholars have pointed out that among premodern Christians, too, views on abortion were more complex. According to religion scholar Luis Josué Salés, pregnancy prevention and termination methods thrived in premodern Christian societies, especially in the medieval Roman Empire.

Indeed, premodern Christians may have actively developed reproductive options for women, Salés found. Sixth-century Christian physician Aetios of Amida and Paulos of Aigina, who came a century later, were said to have provided instructions for performing abortions and making contraceptives.

In the U.S., the first abortion restrictions were enacted only in the 1820s. As Mehta aptly put it, “We tend to think of the religious response to abortion as one of opposition, but the reality is much more complicated.”

 

Kalpana Jain, Senior Religion + Ethics Editor, The Conversation

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

Trump-backed Texas GOP candidate arrested for impersonating public official — then blames opponent

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

A Texas House candidate and police officer backed by former President Donald Trump and top Texas Republicans has been indicted on a charge of impersonating a public servant, according to authorities.

Dallas police said Friday that Frederick Frazier was placed on administrative leave after the department was notified that a Collin County grand jury indicted him. Impersonating a public servant is a third-degree felony.

Frazier turned himself in to the Richardson jail Friday and posted bond, said Teddy Yoshida, a spokesperson for the Richardson Police Department.

It is unclear what the specific allegations against Frazier are, and a spokesperson for the Collin County district attorney’s office was not immediately available for comment.

Responding to the indictment, Frazier’s campaign blamed his Republican primary runoff opponent, Paul Chabot, who had suggested Frazier posed as a city code compliance officer to get Chabot’s campaign signs taken down at a Walmart. In a statement, Frazier’s campaign said Chabot, who has run for office multiple times before, is “trying to overturn the results of that election by bringing up trumped complaints to law enforcement and testifying before a grand jury.”

“Frederick Frazier is looking forward to having the opportunity to defend himself in court, where we are confident jurors will see through Chabot’s lies in the same way that voters have five times before,” the statement said.

John Thomas, Chabot’s consultant, issued a statement on Frazier’s indictment:

“An independent grand jury was empaneled and determined that Mr. Frazier committed multiple felonies. In fact, it was the Rangers and the McKinney PD who uncovered the felonies. Frazier’s lying and deceit knows no limits. He committed crimes and refuses to fess up. He is a disgrace to himself and to those who dawn a badge in law enforcement. Paul Chabot demands Frazier have one shred of decency and immediately drop out of the race as it’s crucial that both a Republican and candidate with integrity represent the people of the 61st district.”

Frazier easily won the Republican primary runoff last month for House District 61, an open seat in Collin County that leans Republican. A well-known advocate for law enforcement in Austin, Frazier had the backing of Trump, Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state House Speaker Dade Phelan. The Democratic nominee in the race is Sheena King.

During the runoff, Chabot spoke out about the alleged theft of dozens of his campaign signs. In one incident, Chabot said a Walmart store manager told him someone claiming to work for city code compliance came in and told the store to take down Chabot’s signs because they were illegally placed. Chabot said he reported that to the police.

The Texas Rangers ultimately looked into his claims. Chabot later obtained a report from the Rangers through a public records request that said the agency investigated Frazier in February for “alleged criminal violations … of Impersonating a Public Servant and potentially related Theft.”

At the time, Frazier’s campaign consultant, Craig Murphy, said his candidate denied any wrongdoing and called Chabot’s claims “frivolous.”

Texas Scorecard and Steven Monacelli, a freelance journalist who extensively covered the campaign sign controversy for Rolling Stone, were among the first to report Friday that Frazier had been indicted.


Join us Sept. 22-24 in person in downtown Austin for The Texas Tribune Festival and experience 100+ conversation events featuring big names you know and others you should from the worlds of politics, public policy, the media and tech — all curated by The Texas Tribune’s award-winning journalists. Buy tickets.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-house-candidate-indicted/.

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

Sam Jay says just let comedy be “dangerous” – like one particular slur that’s “mean” but not racist

Dave Chappelle splits the world in half. Not literally, but kind of. I say this because every time he strolls on stage and grabs a microphone, a large number of fans well up with excitement – in addition to a large number of haters – that are equally excited at the opportunity to police each and every one of his ideas and statements and punchlines. His fans love his showmanship just as much as the naysayers dream of canceling Dave and stripping away his right to entertain. 

Younger comedians are taking note. I imagine they are wondering how to survive or even create a body of work in the current climate. Especially since many of them have been inspired by and came of age under old school comedians, the kind who made a living saying any and everything regardless of who liked it or not. They can’t afford to be canceled, just as they can’t afford to put out watered down, hyper-politically correct work. Sam Jay is all about taking chances and would rather be true to her art than bend or fold to the rules of wokeness. 

Sam Jay is an Emmy Award-nominated writer who worked on “Saturday Night Live.” Jay also created, wrote and starred in the Peacock series “Bust Down” and HBO Max’s “Pause with Sam Jay,” which was co-created with Prentice Penny of “Insecure.” I spoke to Jay on “Salon Talks” about the future of the industry and why comedians need to fight against being silenced. Watch our conversation here or read a Q&A below to hear more about her favorite sneakers, love for doing stand up and what to expect on Season 2 of “Pause.” 

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Every time I watch “Pause” I wonder how do you get invited to one of your parties?

Really, I’d have to know you honestly. I just be inviting my friends and stuff, or a writer in the room might know somebody and be like, “I think this person will be good.” It’s kind of just like a connection to the show somehow. If you have a connection to the show somehow, then you get invited. It’s really not that deep. We literally just look at the episode and then we’re just kind of like, “Who would be dope that we know?”

Do you feel like your first big start was on “SNL”?

As far as jobs, it was the biggest job I’ve ever had. I never had a job in the industry. I booked gigs. At that point, I had done a lot of stand-up on TV and I had already done a Comedy Central half hour and I had already done the Netflix 15, so I had some stuff under my belt before I got to SNL, but I had never had a writing job or anything like worked on a show or anything like that.

Your Netflix special was the first time I saw you. Was “Pause” already in motion around that time?

It was a result of the success of the special for sure. Really all I had after I did the 15, Netflix came and was like, “Yo, we want to do an hour with you.” At that point, I was at “SNL” so I was working on an hour, like going out every night after work, doing sets in the city and then on weekends. When we had weeks off, I would go on the road. And then in the summer, I spent a whole summer touring before I taped it and right before COVID. It was crazy. I taped it like right before.

Then after the special came out, that’s how I got in a conversation with HBO.

RELATED: “Canceling is relative”: Michael Che on his comedy boundaries & why he’s not leaving “SNL” just yet

Do you feel like hosting and interviewing is different than stand-up?

It is definitely different, but it’s still me. I feel like the environment that we’ve created with “Pause” gives me a lot of freedom to just be myself. It feels different because people are talking back. In stand-up, you’re the only one talking. So it’s really a conversation with people, but kind of with yourself, and in interviews it’s a discourse. Of course it’s different, but it all feels super natural.

In Season 2, you talk about your place in the gay community. It’s funny, but it’s also honest. What kind of feedback do you get from those types of conversations?

I don’t know if I expect any feedback at all. I actually probably would prefer if people didn’t talk to me about it, to be quite honest. I don’t really make it in this way of like, “Now what you got to say?” It’s more just like here’s something I’ve been thinking about and here’s something I’ve been processing. 

“When you put out something that’s honest and true to you and is a little bit challenging and is talking about things that are difficult, it’s going to trigger people.”

Now I have this opportunity to take it out into the world and talk to people who got actually affected or who have experienced it. And then it’s up to the public and my hope is you all take it. And if it is a value to you, you continue the conversation. You know what I’m saying? That’s really the hope of it. It’s not to stir any pots or upset anybody, honestly, despite what some people might believe. It’s really just like here’s my perspective on this and I feel like this is something worth talking about.

It’s hilarious, but, at the same time, I feel like you are talking to real people. You’re talking past a Twitter checklist. You’re talking to real people, and it’s bringing even more people into the conversation. It helps people feel like we can say how we feel without being looked at as villains. Has someone ever tried to add you to a villain list for not checking the boxes?

Of course, all the time. I think that’s the nature of the beast. As much as you going to make some people feel you, there’s going to be people who don’t like you. And on every side of it, on the Black side, on the being a woman’s side of it, on the being gay side of it, I definitely have gotten backlash in every direction. But I think that’s what happens when you put out something that’s honest and true to you and is a little bit challenging and is talking about things that are difficult, it’s going to trigger people and some people are going to get upset.

I enjoy the way you cross the line, but I also feel we’re in this weird space where society or certain segments of society are trying to tell comedians what jokes they can tell and what jokes they can’t tell. Do you think it should be a rule?

I feel like art and comedy as art is super subjective and it’s important to let art be art and let it be dangerous and let it be controversial and let it be challenging because if we don’t allow that we start to restrict that. Then you’re restricting the conversations that we’re having as a society and I just don’t think that helps us in any way.

With that, I do think you need to be thoughtful, but I think that’s all up to you to determine. What’s thoughtful to me may not be thoughtful to someone else or like what I’m thinking. You just don’t know what someone’s going to pull away from something. You know what I mean? I look at that first episode and as many people who hit me up and they’re like, “Wow, you brought this conversation to the forefront and this is such a thing that me and my friends talk about, and I’m so glad to hear this happening in the world,” I get this a good amount of people who are like, “You’re a f**king idiot and you’re wrong and you need to learn gay history because Black people start this s**t.”

To me, it’s like you missed the point. That wasn’t the point that I was making but that was the point that you took from it. You can’t control that. The same way that I get white people telling me that I’m racist because I said “cracker” and I’m a terrible racist human being who’s not helping the world in any way. It’s like that’s their truth. They really feel that way. I can’t be like, “Oh, what they feel is stupid.” I try to consider everything and then I analyze it for myself and then I got to do what’s right for me. 

“It’s important to let art be art and let it be dangerous and let it be controversial.”

I think about it, though, because I’m not out here to hurt no one’s feelings. If someone’s really like, “You’re racist and this is hurtful,” I’m like, okay, let me think about this. Is me saying “cracker” racist and hurtful and why am I saying it? And what’s the point of this? Is it just to f**k with people or is there something behind it? I’ve come to my own conclusion about it, which is it’s not racist at all because the word wasn’t built in any racial oppression for white people. It’s really just a word to make you mad and it works. 

I think I would be more apt if someone was just like, “This word hurts my feelings,” I’d be like, “OK, that’s fair.” It is mean, but I don’t know that it’s racist. I think sometimes you just got to consider both sides of it, what you’re hearing, but then you also got to consider why you’re doing something.

Oppression is hot right now. It is very, very hot to be oppressed. It comes with grant money. It come with opportunities. It come with all types of attention. What do you think of the oppression hustle?

We talked about it a little bit in Season 1 with the GoFundMe episode. And Alex English being a gay man and just wanting money because he’s gay. 

I’m a comic so I’m critical, of course, and I do see that and I’m like, “What are you doing?” You know what I mean? But I think it’s the world that we also kind of built for these kids where we set it up for them to kind of run that way. I think it’s because we didn’t give people their just due when people were asking. You know what I’m saying? When people were kind of screaming for it. So now we’re getting the swing of the pendulum to the other extremity of it.

I think your comedy is groundbreaking in moving a lot of these conversations forward. Is that your intention, or is it just what you and your homies talk about when you all sitting around?

I think that was the intention and the conception of the show. I think when we talked about being able to be in a late-night space and what we wanted to get from that. And by we, I mean me and Prentice Penny – and I also mean me in the writers’ room. We just wanted to have some conversations that we didn’t see happening and that could move something forward.

I think with everything I do, especially in the space that is “Pause,” that’s the goal is like if I’m going to approach this topic, what am I adding? How am I moving this conversation forward? And if it’s not doing that, then we probably don’t need to do it. If it’s just making a point to make a point or I’m just saying something that everybody already said, or I’m coming at the same angle that we seen it come at over and over again, then why are we doing it? We’re not going to bring anything fresh to it or bring any fresh perspective to it or show it in a way it hasn’t been seen. So maybe someone could grab it that couldn’t grab it previously or process it that couldn’t process it previously. Then what is the point of even breaching the topic?

RELATED: “Insecure” star Yvonne Orji is rewriting the immigrant narrative “one joke at a time”

Do you keep your shoe boxes or do you throw them away?

My girl makes me throw them away. I used to be upset about it, but I’m not like a reseller and it’s easier to maintain.

What’s your favorite pair?

I don’t know that I have a favorite pair. I like 1s. I like 1s the most just because they’re just easy to do. They just clean. They go with everything. You just throw them on and be out. They’re probably the ones I wear the most.

I’m going to go with black Jordan 3s as the best sneaker of all time with Nike Air on the back. 

I mean everyone likes those 3s, bro. It’s the cement?

It’s black cement 3s. Are there any dream guests or topics you want to cover next?

I don’t know. It’s so weird because it’s like every season, let me just say this season, was such a different approach than last season like how we were going to get into things and what we were going to talk about. And however we decide, that really dictates the whole rest of the show. I’m never like I need to talk to such and so. It’s kind of always let’s decide what we talk about first and then who’s the best person to bring into this conversation.

When are we going to be able to see Sam Jay in front of an audience, making us laugh and think deeply about these issues? 
I’m actually going back out on the road this summer starting in July for a while, because I’m trying to build a new hour to put out a new special. So I’ll be back around, back on the road, back in the scene, doing the thing.

Do we know where that special’s going to be or network? It’s a secret?

Kind of.

Watch out more “Salon Talks” with D. Watkins: 

Jodie Sweetin, the “Full House” star who became an activist, pushed by LAPD at pro-choice protest

Police shoved  actor Jodie Sweetin to the ground during a pro-choice protest in Los Angeles on Saturday, which prompts the question: Jodie Sweetin was at a pro-choice protest?

Yes. The actor, known for her work as a child star on the hugely popular sitcom “Full House,” was speaking into a megaphone, addressing the crowd who had gathered on a freeway to protest the Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which ensures safe and legal abortion. When Sweetin apparently got too close to a line of LAPD officers for their comfort, several officers shoved her violently. On video footage, she can be seen being pushed forcefully by the police, and landing on her side on the concrete several feet away. Sweetin is helped up by fellow protestors and gets back on her feet quickly, although she appears unsteady.  

In a statement published in People, the LAPD wrote “The force used will be evaluated against the LAPD’s policy and procedure.”

RELATED: What made Bob Saget’s Danny Tanner so different from other sitcom dads

A representative for Sweetin told People she was all right after the police altercation. In a statement, Sweetin said she felt proud of the many people who have taken “immediate action to peacefully protest the giant injustices that have been delivered from our Supreme Court.”

Sweetin didn’t stop there. The day after the incident, she appeared on the E! News program “Daily Pop,” where she said she wanted the focus not on what happened to her, which she called “a very minor incident of police brutality” but on reproductive rights and violence by the police in general, firmly stressing that these issues impact families of color, queer and trans families the most.

Now 40, Sweetin was adopted and raised by family members as both her biological parents were incarcerated at the time of her birth. She started acting in commercials, but her big break came with “Full House,” which starred Bob Saget as the widowed father of three girls, including baby Michelle, played by twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen.

Sweetin played the middle sister of the family, Stephanie, an upbeat, talkative and sometimes mischievous child, known for her dimpled smile and love for her teddy bear, Mr. Bear. “Full House” ran from 1987-1995 and was a hit, anchoring ABC’s TGIF lineup

After the show ended, Sweetin, like many child stars, struggled. She married young, wedding a police officer when she was only 20 years old. They divorced several years later. Sweetin has since been married and divorced two more times. She has two daughters from those marriages. She broke off an engagement with Justin Hodak after he violated a restraining order against her. In 2017, Hodak was sentenced to more than six years in prison for possession of a deadly weapon and falsifying evidence by threatening a witness with force or implied force. Hodak was also ordered to complete a 52-week domestic violence program.

Sweetin also battled addiction. She began drinking at 14 years old, when “Full House” ended. She struggled with addictions to drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy. In 2008, she got sober. A year later, Sweetin published a memoir “unSweetined,” which detailed her life and difficulties since “Full House” wrapped.

The Olsen twins were rich, artfully clad and above the rest of us. They were not out marching for rights and causes with a backpack and megaphone like Sweetin.

Not all the Tanners share Sweetin’s drive for justice.

Along with beloved comedian Saget, who died tragically earlier in 2022, the Olsen twins were the most famous of the “Full House” bunch. As Verily wrote, “by middle school, they were billion-dollar brands.” The Olsens had a line of dozens of popular, direct-to-video movies. Shortly after they turned 18, they started a “revolutionary and minimalist clothing line,” and became fashion icons. The New York Times once praised Mary-Kate’s signature look as “a kind of homeless masquerade.”

The Olsen twins were rich (they married and partnered well, and became richer), artfully clad and above the rest of us. They were not out marching for rights and causes with a backpack and megaphone like Sweetin. In fact, in the 2000s, the Olsens became a popular target for PETA, the animal rights organization, due to the Olsens wearing and using of fur and leather in their fashion. 

TV Netflix Fuller HouseThis image released by Netflix shows, from left, Andrea Barber, Jodie Sweetin, and Candace Cameron Bure in a scene from, “Fuller House,” streaming on Netflix beginning on Friday, Feb. 26. (Michael Yarish/Netflix via AP) (AP)In 2016, a continuation of the “Full House” story, called “Fuller House,” launched on Netflix. The show starred Sweetin’s former co-star Candance Cameron Bure, who played her older sister DJ on “Full House,” as a now-single mother, widowed like her TV father before her. Sweetin reprised her role (the Olsens did not). The show ran until 2020, and there were recent plans to reboot “Full House,” plans that have been uncertain since Saget’s sudden death.

Bure was pinned to develop programming for the new conservative channel, which has ties to Donald Trump. It appears unlikely her former TV sister will follow her.

In recent years, Sweetin has been a mainstay on The Hallmark Network, appearing in often seasonal fare such as “Finding Santa,” “Entertaining Christmas” and “Merry & Bright.” Bure – formerly the Queen of Christmas at Hallmark – was recently hired by a rival channel, GAC Media, which was formed after Hallmark’s “disheartening” shift to including LGBTQI, Jewish and other marginalized stories. Bure was pinned to develop programming for the new conservative channel, which has ties to Donald Trump.

But it appears unlikely her former TV sister will follow her. Sweetin, who completed a degree as a drug and alcohol counselor and who now works as a clinical logistics coordinator at a Los Angeles drug rehab center, has also voiced repeated support for Black Lives Matter and the group Refuse Fascism in addition to her pro-choice activism. 


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


Sweetin told E! News: “A lot of people say we’re in California and it doesn’t matter, but if those of us don’t stand up for others who can’t, then I don’t know what we’re doing.” She also acknowledged the responsibility she has as a well-known face in television – “People are shocked when they see Stephanie Tanner. Something happens to her, all of a sudden it makes it more real”— and her desire to leverage her early stardom for good. 

“I’ll still be out there,” she said. “I’ll still keep going.”

More stories like this:

 

GOP Senate candidate wants to take Supreme Court ruling on guns a giant step further

A Republican Bitcoin enthusiast and self-professed “cypherpunk stockbroker” running to represent New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate would like to give American citizens unfettered access to military-grade weaponry like machine guns, bombs, explosive missiles, and chemical weapons. 

Bruce Fenton, who cast his self-funded bid for the GOP nomination earlier this year, unveiled his maximalist stance on the Second Amendment during an April interview with Liberty Block, a “pro-liberty” media publication based in New Hampshire.

“I don’t want to see any government regulations on guns. Period,” he said in an interview flagged by American Bridge, a Democratic Super PAC. “Firearms should be unrestricted and completely available in the United States and I am against the current firearms regulations.”

RELATED: Clarence Thomas’ gun decision ensures that the next January 6 will be much deadlier

“I agree with the Founders, I agree with the Bill of Rights, and I agree with the Second Amendment that says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” he added. “It’s for protecting against [the] government. And governments have been extremely tyrannical in history.”

Fenton is one of five Republicans vying for the chance to take on U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan in November. The GOP candidates are set to hold their first debate of the GOP Senate primary on Monday. 


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


Specifically, Fenton has vowed to abolish the National Firearms Act (NFA), a 1934 law that regulates the ownership of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices like grandes explosive missiles. At present, the NFA requires owners of such weaponry to submit their fingerprints, undergo a background check, pay a $200 fee, and register all of the above contraptions with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). In an ideal world, all of these requirements would not exist, Fenton said in a Twitter exchange with Salon.

“I believe that the Second Amendment should be followed and that the right to bear arms should not be infringed,” he said. “Government doesn’t have a moral right to have a monopoly on force. Gun restrictions are a tool of tyrants.”

Robert Spitzer, a political science professor who specializes on gun politics at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Cortland, told Salon by email that Fenton’s plan would make automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers “easily accessible to those who want them.”

RELATED: The Rittenhouse syndrome: Has America crossed the Rubicon?

Fenton’s remarks come as state and federal Republicans mount a broad campaign to expand gun rights across the country. This year, GOP-led states like Iowa, Tennessee, and Indiana successfully removed requirements to acquire and carry firearms despite the upsurge in mass shootings, of which there have already been more than 250 this year, according to The Washington Post.

The conservative-led gun rights movement has even made its way to the Supreme Court, which just last week struck down a New York gun law that requires would-be gun owners to establish “proper cause” for open carry licenses.

Pandemonium, then silence: Inside a Texas abortion clinic after the fall of Roe

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

SAN ANTONIO — On Friday morning, a nurse at Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services in San Antonio ushered a patient into an exam room. She gave her a gown, told her the doctor would be in shortly and stepped back out of the room into a changed world.

“I saw the other nurses standing in the hallway,” said Jenny, a nurse who has been with the clinic for five years and asked to be identified only by her first name for fear of being targeted by anti-abortion protesters. “And I just knew.”

In the few minutes she’d been inside the exam room, the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for Texas to fully ban the procedure she had just prepped a patient for.

Jenny and four other staff members stood in the hallway, paralyzed. They had a dozen patients sitting in the lobby awaiting abortions, all seemingly unaware of the seismic shift that had just rocked the reproductive health care world.

Before they could even decide how to proceed, the door to the clinic slammed open and a young woman ran in, yelling about Roe v. Wade and saving babies. They didn’t recognize her but believed she was associated with the anti-abortion protesters who often massed outside the clinic.

The woman quickly fled, leaving the clinic staff alone with a dozen sets of eyes staring back at them from the waiting room chairs.

“Obviously, that wasn’t how we had wanted it to come out,” Jenny said.

While other nurses addressed the elephant in the waiting room, Jenny returned to the patient she had just left.

A patient returns for an appointment Friday to make sure her abortion treatment was successful. The clinic is still offering follow-up appointments to people who recently had abortions, some of the last patients the clinic may see. Credit: Kaylee Greenlee Beal for The Texas Tribune

“I just said, ‘You have to get dressed and come back out to the lobby,'” she said. “I told her, ‘The doctor will explain more … but we can’t even give you a consultation today.'”

The legal status of abortion in Texas was murky in the immediate aftermath of Friday’s ruling. The state has a “trigger law” that automatically bans abortion 30 days after the ruling is certified, a process that could take a month or more.

But in an advisory issued Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said that abortion providers could be held criminally liable immediately because the state never repealed the abortion prohibitions that were on the books before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

Rather than risking criminal charges, Texas’ clinics stopped providing abortions Friday.

Andrea Gallegos, executive director of Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services, said she’s hopeful that the clinic’s lawyers may find a way to allow it to resume abortions briefly before the trigger ban goes into effect.

But either way, abortion will soon be banned in the second-largest state in the country. The clinics will close. The staff will relocate or find new jobs. And the people they would have served will melt into the shadows, fleeing over state lines, seeking out illegal abortions or quietly consigning themselves to decades of raising children they never wanted.

Bearing the bad news

The staff at Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services are no strangers to bad news. For years, they’ve had to navigate ever-tightening restrictions that force them to delay care or turn patients away.

But never have they had to deliver so much bad news in such a short period of time. Dr. Alan Braid, who owns the clinic, told the women in the waiting room — and those who had already been admitted to exam rooms — that they were halting all abortions immediately.

Some just got up and left. One woman got upset, angrily demanding that Braid go through with the abortion anyway. She had driven hours to make it to this appointment after her home state of Oklahoma banned all abortions.

“I understand why she’s upset, and she has every right to be upset, but we’re not the enemy here,” Gallegos said. “The only thing we could tell her was this wasn’t because of us, it was because of the Supreme Court.”

One woman was on her fourth visit to the clinic. She’d been too early in the pregnancy for an abortion during the first two appointments, but finally, yesterday, staff were able to detect a pregnancy on the sonogram. But Texas requires clinics to wait 24 hours after a sonogram to perform an abortion, so they sent her home.

She arrived at the clinic Friday morning, not long after the Supreme Court ruled. When staff told her the news, she was bereft — rocking back and forth, wailing, begging for the staff to help her.

“I just told her, you did everything right and we did everything that we could, but unfortunately, our hands are tied today,” clinic director Kristina Hernandez said.

Executive director Andrea Gallegos speaks with a few of her employees at Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services in San Antonio after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday. Credit: Kaylee Greenlee Beal for The Texas Tribune

Gallegos said it’s devastating to know just how easily they could have helped that patient.

“Sometimes it’s just a matter of handing somebody a pill, and for the surgical [abortion], it’s less than five minutes,” she said. “It’s fast, it’s easy, it’s safe, it’s done. It’s health care.”

Instead, they had to send her away.

After they cleared the waiting room, the staff turned to the stack of two dozen appointments scheduled for the rest of the day. They distributed the files, took deep breaths and started dialing.

They explained, again and again: No, you can’t get an abortion here anymore. No, you can’t reschedule. No, you can’t go to another clinic in Texas, or even Oklahoma, or a lot of other states. No, it doesn’t matter if you’re under six weeks. No, not even if you come in right now. No, this isn’t our fault. No, no, no, no.

They offered a list of out-of-state clinics and groups that help fund abortions and travel that they put together when Texas banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. They spent most of the day listening to the busy signals and voicemail boxes of clinics in New Mexico, where abortion will remain legal.

They make this effort because there is little else they can do. But they are well aware that many of their patients struggle to find babysitters for the duration of their appointments, let alone traveling out of state to get abortions.

And even if they can find babysitters, and get time off from work, and safely leave the state, Friday’s ruling is only going to make it harder for low-income Texans to access resources to pay for these journeys. Texas abortion funds have stopped paying for out-of-state travel and abortions until they can better assess the legal implications of their work.

Fear for the future

As the pandemonium of the morning subsided, something far worse settled over the clinic: silence. Staff sat around the check-in desk, filing paperwork and tidying up. Someone ordered pizza.

They listened in to televised press conferences, hoping to glean information about their own fates. They talked about where the fight might go from here, and some of the bigger battles they’ve had to wage over the years. They talked about what this meant for their daughters, and the patients they’d treated over the years, and those they would likely never get the chance to see.

A lot of the staff members have been working for the clinic for years. Hernandez was there with Braid when this location opened in 2015.

“This is what I’m good at. This is what I want to keep doing,” Kristina Hernandez says. Credit: Kaylee Greenlee Beal for The Texas Tribune

“This is my baby,” she said. “This is my life, right? This is what I’m good at. This is what I want to keep doing. I can’t do anything else. I mean, I can, but I don’t want to.”

When Hernandez thinks about all the patients she’s been able to help over the years, it’s overwhelming. She’s had women come up to her in H-E-B, years after she helped with their abortions, and give her hugs before disappearing into the aisles.

On days like this, she thinks a lot about a young woman she spent three hours having a theological discussion with before the woman ultimately decided to have an abortion, and her own sister, who decided not to.

The clinic plans to keep the doors open and the staff employed as long as it can. They’re holding on to hope that they may be able to squeeze in a few more patients before the trigger ban goes into effect.

And they’re still offering follow-up appointments for patients who had abortions recently — perhaps the final patients the clinic will ever get to treat.

A young woman showed up Friday afternoon for her follow-up appointment, with her 3-month-old in tow. She’s a single mom in her early 30s, raising four children already.

When she found out she was pregnant again, she decided she couldn’t responsibly raise another child. She’s already struggling financially, and she was trying to leave her boyfriend, who she said was physically abusive.

“I have to figure out who’s gonna watch my babies on the weekends so I can go to work, and it’s stressful,” she said. “So I’m not gonna bring another baby into this.”

She got the two-drug medication abortion regimen at the clinic earlier this week. It was an easy process, she said, and she was hugely relieved to hear that it had been successful.

But with four kids, if she’d been turned away, she said she wouldn’t have even tried to leave the state or find another way.

“It’s not worth all that effort,” she said. “I would have just kept it.”

Disclosure: H-E-B has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


Join us Sept. 22-24 in person in downtown Austin for The Texas Tribune Festival and experience 100+ conversation events featuring big names you know and others you should from the worlds of politics, public policy, the media and tech — all curated by The Texas Tribune’s award-winning journalists. Buy tickets.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/25/texas-abortion-san-antonio-supreme-court/.

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

You should be roasting your summer fruit

Roasting is one of the simplest forms of culinary alchemy. With just a little time and heat, produce can be radically transformed. Tomatoes slowly shrink and burst, their juices thickening into a sweet, acidic syrup. Broccoli loses its vegetal, sulfuric bitterness in favor of caramelized tenderness (the same goes for brussels sprouts). 

However, it wasn’t until I spoke with Institute of Culinary Education pastry and baking arts chef-instructor Penny Stankiewicz last year that I considered roasting fruit. We were discussing the finer points of strawberry shortcake — and while we both agreed that even a “bad” strawberry shortcake is still pretty darn good, there are ways to make it better. 

Related: An expert pastry chef deconstructs the perfect strawberry shortcake

You can read all her suggestions here, but one particular instruction stuck with me from last summer to now. To mimic the flavor of strawberry cobbler in a shortcake, Stankiewicz recommends roasting the strawberries rather than simmering them on the stovetop with water and sugar. 

“It’ll help some of the moisture evaporate out of the strawberry and concentrate those flavors,” she said. 

I followed her advice and roasted sliced strawberries that had been sprinkled with a little sugar inside a rimmed baking dish for 20 minutes at 250 degrees. When they emerged from the oven, they had, as Stankiewicz promised, an incredibly concentrated strawberry flavor underscored by toasted sugar notes. While I love a shortcake topped with fresh-sliced berries, this added a new level of complexity and nuance to an otherwise really simple dessert. 

Summer fruit especially shines when roasted. 

Cut plums and peaches into quarters, sprinkle them with brown sugar and leave them in the oven until you can easily pierce their flesh with a fork. Briefly douse pitted cherries or blueberries with a little bourbon or your favorite liqueur and let them roast until they pop and their juices become aromatic. Feel free to experiment with different sweeteners and flavorings. Roast your fruit along herbs like rosemary, basil, thyme, fresh ginger and lemongrass, or alongside spices like peppercorns, anise, cloves, fennel seeds and nutmeg.


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


Now, what to do with your roasted fruit? You have a lot of options. Spoon it over ice cream or your morning yogurt. Layer it in a parfait or trifle. Use it as a topping for spongy angel cake or the base of a savory-leaning fruit salad packed with briny cheese and nuts. Whatever you do, use it as an opportunity to marvel at how such a simple technique can radically transform ingredients we all think we fully know. 

Some of our favorite warm-weather recipes

Panera’s corn chowder recalled from supermarkets due to an undisclosed allergen

On Friday, Blount Fine Foods, a prepared foods and soup manufacturer based in McKinney, Texas, voluntarily recalled a limited amount of Panera at Home Southwest Corn Chowder over an undeclared wheat allergen, according to a company announcement posted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The product in question was only sold in refrigerated cases at the deli departments of select retail grocery stores and was not distributed in any known Panera Bread bakeries or cafés, the FDA stated. The specific grocery stores are also located in 12 states, which include California, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

RELATED: Jif recall spreads, impacting more than 20 companies that use the peanut butter in their products

At this time, no complaints or illnesses have been reported by consumers. The FDA, however, has warned individuals who have an allergy or a severe sensitivity to wheat to not consume the product as it can cause serious or life-threatening reactions.

The recall only concerns the 16 oz. Panera at Home Southwest Corn Chowder cups, which were produced with a lot code of “042122-2K” and a “Use By” date of 6/30/22.

No additional Blount Fine Foods products are currently being recalled. But back in 2021, the manufacturer issued a similar recall for approximately 6,384 pounds of Panera at Home Chicken Tortilla Soup, which may have been contaminated with pieces of gray nitrile glove.


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


The fully cooked, ready to eat soup was produced on July 1, 2021 and reportedly shipped to several retail locations in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, per a separate announcement released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

“The problem was discovered after the company notified FSIS that they received several consumer complaints reporting pieces of gray nitrile glove in the product,” the announcement outlined. “There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.”

More stories you might like:

Jan. 6 committee abruptly calls surprise Tuesday hearing, citing “recently obtained evidence”

The House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol unexpectedly announced Monday that it will be holding a public hearing Tuesday afternoon to “present recently obtained evidence and receive witness testimony.”

The congressional panel did not offer any details about the new evidence it will be unveiling Tuesday, which will mark the sixth hearing examining the Capitol attack and the central role that former President Donald Trump and his administration played in sparking the violence.

The committee’s announcement, which also didn’t reveal who is testifying, came less than a week after the panel said it would delay new hearings until July, citing the “deluge of new evidence” it has accumulated since the start of the proceedings earlier this month.

As the New York Times reported, the House panel is “planning at least two more hearings for July,” when committee members and witnesses are “expected to detail how a mob of violent extremists attacked the Capitol and how President Donald J. Trump did nothing to call off the violence for more than three hours.”

AOC unleashes anti-Republican Twitter blitz after Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tore into numerous Republicans this past weekend after the conservative-led Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established America’s constitutional right to abortion. 

The New York lawmaker launched her salvos on Friday at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who, on the day of the ruling, accused peaceful pro-choice protesters of leading an “insurrection” at the Capitol building. 

“I will explain this to you slowly: exercising our right to protest is not obstruction of Congress nor an attempt to overturn democracy,” Ocasio-Cortez told Greene over Twitter. “If one were a heinous enough person to do that, they’d likely seek a pardon for it too. But only one of us here has done that. And it ain’t me.”

Ocasio-Cortez was referring to recent findings by the House select committee that Greene allegedly sought a pardon from former President Donald Trump after the insurrection unfolded, which critics took as evidence that Greene herself had feared she helped incite the riot. 

RELATED: Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are sounding off their pardon woes on Twitter

The “Squad” member also threw shade at Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., all of whom voted to confirm conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh under the assumption that both judges would treat Roe as precedent. 


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


“We should hear from Senators Murkowski, Collins, and Manchin if they believe there should be any consequences at all for misleading members of the US Senate in order to secure a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “Otherwise Roe’s undoing is their legacy too.”

Most recently, the progressive lawmaker directed an attack on Sunday at J.D. Vance, the conservative venture capitalist running to represent Ohio in the U.S. Senate. Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe, Vance tweeted that “if your worldview tells you that it’s bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you’ve been had.”

In response, Ocasio-Cortez called Vance a “ding-dong who doesn’t seem to know the typical American seeking reproductive care is already a MOTHER, & who also thought fertility had to do with Daylight Savings become the next US Senator for Ohio.”

Back in November 2020, Vance was widely mocked after claiming “with confidence” that “daylight savings time reduces fertility by at least 10 percent.”

RELATED: “Hillbilly Elegy” author faces backlash over remarks connecting nationalism to fertility rate

“It’s not enough to tell people to vote”: Omar calls to investigate justices who “lied under oath”

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., on Sunday demanded that the U.S. House launch impeachment probes into right-wing Supreme Court justices as part of a broader plan to reform the nation’s chief judicial body following its decision to end the constitutional right to abortion.

Omar, the whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued that Justice Clarence Thomas should be investigated for his “role in the January 6th coup,” a reference to his wife Ginni’s close involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett should face congressional inquiries for potentially lying to lawmakers about their views on Roe v. Wade, the Minnesota Democrat added, echoing her progressive colleague Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

“Congress… has the authority to impeach members of the Supreme Court and has done so before,” Omar noted in a series of tweets on Sunday as much of the nation reeled from the far-reaching implications of the court’s decision Friday, which had an immediate impact across the country as people were turned away from abortion clinics.

Omar also pushed Democratic leaders to embrace longstanding progressive calls for the repeal of the Senate filibuster rule and support legislation that would add four justices to the Supreme Court—a proposal that President Joe Biden opposes.

“Congress can change the number of justices on the court at any time, and has done so seven times throughout history,” Omar wrote Sunday. “In the face of stolen seats, a sitting justice implicated in a coup attempt, and a dangerous crisis of legitimacy, it should absolutely be on the table.”

With Democratic campaign arms moving quickly to place abortion rights at the center of their midterm messaging, Omar implored her party’s leadership to recognize that “it is not enough to tell people to vote.”

“We need a comprehensive plan to fix this court,” Omar wrote. “And yes, we need you to demand your members of Congress support reform and vote for members who do. But we as leaders need to articulate a clear and bold reform agenda that meets the seriousness and danger of this moment. That is step #1.”

Clarence Thomas’ gun decision ensures that the next January 6 will be much deadlier

You have to hand it to Clarence and Ginni Thomas: Their marriage is an exemplar of spousal teamwork. Ginni Thomas worked hard on the inside game for Donald Trump’s coup: exchanging emails with Trump co-conspirator John Eastman, pressuring state legislators to throw out electors that President Joe Biden won and blitzing Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows with potential coup strategies. Meanwhile, her husband just handed the Trump’s volunteer street fighters, the sort of folks that stormed the Capitol on January 6, a Supreme Court decision that will make it much easier for them to arm themselves with heavy firepower in the future. 

The radical implications of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court struck down New York’s strict regulations on who can carry guns in public, are only starting to be understood. As Slate’s legal expert Mark Joseph Stern wrote, this decision doesn’t just strike down restrictions on concealed carry in some of the largest states in the country, it’s “a maximalist opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that renders most of the nation’s gun control laws presumptively unconstitutional.” The gun safety bill that President Joe Biden signed Friday is frustratingly limited in scope, but even its modest efforts to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people may not pass this new court test laid out by Thomas. 

RELATED: Supreme Court cites Buffalo mass shooting in decision striking down New York’s gun law

In threatening huge swaths of existing gun safety law, the Thomas decision also imperils the gun law that kept the Jan. 6 insurrection from being much deadlier than it already was. In doing so, Thomas opens the door for right-wing terrorists to plot more schemes and more violence in Washington D.C. and elsewhere — only this time with more firepower. 

Thomas made it very hard, if not impossible, for lower courts to uphold most gun restrictions, including bans on unlicensed carry

There were some folks who brought guns into the Capitol on January 6, but by and large, they didn’t. Even though groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers carefully planned the attack, the weapons they brought were mostly not firearms. They were bear spray, clubs, knives, that sort of thing. The melee led to the deaths of five people and injuries to over 100 Capitol Police officers, but it would have been significantly worse if the insurrectionists had mounted an gun-powered incursion. There would have been firefights with Capitol Police. The insurrectionists might have been able to get past police barriers. They may have even successfully reached members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence, whose murder they were openly braying for. 

None of that happened, however, and the reason is simple: Washington D.C.’s strict law banning most people from carrying arms in public. 


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


At first blush, that may not seem to make a lot of sense. Groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers came to town with the explicit intention to overthrow the election, which is a crime. So then why would a bunch of people planning a serious crime — many have been charged with seditious conspiracy — be worried about breaking more minor laws about carrying guns in public?

Again, the answer is simple: They didn’t bring guns because they were afraid of being arrested before they had a chance to riot. 

RELATED: Oath Keeper returned to Capitol on Jan. 7 for “recon” as group plotted weeks of battle: prosecutors

Oath Keeper text messages obtained by federal investigators demonstrate that the group’s leader, Stewart Rhodes, was deeply concerned about keeping his people out of jail before they had a chance to storm the Capitol. Rhodes warned them not to violate D.C.’s gun laws.

“DO NOT bring in anything that can get you arrested,” he texted. “Leave that outside D.C. THEY HAVE SEARCHED VEHICLES IN GARAGES. And four so far, to our knowledge, have been arrested.”

In the ensuing exchange, Rhodes and other Oath Keepers plot out what weapons they can smuggle in that are legal in D.C.: utility knives, collapsible batons, and heavy flashlights were recommended. And no doubt those weapons, as well as improvised ones such as bike racks and flagpoles, did serious damage to the police who defended the Capitol that day. But only one person was actually shot that day: Ashli Babbitt, an insurrectionist who was lawfully killed by an officer to prevent her from leading a charge of insurrectionists to chase down fleeing members of Congress. As the text messages from the Oath Keepers make clear, the only thing that kept insurrectionists from storming the Capitol with guns was the D.C. ban on carrying guns. Indeed, the group had a huge weapons cache stashed at a nearby hotel, right outside the city limits. As reported by Politico, “Three ‘quick reaction force’ teams set up at the hotel, prepared to ferry weapons into Washington to support the effort to prevent Congress from finalizing Biden’s victory.”


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


As Ian Millhiser of Vox explained, laws similar to the New York law “exist in five other states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — plus the District of Columbia.” In the short term, there won’t be a huge change, since carrying without a license is still illegal. But, as Stern notes, the writing is on the wall: Thomas made it very hard, if not impossible, for lower courts to uphold most gun restrictions, including bans on unlicensed carry. And, by writing this decision, Thomas has invited such future litigation, so there is likely to be a massive flood of lawsuits against all manner of gun laws now.

While the rest of us have to live in the increasingly violent society caused by loosening gun laws, Supreme Court justices get taxpayer-funded elite security protection. 

It’s not a coincidence that the justice who just made it a lot easier for right-wing terrorists to operate is married to one of the most prominent cheerleaders for Trump’s coup. It’s long been an article of faith on the right that the Second Amendment’s purpose was as some kind of check on government overreach, an especially ironic stance as they are the side that is currently installing the undemocratic tyranny they always claim to be armed against. It’s a claim that never made sense, as the the very first president, George Washington, put down an anti-tax rebellion. In reality, the Second Amendment was written mostly so that Southern states could swiftly put down slave rebellions

RELATED: Beyond Jan. 6: Trump’s mob violence is now the standard GOP model

Today’s gun nuts are more in line with their slave-owning predecessors than they are with the empty “freedom” rhetoric that they espouse. The insurrection and the Big Lie are all about enforcing white supremacy. Thomas likely knows this and doesn’t care, secure in the knowledge that his usefulness to the cause means he’s personally spared the racist abuse and violence that his wife’s beloved and ongoing coup is fomenting.  After all, while the rest of us have to live in the increasingly violent society caused by loosening gun laws, Supreme Court justices get taxpayer-funded elite security protection. 

Thomas is no idiot. He knows that right-wing groups across the country are arming themselves heavily and that, with Trump’s cheerleading, they intend to keep using violence to aid the very same anti-democratic efforts his wife Ginni is still engaged in. So Thomas’ radical anti-gun control opinion cannot be read in a vaccum. It should instead be seen as part of a larger push by the Thomases and their right-wing allies to destory democracy so that an authoriarian, paranoid, and well-armed minority can rule over the rest of us. 

Sotomayor rebukes SCOTUS for ignoring “decades” of precedent with school prayer ruling

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday accused her conservative colleagues of challenging “decades” of precedent surrounding the separation between church and state after the majority ruled in favor of a former Washington state high school football coach who repeatedly held post-game prayers with his team on the field. 

“Today’s decision goes beyond merely misreading the record,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent. “This decision does a disservice to schools and the young citizens they serve, as well as our Nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state.”

The decision, handed down by a 6-3 vote, had the court splintered along ideological lines, with all three liberals in dissent.

RELATED: Sotomayor dissent rips Supreme Court for dismantling “wall of separation between church and state”

In their concurring opinion, the court’s conservative wing argued that the football coach, Joseph Kennedy, had engaged in a form of private speech, protected by the First Amendment. As a result, the court ruled, the school district’s subsequent decision to prohibit Kennedy from praying violated the Constitution. 


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


“Both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Nor does a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”

At the center of the court’s discussion was whether Kennedy had the right to pray on the 50-yard line, which may have constituted a public display of religious faith. Throughout the court’s proceedings, Kennedy claimed that his post-game prayers were personal expressions of faith and that he did not expect or require students to follow along. However, the court’s liberal wing expressed doubt over whether his players might’ve felt coerced into joining him, largely due to his position as their authority figure.

RELATED: Separation of church and state? Let’s get real — that’s over. So what do we do now?

Last year, a federal appeals court sided with the school district, arguing that Kennedy’s narrative was “deceitful,” which Sotomoyaor echoed in her dissent. 

“The record reveals that Kennedy had a longstanding practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50- yard line of the football field,” she wrote. “Kennedy consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes in prayer at the same time and location. The Court ignores this history. The Court also ignores the severe disruption to school events caused by Kennedy’s conduct.”

Monday’s decision is just the latest in the court’s pattern of destroying the wall between church and state. 

Last week, the judiciary ruled 6-3 that taxpayer money – used by Maine legislators to finance the state’s tuition assistance program – could not be withheld from students attending religious schools. According to NPR, the decision effectively invalidated the policies of 37 different states preventing taxpayer funds from being directed to religious schools.

“I could have died”: Rudy Giuliani complains Fox News is burying his “assault” claims

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed on Monday that he could have “died” after a man slapped him on the back.

During an appearance on Real America’s Voice with Steve Bannon, Giuliani recalled the alleged assault by supermarket employee Daniel Gill.

“I’m OK. I mean, I’m in pain,” Giuliani told Bannon. “The guy knocked me forward two or three steps. Luckily, I didn’t fall.”

Giuliani said that he realized what was happening when the man who allegedly slapped him began yelling about abortion rights.

“He started yelling at me that I’m a woman killer,” he recalled. “We have to arrest him because we have got to make a point of this. These people can’t keep doing this. I mean, I’m 78, 79 — I don’t even remember.”

Giuliani suggested that he could have “died,” citing an uncle who passed away after falling down.

“The simple fact is they are violent and, basically, we’re not,” the former mayor opined. “That’s why Jan. 6 is such an aberration and why I have my own thoughts about Jan. 6.”

Bannon observed that he had not seen any coverage of Giuliani’s alleged attack on Fox News.

Giuliani complained that Fox News had instead reported on Lee Zeldin, who is challenging his son for New York governor.

“But the fact that the mayor of New York, one of the only two living ex-mayors of New York and probably, I’d say modestly, the most famous was assaulted is not even on Fox,” Giuliani said. “Even if Putin got assaulted it would be on Fox.”

Watch the video below from Real America’s Voice.

 

Republican candidate for Congress suggests pregnancy from rape is nearly impossible

A GOP congressional candidate running in Virginia expressed doubt last month around the possibility that a woman could get pregnant as a result of being raped, according to audio obtained by Axios.

Yesli Vega, who is running to unseat Rep. Abigail Spangerger, D-Va., downplayed the scenario during a campaign event in Stafford County, where she was reportedly asked to remark on the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. 

“The left will say, ‘Well what about in cases of rape or incest?'” she asked rhetorically. “I’m a law enforcement officer. I became a police officer in 2011. I’ve worked one case where as a result of a rape, the young woman became pregnant.”

An audience member then asked Vega, “I’ve actually heard that it’s harder for a woman to get pregnant if she’s been raped. Have you heard that?”

“Well, maybe because there’s so much going on in the body. I don’t know. I haven’t, you know, seen any studies. But if I’m processing what you’re saying, it wouldn’t surprise me,” Vega responded. “Because it’s not something that’s happening organically. You’re forcing it. The individual, the male, is doing it as quickly – it’s not like, you know – and so I can see why there is truth to that. It’s unfortunate.”


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


RELATED: Kentucky GOP overrides governor’s veto to ban abortions — even in cases of rape or incest

Asked about the exchange, Vega’s campaign did not deny her remarks.

“I’m a mother of two, I’m fully aware of how women get pregnant,” she told Axios. 

Vega’s remarks fall in line with a vaguely-held belief amongst some Republicans that pregnancies from rape are not possible. This myth was trotted out as early as 2012, when former Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., baselessly alleged that the bodies of women subjected to “legitimate rape” had a way to “shut the whole thing down.” 

At the time, Rolling Stone noted, supporters of Akin claimed that he had been misinformed by an article published by the National Right to Life Committee President Dr. John C. Willke, who wrote that rape can “radically upset” a woman’s “possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy,” making it less likely that she’d become pregnant. 

RELATED: Todd Akin: I only said “legitimate rape” because it’s an abbreviation and I’m a busy guy!

There is some evidence to suggest that extended periods of stress can negatively impact someone’s ability to become pregnant. However, there is no biological mechanism within the body to prevent pregnancy during individual instances of rape.

Trump’s Truth Social partners just got hit with grand jury subpoenas — and it could blow up merger

The special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) behind former President Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform has been hit with subpoenas by a federal grand jury.

As flagged by New York Times business reporter Matthew Goldstein, Digital World Acquisition said in a recent 8-K filing that earlier this month it “became aware that a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York has issued subpoenas to each member of Digital World’s board of directors.”

The filing went on to state that the subpoenas are seeking “requests relating to Digital World’s S-1 filings, communications with or about multiple individuals, and information regarding Rocket One Capital,” a Miami-based hedge fund.

The filing warns that these grand jury subpoenas “could materially delay, materially impede, or prevent the consummation” of the merger that’s needed to fund Truth Social.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating the Truth Social deal, with a particular focus on whether illegal negotiations occurred prior to Digital World Acquisition went public.

This is the first indication, however, that the investigation has potentially risen to a criminal level.

Colorado clerk charged with 10 voting crimes: Lauren Boebert “encouraged me” to breach voting system

A Colorado election clerk who was indicted on 10 criminal counts has said that Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., “encouraged” her to commit the alleged crimes.

In a report on Sunday, The New York Times recounted the “strange tale” of Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who has fueled right-wing conspiracy theories claiming the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

“Ms. Peters was indicted on 10 criminal counts related to the effort to copy voting equipment software, including attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, identity theft and first-degree official misconduct,” the report explained.

On Friday, Peters deflected blame to Boebert, according to the report.

She said Boebert “encouraged me to go forward with the imaging” of voting machines.

But the lawmaker’s spokesperson insisted that Peters’ claim was false.

Boebert has previously released a statement in support of Peters.

“Many of the constituents I represent have expressed concern about the ongoing investigation into Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters,” Boebert said in 2021. “As many of you know, I have been a vocal opponent of the overreach and targeted nature of the FBI’s activities on a national level.”

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

A new poll indicates that Republicans may be punished in the upcoming midterms for the Supreme Court’s overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 law that, until last Friday, enshrined America’s constitutional right to abortion. 

According to the poll, released by CBS News on Sunday, half of Democratic voters said last week’s ruling would make them more inclined to vote. Only 20% of Republicans could say the same. The gap may pose a significant hurdle for the GOP in riling up their base against liberal backlash. 

RELATED: Young women were the “foot soldiers” of the anti-abortion movement and “morally bankrupt” Trump

Republicans might also face electoral challenges from a wave of newly-activated independent voters, 63% of whom want abortion to be legal. Sunday’s poll reveals that 28% of independents said that the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe would make them more likely to cast a ballot. More broadly, most of America is not on the GOP’s side, just 31% of all U.S. voters feeling that the Supreme Court’s decision was a “step forward.”

Immediately after the ruling, Politico reported that Republican strategists are worried about how Roe’s rescission might impact the party’s midterm aspirants. Thus far, much of the GOP strategy has simply been to criticize and dismantle the Biden agenda, rather than enacting policies of their own.

“This is not a conversation we want to have,” Republican strategist John Thomas said of the abortion ruling. “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.”


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


“Everything was going our way. Gas is above $5. Inflation is a giant problem,” a former U.S. congressman echoed to Politico. “The only thing [Democrats] have got going for them is the Roe thing, which is what, 40 years of settled law that will be changed that will cause some societal consternation,” they added. “And can they turn that into some turnout? I think the answer is probably ‘Yes.'”

RELATED: Trump worries that abortion will haunt possible 2024 re-election

Still, the outlet reported, no Republican or Democratic experts speculated that the decision would altogether prevent the GOP from regaining the House. 

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who has taken credit for the ruling, is privately “sh*ting on” on it, according to Rolling Stone. “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, a source told the outlet. “I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are.” The New York Times similarly reported that the former president has been complaining about the decision since last week, calling it “bad for Republicans.

RELATED: Watch what Republicans say about Roe: GOP fear of backlash on abortion grows

Watch what Republicans say about Roe: GOP fear of backlash on abortion grows

I expected the right to celebrate their long-sought goal of forcing women to give birth against their will. After all, it has been their Holy Grail for the last 50 years. After decades of proselytizing that a zygote is more important than fully formed human beings, they have even recently succeeded in convincing Republican political leaders that it is decent and humane to force little girls who have been raped by their fathers to give birth to their own siblings. It is quite an accomplishment. So it stands to reason they’d pop the champagne, thrilled to have finally put women back in their place and looking forward to more hard-fought civil rights they can overturn.

But weirdly, I’m not seeing much joy in their victory.

Now such is often the case with the right-wing base. They tend to get angry when they win yet the other side doesn’t immediately apologize for ever having opposed them and proclaim themselves converts to the cause. (This is a very old dynamic in America.) But this time we’re seeing something a little different.

Yes, anti-choicers are angry at the protesters. One Republican candidate in Rhode Island, a police officer, even punched out his female opponent at a protest on Friday. But Republican officials mostly seem to be either rushing to avoid the subject or bending over backward to reassure everyone that their great victory isn’t going to change much of anything.

RELATED: Amid all the gloating, anti-abortion right dreams of bigger wins — and possible violence

Politico tried to chase down some GOP candidates in swing districts and they punted, saying it is no longer a federal issue. Nevada senatorial candidate Adam Laxalt issued a perfectly incoherent “having it both ways” statement in which he celebrated the “sanctity of life” and at the same time reassured his own voters they won’t have to observe it:

“The people of Nevada have already voted to make abortion rights legal in our state and the Court’s decision on Roe doesn’t change settled law and it won’t distract voters from unaffordable prices, rising crime or the border crisis.

Republicans have a problem on their hands with Roe overturned and they know it.

This attempt to divert attention from his anti-abortion zealotry in his pro-choice state is embarrassingly transparent. Yet none other than Sean Hannity spent his entire show on Friday explaining that the Supreme Court didn’t ban abortion after all:

[W]hile Democrats in the media mob predictably, are demagoguing and lying about this very ruling, we’ll give you the facts straight up, let you decide. Now, first, let us be very clear. This decision does not make abortion in America illegal. It does not. I know that. Implying that they’re saying it even, but it does not. Instead, individual voters, you will now decide abortion. 

Yes, he couldn’t be more fatuous. After all, in the states where abortion is now illegal, individual women voters will no longer be able to decide on abortion. It’s nonsensical. But the mere fact that he’s not doing celebratory cartwheels tells you they are very concerned that this is going to cause a dangerous backlash. In fact, Donald Trump is reportedly very nervous about this and had to be talked into taking a victory lap. (That’s got to be a first.)

RELATED: Supreme Court sets GOP up for midterm trouble

Trump’s top rival for the presidential nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is carefully testing the waters vaguely promising to “work to expand pro-life protections.” South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem believes that forcing girls who’ve been raped by a family member to give birth will make for stronger families (which says a lot about the “family values” she and her voters believe in) But she, like a number of other governors including DeSantis, also bathed themselves in unctuous sanctimony, assuring the nation they would ensure that all the women and girls who would be unable to get an abortion would be well taken care of with medical care and support for herself and her children.

One can’t help wondering why they didn’t provide all this help before? After all, many poor women have been having children for the entire time Roe was in effect, doing exactly what these people say they wanted them to do and Republicans didn’t lift a finger to help them. Did it not even occur to them over the past 50 years that if they helped poor women “choose life” it would show other women that they would be supported and their children would be cared for if they did the same? Apparently not. 

Donald Trump is reportedly very nervous about this and had to be talked into taking a victory lap. (That’s got to be a first.)

Instead, Republicans were stingy and mean throughout the entire last half-century, rejecting every program for maternal health and child welfare that anyone proposed. Even to this day in places like Noem’s South Dakota, where they refused the Medicaid expansion and even tried to stop the voters from putting the question on the ballot (which failed, luckily,  are miserly and selfishly denying even the most basic support for women and children. The idea that these right-wing extremists will suddenly adopt a generous welfare program for women and children is laughable. Recall this memorable moment during the Obamacare debates:

Republicans had a full-blown meltdown over the fact that the Democrats wanted to require maternity coverage in the Affordable Care Act, which they all voted against anyway. Then they tried to make maternity care “optional” for insurance companies for years afterward. They pushed to end the Children’s Health Insurance program for decades, along with pretty much every other child welfare program. Just this year they refused to extend the expanded child tax credit that lifted tens of millions of kids out of poverty. (Just don’t touch those tax cuts for the rich though. Those are sacred.) As we speak they’re even blocking money for the school lunch program.

The idea that anyone would trust these people to ensure that women and their children are supported now that abortion is illegal in their states is mind-boggling.

RELATED: What the anti-abortion movement wants next — and how we can respond

But it does raise the question as to why they are even promising to do it even after they’ve spent years decrying “welfare queens” and “dependency” and cruelly degrading poor families as dysfunctional and claiming that “unwed” motherhood is an example of “defining deviancy down.” So why suddenly are they all for a socialist welfare state?

This is just something they are saying at the moment to try to wriggle out of the jam they suddenly find themselves in with the Supreme Court delivering a huge win to the base and leaving them holding the bag: massive public disapproval and polls showing it is going to be a voting issue in the fall. That may not matter to candidates and incumbents in bright red districts but it could make a difference in statewide races and swing districts.

Republicans have a problem on their hands with Roe overturned and they know it. All you have to do is watch them stumble and dissimulate on television trying to persuade people they aren’t going to keep making life miserable for millions of women and their families. 

As I wrote when the opinion was first leaked, if Democrats don’t pin Republicans down on what further rights they intend to infringe and what specific plans they have in mind to mitigate the pain and suffering they are causing, it will be malpractice. The Republicans’ big win is an albatross around their necks.

RELATED: Texas Senator John Cornyn says “Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education”