Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

GOP already has a plot to undermine Biden’s presidential authority after the midterms

With Republicans believing they will reclaim both houses of Congress in the November midterms –with the House the most likely going from a Democratic majority to a GOP majority — the Washington Examiner is reporting that conservatives hope to make rule changes that will keep President Joe Biden from using a key presidential tool to effect change.

According to the Examiner’s Haisten Willis, Republicans are not only being encouraged to limit Biden’s ability to implement executive orders, but they are also getting help from the far-right lobbying group Heritage Action with proposed rule changes.

The day after Biden addressed executive orders in an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, telling the late-night host, “I have issued executive orders within the power of the presidency to be able to deal with everything having to do with guns, gun ownership… all of the things that are within my power. But what I don’t want to do, and I’m not being facetious, I don’t want to emulate Trump’s abuse of the constitution and constitutional authority,” the Examiner is reporting Republicans hope to derail any attempts he does make to use them.

The Examiner report states, “Biden has already attempted many unilateral actions through executive orders or executive branch agencies,” before adding, “In preparation for this and to fight current executive proposals, conservatives are sharpening their advocacy tools to make sure their voices are heard within the White House. Many of the proposed rule changes require a public comment process, during which they can be slowed down or even defeated by popular backlash.”

According to Heritage Action’s Executive Director Jessica Anderson, “What I hear so much while I’m on the road is: ‘What can we do to impact the Biden regime?’ There’s a lot of frustration where people feel like they’re calling a member of Congress and nothing happens because Republicans don’t have control.”

According to the Examiner’s Willis, demanding a pause for public comments has previously worked well for conservatives, with the report pointing out that “Heritage Action’s first big push came last summer when the Department of Education proposed plans to fund grants for programs based on critical race theory. Heritage pushed a toolkit and sent activists to the Federal Register. More than 35,000 public comments were sent in on the proposed rule ahead of the deadline, and the Education Department later walked back its plans.”

According to Anderson, “By us engaging more forcefully and strategically in their rulemaking process, we’ll be in the position to point out when the Biden administration is trying to circumvent and prevent Americans from weighing in.”

She then added, “We should have been doing this a long time ago.”

Elise Stefanik-backed Republican straight up praises Hitler: “The kind of leader we need today”

Carl Paladino, a New York Republican congressional candidate, took to the airwaves last year to praise Adolf Hitler’s leadership style, arguing that the Nazi dictator is “the kind of leader we need today.”

Paladino’s freshly unearthed remarks flagged by Media Matters came in an interview last February with WBEN, a radio station based in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. 

“I was thinking the other day about – somebody had mentioned on the radio Adolf Hitler and how he aroused the crowds,” Paladino said at the time. “And he would get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just – they were hypnotized by him. That’s, I guess, I guess that’s the kind of leader we need today. We need somebody inspirational.”

RELATED: How a town took on a racist billionaire politician and won

Hitler, who had a well-documented knack for enrapturing his followers during the German Reich, is responsible for carrying out the Holocaust, where roughly 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, were mass murdered in a racial and ethnic genocide. 


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


Paladino, whose campaign is backed by House Republican Conference chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., has over the years become notorious for making outlandish and inflammatory remarks.

In 2016, Paladino tweeted that then-New York Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Black woman, should be “lynched.”

“Lynch @LorettaLynch let the Grand Jury decide,” he wrote in a since-deleted tweeted. 

RELATED: This week in crazy: Carl Paladino

A year later, Paladino was forced out of his position on the Buffalo School Board over 2016 comments in which he stated that he’d like to see President Barack Obama die of mad cow disease as a result of fornicating with British cattle. Paladino also said that he wanted to see Michelle Obama, America’s first Black first lady, “return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.”

More recently, this year, the congressional candidate shared a Facebook post suggesting that the recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas were false flag affairs orchestrated by Democrats who want to “revoke the 2nd amendment and take away guns,” as Media Matters reported. There is no evidence that either shooting was staged.

Paladino initially claimed he could not remember sharing the post.

“I don’t even know how to post on Facebook,” he said, before admitting a day later that he shared the post because it was posted by a “friend.”

Paladino jumped into the race to represent New York’s 27th Congressional District after Rep. Chris Jacobs, R-N.Y., dropped out of the race just days after backing gun control in response to the Buffalo mass shooting.

“We have a problem in our country in terms of both our major parties. If you stray from a party position, you are annihilated,” Jacobs said. “For the Republicans, it became pretty apparent to me over the last week that that issue is gun control. Any gun control.”

After Jan. 6, can we stop pretending Republicans are the “law and order” party?

Much is still unknown about what the House select committee on the Jan. 6 insurrection will roll out Thursday night in the first of a series of summer hearings. Apparently the “no spoilers” culture that dominates Hollywood has made the leap to Capitol Hill. But the basic conclusion of the committee’s findings is coming into focus: What happened in that first week of 2021 was the product of a widespread criminal conspiracy that appears to have tendrils throughout the Republican Party and among thousands of Trump supporters. 

“We’ll demonstrate the multipronged effort to overturn a presidential election, how one strategy to subvert the election led to another, culminating in a violent attack on our democracy,” Rep. Adam Schiff of California, one of the Democrats on the committee, told the New York Times

RELATED: Sorry, Republicans, but there’s no way to acquit Trump without endorsing his insurrection

While the new evidence introduced in these hearings — or its compressed and dramatic presentation — will hopefully serve as a shock to the national system, reminding the public of the dangers of Donald Trump’s anti-democratic machinations, none of this will exactly be surprising. Trump has never taken great pains to hide his criminal intentions. He seems annoyed that his lawyers won’t let him brag more loudly about what he did, and what he continues to do in his ongoing effort to undermine democracy. Nor is it surprising to find out that the twice-impeached ex-president had a lot of help, and not just from shady characters like Rudy Giuliani and the Proud Boys. Nearly all elected Republicans swung into action in the days after the insurrection in order to prevent Trump from facing any legal accountability for inciting the riot, first by voting against impeachment and then by trying to obstruct the formation of the Jan. 6 committee

The committee has already produced evidence of the more traditional kind of conspiracy, and likely will produce more. That involves a lot of secret plotting by Trump and his allies to illegally overturn Joe Biden’s presidential win. But perhaps even more chilling is the much more widespread effort of the GOP to shield Trump from consequences and pave the way for him to steal the 2024 election. It turns out that most Republicans didn’t even need to be explicitly recruited to the insurrectionist plot. Not only are they fine with criminal and fascist conspiracies, they instinctively swing into action to do whatever they can to help, without even being asked. 


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


Yet somehow Republicans still benefit from a media environment that paints them as the “law and order” party. In response to a couple of anomalous election results in California this week, we’ve seen the mainstream media running like terrified sheep toward the right-wing narrative that pits Republicans, supposedly the “law and order” party, against Democrats, who supposedly want to “defund the police” and allow violent criminals to walk free. Every bit of this is a lie, of course. For one thing, Democratic-run cities actually tend to spend more on policing than do Republican-run cities. For another, murder rates are higher in red states than blue states. Oh yeah, and in response to mass shootings, it’s Democrats who push to make it harder for killers to arm themselves, while Republicans fight to make sure that gun sales remain completely unrestricted.

But this narrative gets even dumber in the shadow of Jan. 6, when thousands of Republicans, at the behest of the party’s figurehead, stormed the seat of our federal government in a violent assault aimed at overturning an election. Thursday night, the nation will be exposed to another round of photos and videos of the Republican mob beating up cops, storming the halls of Congress and demanding the blood of elected representatives who wouldn’t submit to the election-stealing scheme.

RELATED: Memo to the media: It’s GOP policies — not liberal prosecutors — that are driving crime

If those folks were genuinely outliers in an otherwise non-seditious conservative party, that would be one thing. But nearly all Republican leaders and the entire right-wing media apparatus have collaborated to try to prevent an accounting of what happened, much less any effort to stop it from happening again. They aren’t even ashamed of their efforts to aid and abet this ongoing conspiracy against democracy. They brag to reporters about how they intend to run “counterprogramming” to the committee hearings, in an attempt to muddy the waters. Most Republican voters are fully on board, viewing the Jan. 6 rioters not as criminal insurrectionists but as “patriots.” From the very top of GOP leadership to the everyday Republican Joe, these people are not about “law and order.” Instead, they believe almost any level of crime is justified to get what they want. 

Even after a full-on violent insurrection, Republicans somehow benefit from the idiotic media narrative that they’re the “law and order” party

This attitude isn’t limited to the insurrection, of course. Trump is a loud-and-proud sexual predator and a shameless fraud. His “crime is good when I do it” attitude only makes his followers love him more. The criminality and corruption is chronic in the GOP. Just this week we’ve had reports that Rep. Lauren Boebert is under investigation for potential fraud, more evidence of Trump’s corruption and graft in the White House, and multiple reports about Michigan Republicans attempting to hack voting machines. Indeed, one of the biggest obstacles to holding Republicans accountable for criminal and corrupt activity is that their awful behavior is so relentless that it starts to feel inevitable, like the weather. That’s how Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is getting away with taking what looks very much like taking a $2 billion bribe from Saudi royals to help cover up a murder. The response to that outrage has largely been a “What do you expect?” shrug. Asking Republicans to avoid corrupt conspiracies feels like asking them not to breathe. 


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


On Tuesday, a biomedical researcher and self-identified “former Republican who is now a consistent Democratic voter” named Ethan Gray posted a perceptive Twitter thread that went viral. As he argued, Republicans aren’t hypocrites on the issue of “freedom.” “When Republicans talk about valuing ‘freedom’, they’re speaking of it in the sense that only people like them should ultimately possess it,” Gray wrote. All other people — people of color, women, LGBTQ people — are viewed as subjects who exist to be controlled by the privileged class. That’s how, as he pointed out, the same people who claim the “freedom” to reject basic pandemic mitigation measures also think it’s acceptable to force childbirth on others. The organizing belief of Republicanism, as Gray explained, is that they “can tell people what to do” but “can’t be told what to do.”  

It’s a variation of a 2018 comment by Frank Wilhoit at the blog Crooked Timber, which also went viral: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

RELATED: Cheater in chief: Donald Trump thinks playing by the rules is for losers

This attitude is most clearly visible when it comes to crime and corruption. For Republicans, “crime” is only something that other people do. When they do it, it’s legal. They become completely unhinged at a relatively small amount of vandalism committed by Black Lives Matter protesters. But an overt and violent attempt to overthrow democracy, to them, is a valid and even honorable action. A few accidental and irrelevant violations of email protocols by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state was a five-alarm scandal. But for Republicans, “executive privilege” became a blank check allowing Trump to commit any crime he desired. 

None of this is really new. Like Trump, Richard Nixon was elected on a “law and order” message amid the chaotic political violence of 1968. He was forced to resign in disgrace six years later, after the criminal operation he was running out of the White House was exposed during the Watergate hearings. Yet the media, then and now and for all the years in between, has continued to let Republicans brand themselves as a straitlaced anti-crime party. This presumption that “crime” is only crime when other people do it — mostly meaning people of color, but also leftists and liberals — led directly to Trump’s election. The Jan. 6 committee hearings offer the media a great chance to right the ship and start portraying Republicans as the criminal gang they actually are. Failing to get this right, however, could allow that criminal gang to recapture the White House in 2024. 

Audio: Republican confronted Lauren Boebert for “telling the attackers where we’re at” on Jan. 6

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., was confronted by one of her Republican colleagues for live-tweeting the locations of various House lawmakers as the Capitol riot unfolded, according to audio tapes obtained by CNN. 

The tape was part of a trove of audio clips released by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns as part of research compiled for their forthcoming book “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future.”

The exchange reportedly played out during an internal conversation on January 11 between Boebert and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., who asked the freshman firebrand point blank, “Is it true that you were live-tweeting from the floor our location the people on the outside as we were being attacked, Lauren?”

“Umm, yes,” Boebert responded. “Those tweets did go out and that was something that was live and public information. It was broadcast live.”

“So don’t ask us about security if you’re telling the attackers where we’re at,” Beutler shot back.

“So, that was something being broadcast live from C-SPAN, and once we were on move, there was absolutely nothing else that was broadcast,” Boebert insisted. 


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


RELATED: Why did Lauren Boebert lead a late-night Capitol tour three weeks before Jan. 6?

According to Rolling Stone, Boebert was in contact with several organizers of the “Stop the Steal” protests days prior to the insurrection. Boebert also led a late-night Capitol tour three weeks ahead of the event in apparent violation of Capitol procedures, as Salon reported last August.

Boebert’s tiff with Beutler wasn’t the only exchange archived by Martin and Burns from January 11. That day, GOP lawmakers also heard from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who sang a startlingly different tune from recent months about the need for a federal inquiry into the insurrection. 

“We cannot just sweep this under the rug. We need to know why it happened, who did it and people need to be held accountable for it,” he said. “And I’m committed to make sure that happens.”

Since then, the top Republican repeatedly attempted to discredit the January 6 committee and torpedoed plans to ensure that its composition was bipartisan. 

RELATED: Kevin McCarthy caught on tape: Trump won’t forgive him this time

Meanwhile, Martin and Burns obtained audio footage of Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., warning lawmakers of the need to shore up security ahead of January 6. 

“I also ask leadership to come up with a safety plan for members, I’m actually very concerned about this, because we have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here,” Lesko said the day before the attack, according to CNN. “We have Antifa. We also have, quite honestly Trump supporters, who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election. And when that doesn’t happen – most likely, will not happen – they are going to go nuts.”

Lesko reportedly attended a White House meeting with several pro-Trump lawmakers months earlier to strategize how the 2020 election could be overturned in Donald Trump’s favor.

“The place sounds like it’s imploding”: SCOTUS insiders spill more dirt as court hunts for leaker

In early May, a Supreme Court majority draft opinion on abortion was leaked to Politico revealing that the court is likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, the watershed 1973 ruling enshrining the constitutional right to abortion. Justices on the court immediately condemned the leak, calling it a grave breach of trust. Chief Justice John Roberts quickly launched an investigation into the matter, promising to hold the leaker accountable. 

However, one month later, the investigation has not identified any suspects and the court’s integrity is growing weaker by the day, according to NPR.

RELATED: Leaked majority opinion says Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade 

One source told the outlet that “the place sounds like it’s imploding.”

Another said, “I don’t know how on earth the court is going to finish up its work this term.”

Last month, Justice Clarence Thomas said in a speech that the institution has changed “fundamentally” since the leak.

“You begin to look over your shoulder,” he added. “It’s kind of an infidelity that you can explain it but you can’t undo it.” 


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


At this juncture, it’s unclear what, if any, progress has been made by the court in identifying the leaker. The investigation is currently being led by Supreme Court Marshal Gail A. Curley, who, as NPR notes, has no apparent experience as an investigator. 

Several insiders told the outlet that the inquiry’s latest developments have been “nightmares,” in part because they’ve only added to the atmosphere of distrust between colleagues.  

For one, the inquiry’s full scope is likely to be ill-defined, said Glenn Fine, a former inspector general for the Justice Department and then the Defense Department. Fine, who has conducted similar investigations in the past, said that initially “we would be told that … only a few people had access to the material that had been leaked. Only a few individuals were at the key meeting or worked on the document.”

However, as his probes deepened, he added, the number of potential suspects broadened “exponentially” to “additional co-workers, office staff, computer administrative staff, family and friends of those working on the matter, even people who passed through the office.”

RELATED: Supreme Court reportedly cracking down on clerks’ cell phones as leak investigation continues

Late last month, CNN reported that clerks are taking steps to retain legal protection as part of the court’s inquiry. Investigators are also reportedly considering asking clerks to hand over the cell phones and sign written affidavits pledging their innocence. But according to NPR, such seizures might contravene the Supreme Court’s own 2014 ruling that law enforcement cannot execute searches of cellphones without an official warrant.

Pro-Trump Michigan GOP candidate for governor who marched on Capitol on Jan. 6 arrested in FBI raid

Ryan Kelley, a pro-Trump candidate for governor in Michigan, has been arrested by the FBI following a Thursday morning raid on his house, reports Crain’s Detroit.

It is not immediately clear what charges have been filed against Kelley, whom polls show was leading in the primary to be the Michigan Republican Party’s candidate for governor.

Charges are expected to be filed in court on Thursday afternoon.

As The Detroit News reports, Kelley has a long history of promoting false conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being “stolen” from former President Donald Trump.

In the past, Kelley even went so far as to encourage his supporters to unplug voting machines at polling places if “you see something you don’t like happening with the machine.”

The paper also reports that video from January 6th, 2021 appears to show Kelley yelling, “This is war, baby!” as he marched toward the Capitol in the wake of Trump’s speech at the “Stop the Steal” rally.

They’re “trying to make me look stupid”: Georgia GOPer won’t concede, cries fraud after winning 3.4%

In Georgia’s 2022 GOP gubernatorial primary, one of the candidates was even more extreme than former Sen. David Perdue: Christian nationalist and far-right conspiracy theorist Kandiss Taylor, whose campaign theme was “Jesus, guns and babies.” Taylor campaigned on ridding Georgia’s government of Satanic influence, winning only 3.4 percent of the vote when the primary was held on May 24. But Taylor, in true MAGA fashion, is claiming that the election results are false — and in order to prove it, she is asking Georgia residents to sign notarized affidavits saying that they voted for her.

The primary was a humiliation for former President Donald Trump and a colossal victory for incumbent Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who defeated Perdue by 52 percent. Perdue, endorsed by Trump, campaigned on the Big Lie, falsely claiming that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and slamming Kemp for acknowledging that now-President Joe Biden legitimately won in Georgia.

But after his loss, Perdue wasted no time congratulating Kemp — and he is now urging Georgia Republicans to vote for the conservative Georgia governor, who is competing with Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams in the general election. Kemp narrowly defeated Abrams in Georgia’s gubernatorial election of 2018.

At least Perdue won 21 percent of the vote compared to only 3.4 percent for Taylor. Regardless, Taylor has refused to concede and is claiming that she really won a lot more votes. In a video, Taylor tells her supporters, “I need you to do an affidavit and say that you voted for her, because she’s standing up to the establishment — and we’re going to prove that she got hundreds of thousands of votes because we know she did.”

According to the Associated Press, Kemp had received at least 885,551 votes in the primary after 99 percent of the vote had been counted — compared to 261,706 for Perdue and 41,109 for Taylor, who is insisting that those numbers are false and that she is a victim of election fraud.

“They actually were trying to make me look stupid,” Taylor says in the video. “And it’s going to come back to bite them because we’re going to have way more than that in affidavits to show that we have more votes than that…. (God) will outsmart crooks every single time. This is His idea.”

In another post-election video, Taylor declared, “I do not concede. I do not. And if the people who did this and cheated are watching, I do not concede. And the people of Georgia will not allow me to…. I want you to feel, inside of your gut, a righteous anger for justice. I want you to pray specifically for dark to be brought to light, for justice for the state of Georgia. And anyone who has helped contribute to this crime, to this travesty…. I want you to pray that they feel so guilty, they come forward.”

Taylor’s campaign was endorsed by MAGA conspiracy theorists who include MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and QAnon supporter Lauren Witzke, the Delaware Republican who suffered a landslide defeat when she ran against Democratic Sen. Chris Coons in 2020.

GOP tries to undermine Jan. 6 hearings before they even begin with claims of “altered evidence”

The House GOP is already mounting a counter-programming campaign designed to undermine the credibility of the January 6 hearings, even before they’ve begun. 

On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, accused the panel investigating the Capitol riot of “altering evidence and lying to the American people about it.”

“The goal has been stated,” he continued. “Their goal is to end the Electoral College and their goal is to stop President Trump from running in 2024.”

Jordan did not explain which evidence has allegedly been tampered with or how such tampering might inform the proceedings.

According to Axios, Rep. Jamie Raksin, D-Md., a member of the committee, has expressed a desire to scrap the Electoral College, deeming it an undemocratic institution that could allow for elections to be subverted, just as former President Donald Trump attempted after the 2020 presidential election. However, it is not apparent that the rest of the committee is on board with this plan. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., has pushed back on Democratic proposals, according to the report. 

RELATED: Jan. 6 committee finally takes the spotlight — hey, it’s only America’s future at stake

House Republicans have also questioned the panel’s relationship with former ABC News President James Goldston, a documentarian who, according to Axios, has “joined the committee as an unannounced adviser.”

Goldston is reportedly advising the committee on how to compellingly present footage of the Capital insurrection, when thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building on January 6 to prevent Congress from certifying Trump’s loss over false allegations of voter fraud.

But in a letter on Wednesday, a group of conservative lawmakers claimed that the Committee on House Administration had not been made privy to Goldston’s hiring, according to ABC News. 


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


“To our knowledge, the Committee has not received or considered such a request,” they wrote. “Such an arrangement would violate House Rules and the House Ethics Manual regulations which clearly states that ‘no logical distinction can be drawn between the private contribution of in-kind services and the private contribution of money.'”

It remains unclear precisely what exhibits will be shown and what questions will be asked in the first hearing. However, Republicans are already criticizing the committee’s first witness, documentarian Nick Quested, who filmed the Proud Boys in the days leading up to the riot, according to CBS News.

“Their first witness is the documentarian,” Jordan said this week. “So that sort of tells you how political this thing is.”

Perhaps the most shocking attempt at counter-programming this week came from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who suggested that Raskin’s judgment is clouded due to the suicide of his son.

“When people encounter trauma, they often associate a lot of the other things around that trauma with it, even if they don’t naturally or even rationally associate,” Gaetz said on a podcast with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. “And what I worry about for the Congress and for Jamie Raskin, you know, no one would ever want to lose a child, particularly to suicide.”

Raskin’s son, Thomas, died by suicide just days before the insurrection.

RELATED: Matt Gaetz and MTG say Jamie Raskin unfit due to son’s suicide

Colorado investigates fraud complaint accusing Lauren Boebert of illegally using “ill-gotten funds”

Colorado officials are investigating whether Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., violated laws by reimbursing herself more than $22,000 from her campaign before paying off $20,000 in state tax liens.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser’s office told The Denver Post on Wednesday that it referred a complaint accusing Boebert of fraud to “appropriate agencies to evaluate the allegations and whether any legal actions are justified.”

The Denver Post reported in February 2021 that Boebert paid herself more than $22,000 in mileage reimbursements, sparking questions from campaign finance watchdogs. Candidates for federal office can reimburse themselves up to 57.5 cents per mile, meaning Boebert would have had to drive more than 38,000 miles — far more than the entire circumference of Earth — despite attending few publicly advertised events amid the pandemic.

American Muckrakers PAC, a group that recently helped spread embarrassing photos and videos of Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., before his primary defeat, filed a complaint to Weiser earlier this month.

RELATED: “This is super illegal”: Lauren Boebert used campaign cash to pay her rent, FEC filing shows

Deputy Attorney General Janet Drake told David Wheeler, the group’s president, that the department would work with the Colorado Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and Employment “to investigate the issue,” according to The New York Times.

“Colorado deserves more than an irresponsible, loudmouth member of Congress,” Wheeler told the outlet. “Maybe it’s time for Boebert to look for another line of work.”

Boebert, the owner of Shooters Grill, faced eight tax liens from the Department of Labor and Employment totaling about $20,000 between 2016 and 2020 for failing to pay unemployment premiums. In late 2020, Boebert reimbursed herself for the mileage and paid off the liens.

“As you are both fully aware, utilizing an illegal source of funds or ill-gotten funds to pay off a tax lien is illegal in Colorado and under federal law,” the group said in its complaint to the attorney general, calling it the “very definition of ill-gotten funds.”

Boebert dismissed the allegation.

“This is another swing and miss from a partisan political group,” she said in a statement on Wednesday. “I represent over 50,000 square miles of Colorado; I connect with the people I serve rather than sitting at home in a basement like most Leftists.”

Her aides told The Times that Boebert had accounted for the mileage she reported and the campaign revised the initial total after coming under scrutiny, adding that other reimbursable travel expenses like hotel costs were combined with the mileage. The aides also said that Boebert paid off the tax liens before the reimbursement hit her bank account.

Colorado Public Radio last year tracked 129 public campaign events by Boebert’s campaign, generously estimating that even with round-trip drives the mileage total was at least 9,000 less than the nearly 39,000 miles she claimed.

Boebert’s campaign revised its claims to say that the reimbursements included other travel costs but still listed $17,280 in mileage reimbursements.


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


Boebert has faced several complaints to the Federal Election Commission but the agency has been gripped by hopeless partisan gridlock. An attorney for the House Ethics Committee declined to tell the Times whether it was investigating the matter.

But American Muckrakers has been effective in getting its foes in hot water, prompting a House Ethics Committee investigation into whether Cawthorn had an improper relationship with a staff member he is related to and whether he improperly boosted a cryptocurrency he failed to disclose his financial interest in.

“This is not an attack on Lauren Boebert,” Wheeler told The Times. “Had Representative Boebert paid her restaurant staff properly and also paid the unemployment premiums to the State of Colorado, an investigation never would have been necessary.”

Read more:

The emptiness of Republicans’ new climate strategy

On Thursday, a group of 17 Republicans did something slightly unusual for conservative Congressional representatives: They introduced a climate plan.

“Climate plan,” at least, is one way of putting it. The strategy calls for increasing domestic production of all energy sources (including fossil fuels), streamlining the permitting process for new energy projects, increasing liquefied natural gas terminals, and ramping up the mining of rare-earth minerals such as lithium in the United States. It does not contain limits on fossil fuel emissions — or other significant ways to keep global warming in check. 

The plan is the result of an energy, climate, and conservation task force assembled by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy last year, and is intended to serve as a roadmap for Republican action should the party take control of Congress in the midterm elections in November. Its release now is timed so that Republican representatives can campaign on the plan’s six pillars – “Unlock American Resources,” “Let America Build,” “American Innovation,” “Beat China and Russia,” “Conservation with a Purpose,” and “Build Resilient Communities.” 

Research has shown that younger members of the GOP are much more concerned about climate change than their older counterparts. According to a Pew Research poll from 2020, 43 percent of millennial or Gen Z Republican voters – those between the ages of 18 to 41 – believe that climate change is having “at least some” effect on their local community, compared to only 33 percent of baby boomer Republicans, those over the age of 58. Meanwhile, 79 percent of young Republicans say the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy sources, like wind and solar, compared to 55 percent of boomer Republicans. And the number of groups for conservatives engaged on climate change — such as the limited-government, free-market environmental advocacy organization American Conservation Coalition — is growing in Washington, D.C. 

In response, Republicans like McCarthy (who would become Speaker if Republicans take back control of the House), have begun to strategize how to attract members of their party to conservative-friendly climate plans. In February of 2020, McCarthy and several of his Congressional allies released four bills to counter progressive calls for a Green New Deal, including “The Trillion Trees Act” and legislation to support the development of carbon capture and storage. 

But it’s unclear how much these Republican strategies will appeal to the truly climate-concerned. The new plan from the task force includes no emissions targets; it also lacks any limits on the use of fossil fuels, such as the once-popular carbon tax. And, according to statements that task force chair Representative Garrett Graves of Louisiana made to Politico, the task force also disapproves of clean energy tax credits that could shift the U.S. power sector toward wind, solar, and other zero-carbon sources. Graves said that sustainability could be achieved “through R&D partnering with innovators.” 

The likelihood that such an “all of the above” strategy would provide significant emissions cuts is almost nil. “On its face this doesn’t appear to be a serious proposal,” Representative Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, told the Washington Post. “I understand that my Republican colleagues love fossil fuel production, but it simply isn’t genuine or helpful to call that a climate change strategy.”

But with the midterms approaching — and Senate Democrats no closer to a deal on their landmark climate spending package — Republicans may just need a plan to discuss on the campaign trail. 

Trump dances for the NRA: America’s emotional health is critical and getting worse

Sick societies produce sick leaders. Donald Trump’s presidency and its aftermath offer perhaps the clearest examples of that fact in recent history. Trumpism, the contemporary Republican Party and “conservative” movement in America seem like a distillation of the worst aspects of human nature in general and American society in particular.

Yet despite an abundance of evidence, America’s political elites remain largely in denial about the human, political, social and moral disaster of the Age of Trump and beyond. For the most part, they remain deeply invested in an obsolescent system that is teetering on collapse. Similarly, America’s mainstream news media refuses to consistently report on or properly explain the many crises facing the country. As a class, its leading practitioners are also invested in a failing system and its fading myths about “normal” politics and inherent American goodness.

Moreover, to consistently and accurately tell the truth about America’s democracy crisis and the country’s other great problems would require the media would be forced to indict itself for the role it played in nurturing and normalizing Trump’s rise to power and then his presidency.

RELATED: How many people died because Trump mocked mask-wearing? We’ll never know

Most Americans, and especially most white Americans, have responded to the Trump era by embracing outright delusions and learned helplessness. Neither will save them. This is not a fantasy, and no superhero will appear at just the right moment to provide a happy ending.

Here are three examples of the sickness afflicting American society in this moment.

Just days after 19 children and two of their teachers were killed in the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the NRA held its national convention in Houston, a few hours’ drive to the east. Donald Trump was, of course, one of the event’s featured guests. Early in his speech, Trump read out the names of those killed in Uvalde, in awkward tones of mock-solemnity, while a gong was sounded. A few minutes later, he ended his address in a jovial mood, laboriously performing a few dance steps with his fists clenched.

Although some liberal commentators expressed outrage on Twitter over this display, Trump was not denounced or condemned by the audience, the NRA leadership, fellow Republicans or Fox News. For the most part, mainstream media entirely ignored this grotesque spectacle.

A vendor at the NRA convention sold expensive handguns designed to “commemorate” Trump’s MAGA rallies. They are engraved with an image of Trump and the slogan “Let’s Go Brandon,” a thinly-veiled code for “Fuck Joe Biden.” This is part of a larger pattern of both right-wing stochastic terrorism and explicit threats of violence against Democrats and other targeted groups.

It was recently reported that on Jan. 5, 2021, one day before the Capitol attack and attempted coup, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff alerted the head of Pence’s Secret Service detail that Trump was likely to denounce Pence, potentially endangering his safety. In effect and almost explicitly, Trump was targeting Pence for violence as punishment for his refusal to embrace the coup attempt.


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


Multiple sources have suggested that Trump was gleeful and excited as he watched his followers overrun the Capitol building on Jan. 6, with the apparent aim of hunting down Pence and perhaps murdering him. The New York Times recently reported that Trump told White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6 that perhaps Pence should indeed be hanged for not cooperating with the plot to nullify the 2020 election.

In a healthy society, reports that the president hoped his own vice president would be hanged might provoke widespread concern or alarm. This is not that kind of society.

In a healthy American society these events would be the cause of great concern. But today’s America is not such a place. As such, these “revelations” have mostly been ignored and then consigned to the memory hole by the guardians and gatekeepers of approved public discourse, who cling to corrupt standards of “balance” and “fairness.”

Those are certainly not the only recent developments that would be widely discussed, in tones of alarm, in a more robust democracy. A few weeks ago, a man named Ian Rogers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to destroy a building by fire or explosives, as well as a number of other serious charges. Rogers was one of two men who planned to bomb the Democratic Party’s headquarters in Sacramento, California, shortly after the 2020 election, as revenge against Biden’s victory and in hopes of sparking a “movement” to overthrow the government.

It is now a matter of public record that right-wing paramilitaries and other street thugs played an integral role in the Trump cabal’s coup plot. On Monday, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, and several of his associates were indicted on charges of seditious conspiracy in connection with the events of Jan. 6. That follows the January indictments of Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and 10 of his followers on similar charges

Across the country, the Republican Party and its operatives are refining and expanding their coup against American democracy with plans to sabotage or rig future elections at all levels of government. Sometimes these plans are outright illegal, as with the fraudulent Trump electors, and sometimes they take advantage of anachronistic loopholes in election law, as with the possible nullification of election results by Republican-controlled state legislatures.

Knowledge is power. Here are three concepts and frameworks that should be invaluable for those Americans who want to see and understand this national sickness more clearly.

America now suffers from what psychologists and other experts have described as a state of “malignant normality”. 

Psychologist John Gartner has explained this condition as emerging after “a malignantly narcissistic leader takes control of society and gradually changes reality for everyone else. So their crazy internal reality becomes enacted in the lived true external reality of that society. This is how a leader can come in and change the mores of their society.”

The Age of Trump has also further transformed America into a pathocracy. In a 2019 essay for Psychology Today, Steve Taylor explained this concept as developed by Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski, who spent his early life under Nazi occupation, closely followed by Soviet occupation. For Lobaczewski, “pathocracy” was “when individuals with personality disorders (particularly psychopathy) occupy positions of power.” Pathological leaders, he argued, hate democracy, and when they attain power “do their utmost to dismantle or discredit democratic institutions, including the freedom and legitimacy of the press.” That was what Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Viktor Orbán did in their respective nations, Taylor observes, and what Trump attempted to do in the United States:

Moreover, pathological leaders are completely unable to comprehend the principles of democracy, since they regard themselves as superior, and see life as a competitive struggle in which the most ruthless deserve to dominate others.

But pathocracy isn’t just about individuals. As Lobaczewsk pointed out, pathological leaders always attract other people with personality disorders, who seize the opportunity to gain influence. At the same time, individuals who are moral, empathic and fair-minded gradually fall away. They are either ostracized or step aside voluntarily, appalled by the growing pathology around them. As a result, over time pathocracies tend to become entrenched and extreme.

Donald Trump, the Republican-fascists, the larger white right and those individuals and groups that have either tacitly or actively aided them have normalized political deviance in America. That was a precondition for the destruction of America’s multiracial democracy and the reshaping of American society, which is clearly the goal of their movement.

Trump and his movement have normalized political deviance in America. That was a necessary precondition for the destruction of democracy.

There is great reluctance among America’s political elites and other influential mainstream figures to use moral language when describing Trump, his movement or his followers. In fact, mainstream reporters and journalists are explicitly trained and instructed to avoid explicit and direct moral condemnation when explaining domestic political matters.

Such pointless and destructive prohibitions do not change the fact that fascism and other forms of authoritarianism are evil, and this includes Trumpism and today’s Republican Party. By refusing to use the power of moral appeals, mainstream political leaders and public voices have surrendered one of their most important weapon in the war against fascism and the global right.    

In her 2016 essay “The Pivoting: On Narcissistic Collusion or How Evil ‘Just Happens’,” psychotherapist Elizabeth Mika offered important insights about the necessity of explicitly naming and confronting evil in a time of grave moral crisis: 

The abusive political power structures, those that restrict our freedom and use us as tools of evil while trying to convince us to the contrary, depend on the creation of obedient citizens who are used to not questioning the superiors from an early age, and who have substituted their own thoughts with pre-packaged beliefs. It helps if those beliefs include those about our own specialness because this justifies any and all things we want to do to others.

Because if we are special — better — then they are worse, often not quite human, not in the way we are; and it becomes our right to do to them as we wish or, in our superior judgment, deem necessary (and, to be sure, there usually is no difference between the two). That’s how evil happens, so naturally, imperceptibly, as just another necessity of life as we know it — something we are justified in doing by virtue of our narcissistic belief in our superiority and righteousness; or something we “just” comply with through our narcissistic blindness and the collusion it engenders with an admired authority, which make evil, the one we do or participate in, invisible to us.

If we still retain a functioning conscience, however, the collusion and blindness are never perfect for long, as our conscience insists on being heard. It does so by creating discomfort, doubts, and inner conflicts. Difficult to tolerate as those manifestations of a conscience are, they should never be silenced because they are the best and most important part of us, sometimes the only one that reminds us of our humanity.

A person is not truly healthy if they have found a way to become “well-adjusted” in a sick society. Our society is sick, and while the disease may be acute now, it was decades in developing. To feel this, to know it, to be enraged and disgusted by it, means that you are actually engaging with the world as it is as opposed to hiding behind fantasies and delusions.

Not to feel such things, on the other hand, is a form of surrender to evil, to malignant normality, political deviance, pathocracy and the other manifestations of our societal sickness. The most immediate therapy, individually and collectively, is to be a person of conscience, a hope warrior in the struggle to save democracy in the 21st century.

One may also choose to be a bystander or spectator, to seek a position of detachment or denial. That will not treat the illness on either an individual or social level. It only leads us closer to societal suicide and mass destruction, which is the ultimate promise of fascism and which now, perhaps, seems all too alluring to far too many Americans.

Read more on the long tail of You Know Who’s presidency:

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

On Saturday morning in the Dallas “gayborhood” of Cedar Springs, an LGBTQ bar called Mr. Misster hosted a family-friendly “drag queen brunch” advertised with the tongue-in-cheek slogan, “Drag Your Kids to Pride.” The event was intended to be light-hearted, featuring musical chairs, mocktails and a chance for kids to vogue alongside the performers. 

But before the doors had even opened, the whole thing turned ugly, as dozens of right-wing protesters showed up on the sidewalk outside, recording attendees, calling them “disgusting” “groomers” or “faggots” who wanted “to cut the dicks off of little boys” and even following and heckling both performers and attending families as they walked back to their cars. 

“It’s going to be so kek when we take away all your rights,” one protester associated with the white Christian nationalist America First/groyper movement told a counterprotester who was defending the event, using movement slang that roughly means “lol.” In response, hard-right YouTuber and protest leader John Doyle, who was standing nearby, added with a smirk, “Every single one of them.”

It was an ominous start to Pride month in a year that has seen increasingly vitriolic attacks on LGBTQ rights across the country, and the Dallas protest followed the cancellation of another Pride event in Indiana featuring drag performers after conservatives targeted it online. But on the right, the protest was treated as a coup. 

RELATED: Who is Nick Fuentes? A young white nationalist who hopes to pull the GOP all the way to Hitler

Videos taken by protesters circulated widely online, amplified by numerous conservative media figures and politicians. An “America First” congressional candidate from Ohio tweeted his support for one protester who’d tried to force his way into the bar, while another “America First” former congressional candidate from New York marked his approval with a tweet that read simply, “John Doyle Nationalism.” Former Trump campaign adviser Steve Cortes praised the crowd for confronting “these sick groomers who sexualize children,” and a cohost on the right-wing podcast of Steven Crowder remarked that Nazism had arisen as “a response to this kind of culture developing in Germany.” 

The Dallas incident rapidly worked its way up the right-wing food chain, from the Blaze to the Daily Caller to Alex Jones to Steve Bannon and then, inevitably, to Tucker Carlson.

The story quickly worked its way up the right-wing media food chain, from The Blaze and American Greatness to The Daily Caller and Alex Jones’ Infowars to Steve Bannon’s War Room and Tucker Carlson’s primetime show on Fox. (In a queasy echo of the Crowder podcast, as Melissa Gira Grant reported at the New Republic, Carlson introduced his segment on the event by saying, “Just another weekend in Weimar.”)

By Monday afternoon, Texas state Rep. Bryan Slaton, a former pastor, had issued a press release promising to introduce a bill banning drag performances in the presence of minors. 

“The events of the past weekend were horrifying and show a disturbing trend in which perverted adults are obsessed with sexualizing young children,” Slaton said. While he would never take his own kids to such a show, he continued, “Protecting our own children isn’t enough, and our responsibility as lawmakers extends to the sexualization that is happening across Texas.” 

By that evening, Media Matters reported, far-right Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini, a QAnon supporter currently running for Congress, vowed to follow suit — and go further — by “proposing Legislation to charge w/ a Felony and terminate the parental rights of any adult who brings a child to these perverted sex shows aimed at FL kids.” 

But as the event became powerful fodder for right-wing outrage, less attention was paid to who was behind it. A series of videos of the protesters taken by a local progressive mutual aid group, Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club, noted that many of the protesters were “self-described Christian fascists.” As it turns out, that’s not hyperbole or name-calling but literally true. The protesters who gathered outside Mr. Misster last weekend represented various groups, but virtually all of them were affiliated with or inspired by the extremely online, extremely radical Gen-Z version of the alt-right. Many were also connected to the America First/”groyper” movement led by avowed racist and Christian fascist Nick Fuentes. 


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


While many conservatives have distanced themselves from the groyper movement’s official presence at events like its America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) this February — which featured praise of Hitler and calls to hang political opponents — when groypers or their allies show up to hurl abuse at LGBTQ people, they find a warmer reception. Indeed, Saturday’s event and the response to it illustrate the deep synergy between the young, white Christian nationalist foot soldiers of the right and the broader conservative mainstream, when the two factions are united around common enemies.

*  *  *

Although it’s been a banner year for anti-LGBTQ invective, videos taken last Saturday by protesters, progressive activists and a local filmmaker mark the Dallas event as uniquely vicious. Protesters repeatedly shouting “groomer” at attendees was just the start. In various clips, one male protester can be seen pushing through counterprotesters as he tries to follow a family with two young children back to their car, yelling, “I’d be ashamed to be your child” and “Why are you hiding from the crowd?” Another protester shouted through a megaphone that he was wearing gardening gloves so he didn’t “get AIDS.” Another threatened, “The fist of Christ will come down on you very soon. We’re done with this. We’re done with this.” 

In a series of interviews conducted by Dallas filmmaker Kurtz Frausun with both right-wing protesters and the people defending the bar, another man said, “We are just early to the party. Mark my words. One day, everyone will see what’s going on in there … and people will be pissed.” At at least one point, protesters began chanting “Christ Is King” — a phrase that has been widely adopted as a rallying cry among the groyper movement. 

Right-wing insult comic Alex Stein taunted a Black police officer: “You’re not one of those down-low brothers. Your dad probably dragged you to a lot of gay bars.”

Right-wing comedian and QAnon advocate Alex Stein, best known for viral stunts like wearing a women’s bathing suit to a city council meeting to mock trans rights, was featured in a number of videos trying to force his way into the bar, laughing as he shouted, “They’re gonna groom a bunch of children in here!” In additional footage captured by Frausun, Stein tells counterprotesters they are going to hell and taunts a Black police officer outside the bar by saying, “You’re not one of those down-low brothers. Your dad probably dragged you to a lot of gay bars.” 

After the protest, Stein appeared on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ show Infowars, where he showed footage of himself following one event performer back to her car along with a social media post he’d found in which another performer talked about getting pizza. That, he said, was “declassified” FBI “secret code words that they use in order to talk about their child pedophilia”: a throwback to the infamous Pizzagate conspiracy panic that roiled the right in the early days of the MAGA movement. (Stein also agreed with Jones that public school teachers tend to be pedophiles, since “most normal people” “don’t want to be around kids” who aren’t their own.) 

Another protest leader, University of North Texas student Kelly Neidert, founder of the newly-launched group Protect Texas Kids, told Frausun that she hadn’t shown up at the bar to be “hateful” to LGBTQ people, even as Frausun filmed her screaming at attendees, “Y’all are disgusting people and you are abusing these children.” In a March article for the Daily Beast, Steve Monacelli and Jack Wheatley reported on Neidert and her twin brother, who are communications managers for branches of the Young Conservatives of Texas at their respective colleges. At UNT, students have called for Neidert, who has become a minor conservative media celebrity, to be expelled for creating a hostile atmosphere for trans students. She posted a tweet last October calling herself a “Christian Fascist.” 

But the leading figure in the most vitriolic attacks on Saturday was John Doyle, a 22-year-old YouTube streamer and activist who has been closely aligned with white nationalists like Fuentes and has referred to himself explicitly as a white nationalist. Doyle has built up a fan base of angry, disaffected Gen-Z white men, including more than 300,000 followers on YouTube, through his show, “Heck Off, Commie!,” which promotes a red-meat, exclusionary vision of America as gripped by progressive degeneracy and decay, with white men under attack from women, LGBTQ people and racial minorities — and authoritarian Christian nationalism as the obvious solution. 

“Ultimately,” Doyle explained at a 2021 Gen-Z Christian nationalist camping retreat called 76Fest, “it’s going to be the responsibility of strong white men” — or, as Doyle also put it, “the forgotten gamers of America, the white boys” — “to take our country back.” As Salon reported in a two-part investigation this May, Doyle is also among the groyper and groyper-adjacent figures who have been elevated by the Catholic right media outlet Church Militant.

This February, in (belated) observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Doyle posted a lengthy video purporting to explain why King was “not a hero” but rather “a serial adulterer and communist and plagiarist and race hustler” who was “propped up by the elites to fundamentally restructure American society.” During the hour-long show, Doyle argued that “The destruction of white racism is ultimately code for the destruction of American society” and that King was “a false idol, his legacy sucks and everyone in this country is worse off because of his efforts.” 

Doyle is closely associated with Nick Fuentes, although their relationship appears complicated. Doyle was a featured guest at Fuentes’ AFPAC event in February, where the crowd chanted Vladimir Putin’s name, Fuentes praised Hitler and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar delivered speeches. 

John Doyle has a clear fan base, which overlaps with the groypers: He has said it’s up to “the forgotten gamers of America, the white boys,” to “take our country back.”

Doyle has at times demeaned the groyper movement — in one Instagram Live video last month, he claimed that “the average guy who watches my videos is a mid-20s guy who works out and probably has a girlfriend, while the average groyper is unironically a 15-year-old autistic incel” — but on the whole they maintain a mutually beneficial alliance. In 2020, Fuentes and Doyle jointly led a Stop the Steal protest in Lansing, Michigan, just weeks before the Capitol insurrection in Washington (at which Fuentes was present). The following summer, they marched together through the halls of a Dallas meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) — from which Fuentes had been barred — chanting, “Groyper! Groyper!” While Fuentes remains largely exiled from the conservative establishment — for which overt praise of Hitler and jokes about the Holocaust are still too far — Doyle regularly speaks at Turning Point USA events on college campuses, networks with conservative elites at conferences like CPAC and appears on right-wing media like BlazeTV. 

Doyle and Fuentes also share an overlapping fan base. Like Fuentes, Doyle maintains his following by cultivating an online cult of personality and performing in-person stunts like last Saturday’s counterprotest, which drew several recognized figures from the groyper movement among the crowd. They included Anderson White, an organizer of 76Fest, and Reggie Amerson, who says he’s running for a seat in the Arkansas state legislature in 2024. Other protesters present on Saturday, such as YouTube streamers Nathaniel Abbott and Gabe Victal, are associated with another Gen-Z Christian nationalist group, the American Populist Union, which closely mimics Fuentes’ movement and counts many groypers among its ranks. Doyle has headlined multiple APU events and served as figurehead for the movement.

At an October 2021 anti-abortion protest at the University of North Texas, where Kelly Neidler has become a prominent right-wing activist, Doyle jeered at counterprotesting students by asking, “What is wrong with Christian fascism?” and saying, “I am radicalizing the youth and you can do nothing about it.” In another video from that event, Doyle taunts his foes by saying, “You guys better improve your tone because when we and all my friends take power, bad things are going to happen to you.”

Last Saturday in Dallas, Doyle used his megaphone to call counterprotesters and attendees “faggot” and shouted at parents with young children, “Why do you want to put an axe-wound between your son’s legs?” and “You people are the symptom of a dying society.”  In an interview with Frausun, he said that “being gay is the issue” his group was there to protest and that “Sexually deviant people create more sexually deviant people by getting together and grooming children. That’s the only way.” 

In another video captured by local activists, Doyle suggests that Texas sheriffs should enter Mr. Misster “and put bullets in all their heads. They’d be rewarded for it. That’s what the badge is for.” 

Rather than encountering any pushback from conservatives, Doyle was rewarded by being asked to guest-host a show this Wednesday on Glenn Beck’s BlazeTV network, along with a number of his fellow protest leaders, one of whom suggested that people who suffered “sexual trauma” in childhood should be preemptively “locked up” before they become “abusers” too.

*  *  *

Compared to folks like Doyle, one local activist told the Dallas Voice, some of the other protesters were comparatively well-behaved, staying across the street and primarily chanting the Rosary. But as it turns out, that faction was organized by yet another “Christian fascist” group aligned with the hard right, the New Columbia Movement.

Founded in 2020, the New Columbia Movement proclaimed in a promotional video last fall that “Christian nationalism is the only way forward as far as laying the foundation for restoring morality, truth and justice to our world.” In a manifesto published on its website, the group calls for establishing “a New Columbia” in which America would be “reborn as a model of Christian society” that has “[broken] the chains of immorality that hold us back.” That manifesto calls the notion of equality — or at least what they consider “unnatural equality” — “evil,” describes democracy as a “failed experiment” and advocates for a “Roman” model as the solution to “America’s cultural diversity,” in which “Subjugated peoples” would be allowed to “retain their personal culture,” but only under “a High American Culture” based on “Christian morality, rule of law, and the common good.”  

The group claims to maintain a network of regional chapters across the country, as well as a women’s league. But like Doyle, the groypers and the American Populist Union, the New Columbia Movement primarily recruits its members among terminally online Gen-Z men through a steady stream of memes, videos and other digital content that appeal to male supremacist beliefs, anti-LGBTQ bigotry, anti-Black and anti-immigrant racism and motifs of civilizational decline, all of it rooted in an exclusionary brand of Christianity. 

New Columbia Movement leaders have praised “incel” mass shooter Elliot Rodger, and half-jokingly referred to “the Jewish Question.”

In YouTube videos, New Columbia Movement leaders have referred to Elliot Rodger, the incel mass shooter who killed six people in Santa Barbara in 2014, as “the supreme gentleman”: a self-aggrandizing term Rodger used in his last pre-massacre video, which has since become a common term of endearment on far-right forums like 4chan. Leaders also traffic in antisemitism, as when one leader asserted on a 2021 livestream entitled “The Sexual Revolution and its Consequences” that Jews “do in fact have a very tight stranglehold on the porn industry” as well as “a huge hold on Hollywood.” Another leader then added, “This can turn into a ‘J.Q.’ podcast real fast!” — a reference to the alt-right and neo-Nazi abbreviation for “the Jewish Question.” Movement social media posts also regularly denigrate Jewish religious texts such as the Talmud, and one Instagram post captioned an image of ancient Israelite Jews as “the most dangerous enemy in the world.” 

In the group’s first livestream broadcast in July 2020, its co-founders, SK Nicholas Chimera Jr. and Nicholas Haas — both of whom claim to be fourth-degree members of the Catholic fraternal organization Knights of Columbus — detailed their ideological journey to the far right. When the two met in college, Haas explained, SK “was borderline national socialist wignat” — a reference to an online neo-Nazi subculture — and frequented neofascist online forums, while Haas described himself as “basically the definition of a Three Percenter militiaman.” SK, who professed his admiration for the former fascist regimes in Italy and Spain, added that “both of our positions lacked God. That’s the thing. Once we introduced God into it, we were fine.” 

Unlike the groypers or Doyle’s movement, the New Columbians eschew activism to influence the conservative establishment or the Republican Party, arguing instead for a grassroots approach focused on pushing Christian churches and religious institutions ever further rightward. In a YouTube video posted last July, a movement leader identified only as “Sean” argued that “core conservative concepts are better represented by something like third positionism” — that is, a form of fascism — “rather than modern-day conservatism.” 

While based in traditionalist Catholicism, the movement aims to draw in right-wing Christians from across faith and denominational lines, arguing that, “Only a united Christian front will save the West.” 

In the lead-up to last Saturday’s protest in Dallas, the New Columbia Movement posted on social media that its “southwest chapter” would gather with local Catholics to pray the Rosary outside the Cedar Springs bar. After the protest concluded, the group posted pictures on Twitter as well as a brief video clip of one of its leaders, Andrew Lafuente, interviewing John Doyle. “There’s a reason that we have a right to peacefully protest — because it doesn’t actually do anything,” Doyle told Lafuente. “This is a good start to strike fear into the eyes of the sinners and the degenerates and the abominable people that are occupying this area. But it’s not enough.” 

In their post sharing the video, the movement’s account exclaimed that Doyle was “fired up” by the protest, “and so are we! The slow ascent to power is real. We will take this country back!” 

Read more on the far right’s ambitious agenda:

Jan. 6 committee finally takes the spotlight — hey, it’s only America’s future at stake

All right. All right. All right.

Matthew McConaughey showed up at the White House briefing room on Tuesday, highly emotional about the recent mass shooting in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas.

For 30 minutes he spoke without taking questions, leaving reporters dazed and confused by his appearance. (Sorry!) His plea for a bipartisan solution to gun control went viral and his appearance got big headlines.

Despite whatever else you may hear, there was probably no one who loved his appearance more than Republicans. After all, the gun issue is one they have been winning for years.  Anytime anyone wants to argue about guns, virtually every member of the Republican Party opens up the Gun Bible written by the NRA and spouts the same old dogmatic slogans to push back against any commie rat who wants to try to pry their guns away from their cold, dead hands.

The White House, of course, is serious about gun control and wants to push this issue as hard as it can. “Now is the time for gun reform. We have to have it,” more than one member of this administration has told me in casual conversation.

The fact that the GOP continues to play games with level-headed gun control measures as our country continues to implode is a travesty almost unparalleled in the history of modern man. How long can we survive when we engage in such self-destructive behavior?

RELATED: The ghost of Watergate looms over Jan. 6 hearings: Will there be accountability this time?

It would seem there is nothing more horrific facing the country. But there is.

Perhaps the real reason Republicans like people taking up all the oxygen in the room by discussing guns is that it keeps us from concentrating on an even more serious issue: the failed coup attempt by some of those very same Republicans, including the former president of the United States.

If people are talking about guns all the time, they’re not talking about the coup. You don’t have to trot out the GOP hand-wringers to decry the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection as a hoax or merely a “spirited protest” or just a bunch of patriotic Americans on a self-guided tour of the Capitol. No one but the faithful, who also believe that the world is flat, there was no Holocaust and the 1980s miniseries “V” was actually a documentary, believe the insurrection didn’t occur. So the less you talk about it the better.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the White House has divorced itself from this issue. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre talks about the other major issues: a woman’s right to choose, gun control, the economy, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, to name but a few. The insurrection? The White House has left that issue up to Congress.

That sets the stage for Thursday night. The House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack is finally beginning its televised hearings, and the Democratic faithful are hoping for a political punch in the nose to detractors — and a wakeup call to those who still don’t understand what actually happened during the insurrection.


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


“These hearings are important to accelerate awareness,” Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explained to me. It remains to be seen if they can actually be the “punch in the nose” to Donald Trump that so many hope for.

Trump’s alleged activities on or before Jan. 6 include a conspiracy to obstruct a lawful function of the federal government. These hearings must energize the pursuit of justice, or they will be pointless – just more high wind in the trees.

Can these hearings really shock the nation into a newfound respect for each other — and a settling of accounts with Donald Trump? Probably not.

Face it. Trump was impeached not once, but twice. We know what a grifter he is. We know he doesn’t care. Most of us believe him to be a crook. We have seen it all before. Can the hearings really shock the nation into a zeitgeist that leads us to a newfound respect for each other — and to a settling of accounts that holds Trump responsible for one of the worst days in the modern history of our country? Probably not.

Eisen says the best-case scenario for the hearings is that they become “the Watergate hearings for the streaming generation.” Think of this as a six-episode miniseries spread out over two weeks, I suppose. Maybe people will tune in that way – even if Fox News doesn’t cover it.

There is talk of “new revelations” and a sharper narrative. Several reports note that filmmaker Nick Quested and Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards will testify first and link the violent extremists to Donald Trump’s plan to reverse the election. We need to see more. 

On Sept. 23, 2020, standing at the very podium where McConaughey delivered his 30-minute emotional appeal for gun control, Donald Trump told me he would not necessarily consent to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the election. He also said that if you stopped counting the ballots when he wanted, then there would be no change of power. 

Furthermore, on the day of the insurrection, he encouraged his followers to march on the Capitol; one of his interchangeable sons (who may have been purchased from a Sears catalog) appeared to encourage violence and Rudy “Hair Dye” Giuliani preached “trial by combat.”

What more do we need?

The nation needs indictments. You cannot have closure before you indict and prosecute every single person involved in the insurrection. You cannot stand over the dead corpse of democracy and declare we should move on.

In short, the hearings in Congress must make it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there should be a prosecution of Trump and all of the others in his close-knit circle who were involved. Should the hearings provide a roadmap to indictment, Attorney General Merrick Garland must not fail to act.

A “medium-case scenario,” according to Eisen is “a bit less gripping and less visceral,” but moves the needle enough that even some Trumpers will back away from their hero — and perhaps enough to ensure that the GOP continues to erode, fail and fall — especially in the midterm elections.

What’s the worst-case scenario? No movement. No charges. The whole thing fades into the mist like a bad case of COVID: You’re alive, but the cough persists.

What’s the worst-case scenario for these hearings? No needle movement. No charges. The entire issue fades into the mist like a bad case of COVID: You survive, but the cough persists.

Make no mistake, democracy is still in the balance and it has been since Trump slithered down that golden escalator and began his campaign for president.

We’re still in the moment, as Eisen would say. These are uncertain times and we must act. These hearings are important — easily as important as the hearings that helped bring down Nixon and perhaps even more. Today the entire government hangs in the balance.

I was a teenager during the Watergate hearings. At first I was upset that I’d come home in the afternoon to see that “The Price Is Right” had been preempted by a nervous-looking John Dean.

But I was drawn to those hearings. They were compelling for a variety of reasons. 

Dean directly implicated Nixon. Dean worked closely with Nixon.

Has anyone who worked for Trump ever implicated him in anything? Most of those people have no honor and sold their souls long ago.

The singular exception is Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer. And he was tossed into Otisville federal prison in upstate New York, thrown under the bus and ground into dust to save Trump. Since then? No one else in Trump’s inner circle has ever been turned. They got the message from Cohen’s example. Omertà, baby. 

There is another factor to consider: The Watergate hearings dominated the news for weeks. Both Republicans and Democrats worked together to oust the cancer in the Oval Office.

Today’s cancer has already been removed by the voters. But it has metastasized, and many members of the GOP who were complicit in the Jan. 6 insurrection have no desire to see anything else exposed. The GOP has the assistance of Fox News, as well as other minor media outlets, in amplifying the party’s talking points and deflecting any attempts to hold anyone accountable. Mind you, the deflection is ridiculous. Calling the insurrection a hoax is like calling lung cancer a hoax. I suppose the joy in both instances is being in denial until the day you die.

And democracy, make no mistake about it, is at death’s door.

Finally, the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the ’70s either. The party is divided, filled with elitists, progressives, conservatives and those who straddle the middle of the road. Each has their own pet issues, and they rarely get together to promote unity.

President Biden has completely abdicated his leadership role on this key issue. His mantra since he took over the White House has been to right the ship of state and sail us into calmer waters. On that, he has so far done well.

But to extend that metaphor, he has not taken us out of the storm that caused the choppy waters.

We need to stay focused, and our country desperately lacks that focus.

The only scorecard by which we should judge the Jan. 6 committee hearings is whether or not they lead to indictments of every single person inside or outside the government who tried to overthrow it. 

Here’s the scorecard for these hearings: Do they lead to indictments for every single person who tried to overthrow the government?

This isn’t about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about the rule of law versus anarchy and authoritarianism. This is about democracy. This is about respecting a peaceful transfer of power. This is about a president encouraging his supporters to take a walk to the Capitol and one of his minions yelling “Trial by combat.”

This is about sedition, a failed coup and the most antidemocratic actions taken in the United States since the Civil War. It has to end. There must be repercussions for this, or the ideals on which this country was founded are a sham and the blood spilled by patriots in the last 250 years to preserve those ideals is meaningless.

The Jan. 6 hearings cannot fail. Sane and cogent individuals get it. The rest of us are busy buying MAGA hats and T-shirts. 

These hearings must spark real action to hold those who were involved in the coup accountable for their actions. That’s it. Otherwise America’s democracy is lost. And if that happens, a lot more people will be crying than just Matthew McConaughey.

Read more on the Jan. 6 committee hearings:

Matt Gaetz and MTG say Jamie Raskin unfit due to son’s suicide

United States Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) appeared on a recent edition of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia)’s podcast and suggested that Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) is unable to do his job because his son committed suicide.

Raskin served as the House of Representatives’ manager of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment for inciting the January 6th, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Raskin also sits on the Select Committee investigating the attack, which was triggered (at least in part) by Republican lawmakers refusing to acknowledge President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election at Trump’s behest.

Now, with just 24 hours remaining before public hearings revealing what the bipartisan congressional commission has found begin, Gaetz and Greene have launched a new and unusually cruel offensive against Raskin.

“When people encounter trauma, they often associate a lot of the other things around that trauma with it, even if they don’t naturally or even rationally associate. And what I worry about for the Congress and for Jamie Raskin, you know, no one would ever want to lose a child, particularly to suicide,” said Gaetz.

“As human beings, our hearts go out to him. But I think that he takes that trauma and he associates it now with his work in the Congress to such an interwoven way that he’s unable to do the congressional experience outside of just the dungeon of that personal trauma,” Gaetz continued, “and I think it makes him look at everything in these very like, dark and severe ways.”

Greene agreed.

“You know, we try to come to the job to uplift people,” Gaetz resumed.

“We’re here to serve the people,” Greene interjected.

“Well and we love this country,” Gaetz added.

“Absolutely,” said Greene.

“We’re not here out of a sense of grievance or hatred. We love America,” Gaetz said.

“No we love it,” Greene chimed in again.

“And we want to vindicate the rights of our citizens and we want to champion their causes and battle their dislikes,” Gaetz remarked.

“Yes that’s right,” Greene said.

“But I think for Jamie Raskin, it’s really like, his service in the Congress has almost become like inextricably attached to this sad personal trauma he’s had,” Gaetz proclaimed. “And I do think it clouds his judgment and you could see that, that very darkness and that pain manifest on Thursday in a way that’s not particularly relevant to the challenges that we’ve talked about, but it might be deeply relevant to what he’s going through. And the country shouldn’t have to go through all that with him.”

Greene then stated the quiet part out loud.

“Well my goodness, it’s a horrible thing, what he went through, but it doesn’t change the fact of, uh, his political beliefs,” she said, “and I believe he’s a communist and I believe what he’s doing on the January 6th Committee is completely wrong.”

Watch below via PatriotTakes:

Marjorie Taylor Greene says no one is to blame for Jan. 6

On Wednesday during an interview on Real America’s Voice, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) argued that former President Donald Trump isn’t responsible for the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In fact, she argued, nobody is really responsible for the attack.

“You know, Americans are suffering so much just from the damage the Democrats have done to our country,” said Greene. “The last thing they want to see on TV is a bunch of whiny members of Congress complaining about what happened to them on January 6th, when these same members of Congress could care less about what happened to American cities all over the country in the year of 2020, the violent BLM riots.”

“So you know, all of this selfishness and this whole idea that they’re still upset about January 6th when nothing was planned — it just simply happened — and the idea that they want to say Trump did it, well no, President Trump did not do it, Republican members of Congress didn’t do it, Peter Navarro didn’t do it, no one did this, it just happened. But yet, yes, Democrats did fund BLM riots and they did bail them out of jail. And the media helped the entire thing happen.”

The idea that the attack on the Capitol was spontaneous is at odds with reams of evidence that far-right groups carefully coordinated and planned the whole strike.

Furthermore, while there isn’t any publicly available evidence yet suggesting Trump helped plan the attack, he is on record having sympathized with the attackers and dragged his feet in the face of calls to tell them to go home.

Watch below:

Savannah Guthrie reveals husband served as a consultant for Johnny Depp’s legal team

Savannah Guthrie made an interesting — and abrupt — confession while interviewing actor Johnny Depp’s legal team in a Wednesday segment of the “Today” show.

Sitting across from Depp’s lawyers, Camille Vasquez and Benjamin Chew, the co-anchor revealed that her husband, Michael Feldman, served as a consultant for Depp’s team amid the actor’s high-profile defamation trial against ex-wife Amber Heard.

“And a quick disclosure, my husband has done consulting work for the Depp legal team, but not in connection with this interview,” Guthrie told viewers.  

RELATED: With the Depp-Heard trial, courtroom television’s exploitative tricks reached new misogynist heights

A closer look at Feldman’s background reveals that the public relations & communications consultant is a founding partner and managing director of the consulting firm The Glover Park Group. Earlier this year, he joined the public relations firm FGS Global as a managing editor and a co-chairman, according to Entertainment Tonight. Feldman also touts ties to former Vice President Al Gore, whom he worked for as a political adviser during Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign.

During Wednesday’s interview, Guthrie reviewed the case with both Vasquez and Chew and discussed its contentious verdict, which sided in favor of Depp. When asked about the influence of social media on Depp’s victory, the legal pair reiterated that such online content had no impact in the trial’s final decision.

“No, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that the jurors violated their oath,” Chew clarified. “And again, that suggestion was disappointing to hear [from Heard’s lawyer].”

Last week, a seven-person jury determined that Heard had acted with “malice” in a 2018 op-ed for The Washington Post, in which she details personal accounts of abuse but refrains from explicitly naming Depp as her abuser. Following a six-week-long trial, Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages for her counterclaim while Depp was awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.


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


The trial, which was publicly broadcast, also garnered widespread attention online and across social-media platforms, like TikTok and Twitter, where a slew of Depp fanatics started a “Justice for Johnny” movement and frequently mocked Heard’s testimonies in an attempt to invalidate her claims.

Guthrie has also been involved in the trial’s ongoing coverage. Per the Daily Beast, the broadcaster previously interviewed Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Charlson Bredhoft, on the show but made no mention of her husband’s connection to Depp’s legal team during the segment. Guthrie also anchored NBC’s special coverage of the June 1 verdict, where she, once again, did not disclose her husband’s connection.

More stories you might like:

Beyond “The Staircase”: What happens when the documentary ends with subjects “left with the bill”?

What are the responsibilities of a documentary filmmaker to the subject of their film? And why do people participate in documentary films — especially ones that force them to relive their most traumatic experiences? These are two of the many intriguing questions asked in codirector Jennifer Tiexiera and Camilla Hall’s fantastic, probing, and compassionate documentary, “Subject,” which is having its World Premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival.

The film focuses on five participants whose lives were the basis for influential documentaries and how their lives have been influenced after the cameras stopped rolling. 

Margie Ratliff was interviewed for “The Staircase,” a documentary about her father being tried for the murder her mother. She describes the experience as, “A huge invasion of privacy.” (The story is now the basis for an HBO Max series.) Ahmed Hassan, who appeared in and did cinematography for “The Square,” about the Egyptian revolution, talks about the limitations he has faced in the political aftermath of the revolution. Arthur Agee, who was one of the two main participants of “Hoop Dreams,” about Black teens hoping to play in the NBA, explains that he reaped some benefits from appearing in the film. Likewise, Mukunda Angulo, one of the participants of “The Wolfpack,” about a family homebound by their domineering father, describes how the film helped him get through a difficult period in his life. In contrast, Jesse Friedman, whose life was chronicled in “Capturing the Friedmans,” can never escape the film, which recounted him and his father being arrested and imprisoned for sexually abusing young boys. 

RELATED: “Free Solo” filmmakers recreated Thai soccer team cave rescue: “A massive and chaotic operation”

“I never thought I’d want to be in a documentary again.” – Margie Ratliff, “The Staircase”

Tiexiera and Hall do consider the risks and rewards of making highly personal documentaries. In one segment, Bing Liu, director of “Minding the Gap,” recounts that in making his documentary, about him and his friends, he became a participant, and filmed a scene of him talking to his mother about the abuse he suffered at the hands of his stepfather. He hoped it would bring them closer, but it became the elephant in the room for them. Such is the impact documentary films can have. 

Tiexiera and Hall spoke with Salon about their revealing documentary, “Subject,” which is guaranteed to change the way folks watch documentaries.  

What was your criteria for the case studies you selected?

Jennifer Tiexiera: Part of this is a love story for our community. It was born out of a place where we had a lot of questions, but with the five case studies, they were films that completely changed our lives. “Hoop Deams” is the reason I make documentaries. “Capturing the Friedmans” was that for Camilla. 

Camilla Hall: We came to all these films because they moved us. We came to them from a point of love and admiration and tried to understand them better. We were both thinking about the different experiences we’ve had with the participants in our films and wondered what it would be like on the other side of that process. We had the title early on; this word “Subject” was so fascinating and intriguing. Out of the blue, we got an email from one of the editors of “The Staircase” and he introduced us to Margie, who wanted to get into documentaries. So, it was very interesting that we had an idea, and the universe just presented itself. We sat down with Margie to talk about the documentary industry as whole, and we said we had this idea for [“Subject”], and we were really interested in this experience. What do you think about it and how would you feel about that? And she was like, “Oh my God! This is amazing. I never thought I’d want to be in a documentary again, but this is something I want to get behind.” She gave us her blessing, but there was also the turning point that there was something important to tell here. 

Several of the films covered in your documentary deal with trauma or true crime. What observations do you have about why we like documentaries on those topics?

Tiexiera: The obsession with true crime is a temperature where we’re at right now in society. With the pandemic and coming out of Trump, it is a way to turn off and make yourself feel better about your own life. I think there is something inherent about documentaries that there is a connection and people are going to open up and reveal traumatic experience. The films we focused on were made over long period of time. Things evolve. Everyone’s life has complexities and trauma in it. We were careful to balance “Capturing the Friedmans,” and “The Staircase” with the idea of revolution with “The Square” and something like “Hoop Dreams,” which is a slice of Americana. There is trauma involved, but it is an uplifting story about hopes and dreams and sports.

Hall: I think the true crime stories come across strongly in the film because there is this realization that this could have been me. I could have come home from college and found myself as a passive participant [as Margie did in “The Staircase.] It’s a very relatable situation. A lot of true crime you feel like this is another world and this was a moment that could happen to any of us, and what would you do if you found yourself in that situation? The popularity of true crime is something we are interested in. I wonder what does it mean when you consume it? Our film says these are just people. 

“What we discovered through making ‘Subject’ is the need for an advocate who can protect and support the participant that isn’t the director or producer. “

You explore the gray moral space between what a filmmaker needs and what a participant needs. I love the point about having intimacy coordinators for a sex scene, but not having a therapist for a documentary. Can you talk about the filmmaker’s responsibility to a participant?

Tiexiera: This film has completely changed [our] everyday interactions with people. I’m working on a sex abuse documentary now, and the interviews are so intense. I can’t imagine not having a therapist for not only the crew but the survivors as well. When we brought it up, the network was, “Of course!” We need to get to a place where it becomes a line item. It seems crazy that we are just having this conversation now. It seems like common sense.

Hall: Most people on set have an advocate of some sort. The crews have their union, but the participant doesn’t have an advocate outside of the people trying to make the film. There is a conflict of interest inherent in that complicated relationship. What we discovered through making “Subject” is the need for an advocate who can protect and support the participant that isn’t the director or producer. 

Why do you think people participate in documentaries about their lives? Several participants in “Subject” say, “You can’t say no.” At least two have learned this lesson and now say, “No.” What are the risks involved?

“We need to find the correct power dynamic.”

Tiexiera: There are some beautiful lines about how people want to intrinsically tell their stories. We are storytelling beings by nature. I don’t think we’ll ever put an end to that, but the thing we are asking people to consider — which goes back to the idea of participants having some resource — is what they are possibly be signing up for? Beyond the idea of participants having this resource — because people want to share stories — is understanding contracts. We rewrote all of our releases. They typically have verbiage like “We own Story in perpetuity through the universe,” and if you put that to a participant and they don’t know or have resources to protect them, that’s a small example of that power imbalance, and that is problematic in your storytelling. It’s exciting [for a participant] that someone is listening to them and advocating on their behalf. We need to find the correct power dynamic.

SubjectArthur Agee, participant of “Hoop Dreams” (Photo by Zachary Shield)

There is a cogent point raised in “Subject” about who gets to tell whose story? This is specifically addressed in “Hoop Dreams” as three white men document Black lives and it leads to a discussion of decolonization. But there is also the point about access.

Hall: Are we getting equal opportunities? It’s not about people telling different type of stories or about different cultures, but if people from those cultures aren’t getting those opportunities, then we are just getting this one specific colonial view on this type of storytelling. The playing field is completely off and that’s what needs to change. Funding needs to go to more filmmakers of color and away from white filmmakers to correct that imbalance. 

Tiexiera: Similarly, it’s so competitive for us. There are so few spots, and we are all competing for those spots. When you have gatekeepers making decisions that could be harmful to a group of people or an entire community, they are not only perpetuating those stereotypes, but they are also taking a spot away from someone else. We’ve seen that happen with our own films. All the energy is put on this film, and that should be on the responsibility of the people in power. They should do their due diligence. We’re sacrificing so much on our end. Money is a huge part of that, but there needs to be more of us getting into those positions of power and those decision-making positions. When Brown Girls Doc Mafia started there were 20 of us and it’s turned into this incredible force and sisterhood with thousands of members, and we have a seat at the table and at film fests. And that has made a huge difference for us.

SubjectMukunda Angulo, participant of “The Wolfpack” (Photo by Zachary Shields)“Subject” also addresses the thorny point about whether the participants of documentaries should be paid for participating. There is an argument that they are giving up their time, and that someone is capitalizing off another person’s life/story. There is an asymmetrical power relationship, and there is a cost for the participant that the filmmakers don’t bear. Thoughts?

“For someone like Margie, who took part in ‘The Staircase,’ to see her life then fictionalized and her life story become a commodity that people will pay for and not include her, I find that problematic.”

Tiexiera: We talked at length about this. Our participants are all written into the equity; if this film makes money after we pay back our investors, they will make money as well. When you are spending every day with someone, there is a responsibility to pay for their transportation or childcare, to pay some kind of day rate. It shouldn’t cost them anything to provide that partnership with us. I’m obviously being paid to be there as the director, and I am able to pay for my childcare, so why should I not I expect the same for them?

Hall: In the film, we raise questions. We are not trying to be didactic about it. We are still working it out as an industry. What brought attention to this is the rise of the streamers and the commoditization of individual stories. For someone like Margie, who took part in “The Staircase,” to see her life then fictionalized and her life story become a commodity that people will pay for and not include her, I find that problematic. It’s not about cashing in; it is about other people cashing in. We are in this different world now where these stories have value, so why shouldn’t these people share in the value of their own story? They deal with the consequences of all of the trauma. These people are left with the bill. 

Tiexiera: There are six-figure payments for “Inventing Anna. There is real money there. A documentary filmmaker is going to make money off the HBO series “The Staircase” but Margie’s not? That’s not right.

I’m curious about issues of consent and trust. What observations do you have about filmmaker’s bias, and what are your thoughts about a participant’s approval regarding how they are shown in a film? 

Hall: Personally, I do feel that participants should be able to see how they are portrayed in the film. There are some exceptions — investigative journalism going against a government. In our film, we gave our participants, who were coproducers, final say for their sections, and that can be frightening for a filmmaker, but for us, it really strengthened the film. It was not contractual, but something we agreed to collectively and as part of our creative process. It was a huge part of the film becoming what it is, and it benefited the film.

Tiexiera: Again, this is an industry wide conversation as we speak. PBS is looking at their standards and practices, one of them being: you can’t show a participant your final product before it goes out in the world. Again, that is mind-blowing to me. You start this partnership based on trust, and it’s a collaboration, and you’re not going show it to them before it goes on air with everyone seeing it? There are things that we get wrong as filmmakers. Camilla and I saw it on this project. If you don’t create that safe space for back and forth, it hurts the film. As Camilla says, it’s a place of fear and control going back to that imbalance of power that is not really healthy for the industry. There are always exceptions to rule, but when it comes to the documentaries we focus on in “Subject,” there is a responsibility. 

What are your thoughts on the ethical consequences of documentaries such as the ones featured in “Subject”? Some of them seemed to have benefitted from their experiences, but others seem to regret participating.

Hall: The people in our film, there is the whole rainbow of experiences. There is so much nuance. We are not trying to broad-brush and say it’s terrible or amazing to be in a documentary. The next time you watch a documentary, have a think about that — that this is a real person.

Tiexiera: Yes, it’s about being in a documentary, but the end of Jesse [Friedman]’s section sums it up. The film and Jesse’s life fused. There is this idea of him being a subject his entire life. There are so many complexities. Where does the film end and where does life begin? It’s an impossible question to answer. It is not that being in a film is good or bad, I just think we’re in a world where these are the questions we have to tackle in this age of information.

“Subject” provides a real cautionary tale. What are the film’s lessons?

Tiexiera: We are in this very unique moment in time where we are a little bit woke and having these tough conversations. “Subject” is one giant awkward conversation. But it has turned into these helpful, long, beautiful, productive conversations. Ultimately, I believe it’s a good thing. We are able to make money for our art. That’s the dream, right? Let’s just hold ourselves accountable while we are doing it.

Hall: We are not perfect filmmakers. We are not here to lecture; we come to this film through our own mistakes and projects we’ve been involved with. We wanted to learn and understand. We’re not preaching. We’ve seen it all, and that’s why we wanted to make this.

More stories to read: 

HBO’s “The Janes” spotlights the abortion activists who operated like a spy ring pre-Roe v. Wade

Eleanor Oliver and her husband had been married for less than a year, she recalls in “The Janes.” He was still in graduate school, making her the sole breadwinner for the two of them. “And there I was, pregnant,” she says.

In the 1960s, pre-Roe v. Wade, going through with this unplanned pregnancy would have ended Oliver’s ability to support them. Managers didn’t want pregnant women in their offices. Forget trying to find a job if you had small children at home, she said.

Another woman simply remembered she had no other options, and she wanted her pregnancy ended by any means necessary. An acquaintance connected her to the local mob, who spoke in code: Did she want the “Chevrolet,” the $500 abortion option, the “Cadillac” or the $1,000 option, the “Rolls Royce”? She could only afford the Chevy, which left her bleeding in a motel room in an unfamiliar part of town.

“The Janes” is full of such accounts, as well as testimonials from medical professionals who saw firsthand what desperate people will do when they think they have no choice.

RELATED: GOP may get rid of Roe — not abortions

One doctor who worked at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital in the pre-Roe v. Wade era estimates the hospital’s septic abortion ward was full every day.

That motivated a group of Chicago women to do something, forging an underground network that assisted women of all economic, social, and racial backgrounds and ages to end their unwanted pregnancies regardless of whether they had the means to pay.

When an anxious need is only met by a void, someone or something is going to step in to fill it. 

  

“The Janes” and its eponymous subjects, a group of Chicago women who went by that name to protect their identities and families, are in their way a consolation. When an anxious need is only met by a void, someone or something is going to step in to fill it. These women did that for the sake of other women, with great care in some ways and recklessly in others.

“Pregnant? Need help? Call Jane,” read ads they placed around the city, trusting that the people who needed them would notice and the law, mainly overseen by men, would not. And they were successful, until the cops raided the South Side apartment out of which they were operating and arrested seven members in 1972.

Members of the JanesMembers of the Janes (Photo courtesy of HBO)In May, Politico reported that the Supreme Court intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, citing a leaked draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. The official ruling is expected to come this month, which makes the debut of “The Janes” on cable and streaming timely.

While most abortion and reproductive rights advocates don’t expect the days of back-alley abortions to return in full force, the main point the documentary makes is that women who want an abortion will find a way to get them. That doubles as an assurance and a warning.

Directors Tia Lessin and Emma Pildes permeate “The Janes” with unforced wry humor that adds a triumphant glow to a story that other filmmakers may have presented as a grim struggle. Then again, the spirit animating these women as they talked about their outlaw days in Richard J. Daley’s Chicago in the late ’60s and early 1970s makes that seem impossible.

Some were already activists who were fed up with the way the anti-war and civil rights movements sidelined women.

Some, like Oliver, had experienced the pain and terror of illegal abortions themselves, recalling the agony of enduring butchery without anesthesia. Some had simply witnessed someone else’s nightmare, or dealt with dismissive medical professionals who shamed women, including rape victims, for their undesired pregnancies, assuming the fault to somehow be theirs.

Between 1968 and 1973 The Janes provided an estimated 11,000 safe, affordable, illegal abortions to those who found them. And they did this largely without the help of licensed doctors, save for receiving early assistance from civil rights leader Dr. Theodore R.M. Howard.

Members of the JanesMembers of the Janes (Photo courtesy of HBO)

That means they learned how to safely perform abortions themselves, but only after they found out that the highly skillful man who treated their clients well and went by the codename Dr. Kaplan was, in reality, not a doctor. He was a tuckpointing specialist with a raspy laugh named Mike.

By the time directors, Tia Lessin and Emma Pildes reveal that The Janes didn’t know their abortion specialist was only licensed to work on bricks and mortar, however, the viewer is long past being disturbed by such news. Mike didn’t harass their clients and he did his job cleanly and well. None of the women who came to The Janes died because of receiving a procedure from them.

“If you start worrying about all the little details, you won’t get anything done.”

They ran their network like a spy ring and were so fiercely devoted to maintaining their clients’ privacy that as they were being carted off to jail, they began eating the cards their identifying information was printed on. (“I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to eat an index card, but it . . . it’s very fibrous,” one quips.)

There’s a specificity to “The Janes” that is partly attributable to Pildes’ connection to the story. Her brother Daniel Arcana is a producer and the son of Judith Arcana, one of the film’s featured subjects. That lends an intimacy and trust to the film that glosses over the very narrow scope of its testimonials, making it difficult to ignore the whiteness of its perspective in the film’s first half.

Part of this is a structural issue; only when about 50 minutes have passed do the participating Janes bring up that the women running the network were primarily white, which they recognized was a blind spot. As the Janes’ reach expanded and another organization, the Clergy Consultation Service, stepped in to serve women with the economic means to travel to places where abortion was legal, the Janes mainly served the poor and women of color from Chicago’s South and West sides.


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


Yet we don’t see many non-white women in “The Janes,” save for recurring testimony from Marie Leaner, one of its Black members, and a woman named Crystal O., providing her account of accompanying a friend to get an abortion at the age of 14.

Such gaps may be somewhat excusable in a story designed to be this tightly focused. At the same time, anyone who knows Theodore R.M. Howard’s role in Chicago history and his view that safe, legal abortion is part of civil rights activism may wonder why none of the subjects in the film was invited to connect those dots for the audience.

Noticing this requires knowing that history, and maybe some of them did. Of course, the counterpoint is that the limited scope of “The Janes” is the point, along with its casual presentation. They were one group in one large city, but they represent a will that’s present in towns across the United States. Far fewer obstacles were aligned against them back then too.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is expected to guarantee that roughly half of the country’s population residing in at least 20 states would no longer have access to safe, legal abortions. Today’s “Janes” equivalents have a draconian partisan apparatus aligned against them that could result in charges as serious as murder. But those activists may take some heart in Oliver’s casual bravery regarding The Janes’ work: “If you start worrying about all the little details, you won’t get anything done.”

“The Janes” premieres Wednesday, June 8 at 9 p.m. on HBO and streams on HBO Max. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories like this:

“The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans” recap: Fun on demand

The finale of “The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans” felt abrupt. The eight episodes we were allotted to catch up with Melissa Beck, Danny Roberts, Kelley Wolf, Tokyo Broom, Jamie Murray, Matt Smith and Julie Stoffer were not nearly enough to, first, crack into the shell that reflexively went up around these people as a result of being shoulder-shoved into the public eye in this way for the first time in 22-years and, second, receive and then sift through all that we’re shown and told. Processing the sum of its parts, this season of “Homecoming” shows how time can advance a person up a ladder of growth, with each passing day leaving them better equipped to handle what they’ll come up against in the next. Or it can bury them deeper and deeper under a heap of their own demons and insecurities in such a way that they later reemerge as the main character in a “Babadook”-esque horror story of their own creation that should have been, could have been, a happy little look into the life of someone many of us entered into adulthood with.

There’s a fine line between part of good television in a way that leads to more opportunities, and forcing television spectacle in a way that will likely land you in divorce court, or jail.

There is no mistaking that “The Real World” is packaged with a purpose. Since the franchise debuted with its New York season in 1992, creators Mary-Ellis Bunim (who passed away in 2004) and Jonathan Murray made no attempt to hide or make excuses for the fact that grouping seven very different strangers together in a new city, throwing obstacles in their way in the form of jobs, group trips, or carefully cast religious differences and sexual sure-fires, and then letting the cameras roll is a perfect recipe for good television. But while it can often feel exciting to watch people bicker and screw up their real-life off-screen reputations, it also feels, as Kelley Wolf would say, “icky” or “fun on demand.” It’s also very obvious, as a viewer, which of the cast members, on any given season, is on the show to experience everything the opportunity has to offer in an organic way, and who is there simply to raise hell and make a big enough spectacle that their name gets remembered above all others. In the original New Orleans season, as well as this “Homecoming,” Julie Stoffer had a clear goal to do and say whatever it took to be remembered, without seeming to care much what it is that she’ll be remembered for. There’s a fine line between part of good television in a way that leads to more opportunities, and forcing television spectacle in a way that will likely land you in divorce court, or jail. 

RELATED: “The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans” recap: Somebody’s baby tonight

In last week’s episode we witnessed a moment that we now know to have been edited to give a certain narrative slant when Julie ran through the house showing what we were made to believe were shirtless photos that her husband Spencer had sent her. When Kelley was shown one of these photos, she recoiled in what could have read as excessive disgust but, after posting some clarity to her personal Instagram, we now have the full story of what it was that actually caused her to react in that way, and why she decided to leave the house, and the show as a whole, days before filming wrapped on the season.

“The reason for my departure was simple: I felt the need to protect myself, and I listened to my instincts,” Kelley said on Instagram. “This is some of what happened: I was shown a photo of a cast member’s husband’s erection without my consent. I was asked on many occasions how many times I masturbated, and was baited into conversations of a sexual nature against my consent.” 

The episode Kelley is referring to was edited kindly, painting Julie with a level of grace she did not afford the rest of her castmates, but the truth of what happened was known within the house then, it’s known to us now, and it was more than enough to make Kelley feel unsafe in a way in which she couldn’t stomach living under the same roof as this woman one day longer, and no amount of fancy brunches and fake Mardi Gras parades would convince her otherwise. Something like this, being feral enough to force a cast member to flee, could lead Julie to believe that she “won” the game of reality television here but what was there to win, exactly, aside from an award for being the most bats**t? And factor in that she “won” at the expense of everyone else in the house and that price just ends up being too high for a flash of fame that will fade in a few weeks once Julie gets sucked back into obscurity. 


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


Adulthood is consequences. And the consequence of Julie’s actions is a world of people being introduced to her, or reintroduced to her, and thinking she’s nuts.

When the original New Orleans season first aired in 2000, I was in my early 20s, and the members of the cast were around that same age. When you’re 20 you’re still very much a child in a way you don’t fully realize until you’ve been 20 twice over. In 2000 a person who was the age I am now seemed ancient, but the “wisdom” of those passing years – and I say that word with an eye roll because I definitely just had a handful of baby carrots and hot coffee for lunch – allows you to realize that youth will always live inside of us and that age only hits in levels of responsibility. At 20 we have time to kill, but at 40+ we can’t get puke drunk and chainsmoke our faces off, like we may still want to, because we’ve already lived half of our lives and we don’t want to spend the remainder being sick. Adulthood is consequences. And the consequence of Julie’s actions is a world of people being introduced to her, or reintroduced to her, and thinking she’s nuts. 

On their last day in the house, the remaining cast met up with New Orleans artist Lionel Milton. You may remember Lionel as being the man who befriended Melissa in the original season and inspired her to learn how to paint. In their final moments of “Homecoming,” everyone came together to say goodbye to the city that bookended their 20s and 40s by helping Lionel to paint a mural that you can still see on the corner of Magazine St. and St. Mary. Isn’t that so much nicer of an image to have people remember you by than a picture of your husband’s junk? I would think so.

Read more:

How “Fire Island” passes the Bechdel test – by creating a new one

On Monday, in a now-deleted Tweet, writer Hanna Rosin criticized Hulu’s popular new film “Fire Island” for its so-called failure of the Bechdel test. Rosin wrote that the movie “gets an F- on the Bechdel test in a whole new way. Do we just ignore the drab lesbian stereotypes bc cute gay Asian boys? Is this revenge for all those years of the gay boy best friend?” 

By the next day, the Tweet was gone and a whole new string of Tweets had appeared, with an apology. Rosin wrote: “My tweet was careless and thoughtless. Truly. The movie was telling a story about queer AAPI [Asian American Pacific Islander] men, whose experiences don’t show up enough in movies or anywhere else … What I had to say was beside the point, not to mention a buzzkill on a fun summer movie.”

The “fun summer movie” in question was written by its star, Joel Kim Booster, and centers the experiences of queer Asian men. In doing so, it’s a rarity in Hollywood where the majority of stories are still told by and about straight people, especially cishet white ones. When characters are queer, they’re usually white. In 2019, GLAAD found that only 34% of queer characters were characters of color, a small percentage that kept decreasing, down from 42% the year before and 57% in 2017.

But Rosin focused her Tweet on the film’s lack of women characters and cited a long-standing measurement of women’s roles in cinema: the Bechdel test. What is the Bechdel test and what does the person it’s named for have to say about all this?

RELATED: How “Fire Island” puts the Pride in “Pride & Prejudice”

The Bechdel test comes from the comic “Dykes to Watch Out For” by Alison Bechdel, MacArthur Fellowship winner and author of the graphic memoir “Fun Home,” which was turned into a 2015 Tony Award-winning musical. Bechdel and friend Liz Wallace created the test in 1985 (sometimes it’s called the Bechdel-Wallace test) when a character tells another she only goes to see a movie if it features two female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man.

Easier said than done. In the comic, it’s only “Alien” that fulfils those qualifications. The website bechdeltest.com has included a database since 2013 of movies that pass and movies that fail miserably. Recent movies that fail to complete three components of the Bechdel test (two female characters, talking to each other, not just talking about a man) according to the website include “Ambulance,” “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore” and “The Northman.” 

Does “Fire Island” pass? Well . . . the Hulu film, a loose updating of Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” is focused on a found family of queer friends determined to have one last wonderful summer on Fire Island, New York’s famed gay mecca. All the friends are male except one, Erin (Margaret Cho). Her role is not the largest or most developed: Erin is older, partner-less and losing her home. The movie’s only other woman? A very minor, very angry lesbian on a boat.

But the film is a showcase for queer Asian men and those specific experiences that have been hugely absent from popular fiction. Objecting to one missing story is not taking into account the other marginalized stories it does bring to light. D.R. Medlen of The MarySue wrote: “Instead of being excited about a mainstream movie providing a platform for a traditionally underrepresented group, we get a hot take from the school of white feminism that no one asked for . . . White feminism has a long history of making arguments about inclusion or visibility only if specifically white women are included.”

So, the short answer is no, it doesn’t pass. However, perhaps it’s time for other, different measures. Valid criticisms can be made about the film, including about its portrayal of Black queer characters. But as for its lack of women, it’s not about them. Actor and producer Emerson Collins tweeted, “‘FI’ fails [the Bechdel test] rather intentionally . . . gay Asian men are rarely/never centered this way.” 

And the answer could be simple: we need more movies. As Rebecca Sun writes, “Stories about one historically excluded identity do not have to be about all of them.” It’s past time for more, different and diverse stories by and about multiple kinds of communities and underrepresented experiences. 


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


The definite response? From the test creator herself, Alison Bechdel, who tweeted: “Okay, I just added a corollary to the Bechdel test: Two men talking to each other about the female protagonist of an Alice Munro story in a screenplay structured on a Jane Austen novel = pass.” The movie’s official Twitter feed expressed excitement in a reaction worthy of a “Fire Island” summer:

More stories like this

 

The Mars rover accidentally adopted a pet rock

Life for Perseverance, the plucky rover that is currently roaming the Red Planet some 132 million miles away from Earth, is quite lonely. From the desolate, dusty landscape of Jezero Crater to the gusty Martian winds, life on Mars is not for the faint of heart — or at least, for those who are extroverts. Hence, despite being a robot on a scientific research mission, researchers on NASA’s Perseverance mission team were surprised recently to discover that Perseverance had accidentally adopted a pet rock.

It’s unclear whether Perseverance chose the rock or the rock chose Perseverance, but scientists say the rock has found itself a cozy home on the rover’s front left wheel, at which point it began to cling to it. According to a news release from NASA about the rock, the rock has been there since early February and has traveled more than 5.3 miles around Mars; Perseverance itself has traveled a total of 7.3 miles since it touched down on Mars in February 2021. Fortunately, the rock hasn’t caused any damage to Perseverance, though it has certainly lived up to its owner as it perseveres in clinging to the rover after so many miles.

Rock stuck in Perseverance rover's shoeRock stuck in Perseverance rover’s shoe (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

This isn’t the first time a rover has adopted a rock — or rather, that a rock has chosen a rover. Nearly 18 years ago, a potato-sized rock hitched on to the right wheel of the Spirit rover, which operated on the surface of Mars from 2004 to 2010. Mission operators eventually had to dislodge the intruder remotely. The Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars in 2012, saw rocks periodically lodged in its front right wheel. However, scientists say that usually these types of rover-rock relationships typically last only a few weeks— not months.


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


Since landing on Mars in February 2021, Perseverance has racked up an impressive list of firsts. For example, the rover’s combined mission marked the first time a helicopter was flown on another planet. Perseverance also managed to extract oxygen from the Red Planet’s carbon dioxide atmosphere, a method that could someday be used to provide astronauts with oxygen on Mars. And perhaps most importantly, Perseverance successfully collected and stored soil and rock samples that will ultimately become the first Martian rocks to return to Earth for scientific study. And it’s now also had a pet rock for the longest period of time of any rover — nearly four months and counting. Is there anything Perseverance can’t do?

In other Perseverance news, a paper published in Science Advances detailed Perseverance’s observations of hundreds of dust devils and its famous video of wind gusts lifting a massive Martian dust cloud. Scientists say that Perseverance’s observations of these weather phenomena, which were made during the first 216 Martian days of its adventure, could help predict dust storms on Mars in the future. 

Related: Mars’ weird geology vexes scientists

“Jezero Crater may be in one of the most active sources of dust on the planet,” said Manuel de la Torre Juarez, deputy principal investigator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, in a press release. “Everything new we learn about dust will be helpful for future missions.”

The authors of the study discovered that at least four whirlwinds pass Perseverance on a typical Martian day— making the resilience of Perseverance’s rock friend even more notable and impressive.

Is an end to the rock’s journey in sight? Scientists suspect that the rock may fall off during a future ascent of the crater rim due to gravity. And if it does, it will land in an area with rocks very different from itself. As Eleni Ravanis, a student collaborator at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa explained in the news release about the rock, a future Mars geologist would be perplexed by the rock’s placement.

“So: if you’re a Martian geologist from the future reading this, maybe a Martian graduate student tasked with mapping the historical site of Jezero crater: take heed,” Ravanis wrote. “If you’ve found a rock that looks out of place, you might just be looking at the former pet rock of Perseverance.”

Read more about Mars:

Simone Biles, Aly Raisman and others sue FBI for $1 billion for mishandling Larry Nassar probe

In the ongoing conversation to believe women when it comes to #MeToo claims, is the push for actual accountability for those who may have dismissed, denied or delayed acting on the claims in the first place. Case in point is the USA Gymnastics scandal that rocked the sport.

More than 90 women who say they were sexually assaulted by former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar have filed federal tort claims against the FBI on Wednesday for failing to reprimand the now-convicted child molester after receiving allegations made against him, lawyers reported, per the Associated Press.

The claims specify the yearlong gap between the FBI’s initial acquisition of reports detailing Nassar’s longstanding abuse and his subsequent arrest, which was prompted by a local law enforcement investigation and not the federal agency.

RELATED: The costs of surviving childhood sexual abuse

The lawsuits come just two weeks after the Justice Department announced that the individual FBI agents who botched the 2015 investigation and misled investigators for the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General would not face any charges. A handful of victims asserted that Nassar continued to sexually abuse young women and girls after his crimes were reported with no meaningful action from the bureau.

Plaintiffs in the case include Olympic gold medalists Simone Biles, Aly Raisman and McKayla Maroney along with NCAA national champion gymnast Maggie Nichols, former University of Michigan gymnast Samantha Roy and former-gymnast-turned-advocate Kaylee Lorincz.

“My fellow survivors and I were betrayed by every institution that was supposed to protect us — the U.S. Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics, the FBI and now the Department of Justice,” Maroney said in a statement. “It is clear that the only path to justice and healing is through the legal process.”

In April, 13 other victims filed similar Collective Administrative Claims against the FBI. According to NBC News, Wednesday’s filing is not the first under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but it is the largest and includes Nassar’s most prominent accusers. Collectively, the claimants are seeking more than $1 billion in damages.


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


In September 2021, Biles, Maroney, Raisman and Nichols also testified before Congress, criticizing both the FBI and the Justice Department for their mishandling of the investigations.

“The FBI knew that Larry Nassar was a danger to children when his abuse of me was first reported in September of 2015. For 421 days they worked with USA Gymnastics and USOPC to hide this information from the public and allowed Nassar to continue molesting young women and girls. It is time for the FBI to be held accountable,” said Nichols.

Nassar pleaded guilty to multiple counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2018 after 265 women, including many members of the U.S. Olympic women’s gymnastics team and the Michigan State University gymnastics program, accused him of sexual abuse. He is currently serving up to 175 years in prison.

“If the F.B.I. had simply done its job, Nassar would have been stopped before he ever had the chance to abuse hundreds of girls, including me,” Roy said in a statement, per The New York Times.

More stories you might like:

Mitch McConnell demands Democrats rush to pass security bill to protect Brett Kavanaugh

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., bashed House Democrats on Wednesday for blocking the passage of a Supreme Court security bill after an apparent assassination attempt against conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that a California man with a gun and a knife was arrested outside of Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland. ​​Nicholas John Roske was later charged with charged with the attempted murder of a federal judge. Roske was reportedly outraged over recent mass shootings and as well as the recently leaked draft majority opinion revealing that the court had already voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling establishing America’s constitutional right to abortion. 

Amid the series of protests following that leak, the Senate passed a law last month that would provide a round-the-clock security detail for every justice’s family. However, the bill has not yet been passed by the Democratic-backed House, in part because Democrats have argued that the provision should extend to other staffers in the Supreme Court.

RELATED: Samuel Alito’s leaked anti-abortion decision: Supreme Court doesn’t plan to stop at Roe

This week, McConnell blasted the Democratic caucus over the bill’s progress, saying that “House Democrats need to pass this bill and they need to do it today.”

“No more fiddling around with this. They need to pass it today,” he said, according to Politico. “They need to stop their multi-week blockade against this Supreme Court security bill and pass it before the sun sets today.”


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


“This is common sense, non-controversial legislation that passed in this chamber, in this chamber unanimously,” he added. “But House Democrats have spent weeks blocking … the measure that passed here unanimously related to security for Supreme Court justices.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who co-sponsored the security bill, has echoed McConnell’s sentiment. “Speaker Pelosi must keep the House in session until they pass my bill,” he told Politico. “Every day they don’t the threat to the Justices grows, the potential for tragedy becomes more likely, and House Democrats achieve a new apex of political dysfunction.”

RELATED: White House condemns protests at homes of Supreme Court justices after Republicans cry harassment

While McConnell was demanding House Democrats move to protect Supreme Court justices, the majority in the lower chamber held a hearing on the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas which featured one of the student survivors. 

“I don’t want it to happen again,” said 11-year-old Miah Cerillo said of the massacre in video testimony to Congress on Wednesday. The elementary school student recalled how she covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot and “just stayed quiet.”

“And then he shot some of my classmates.”

Republicans, for their part, have stalled efforts to pass national gun regulations. 

How chef Andy Baraghani makes his delicious recipes with a few tools and no dishwasher

You probably first became a fan of Andy Baraghani his inventive, intriguing work at Bon Appétit, where he made us crave tahini smothered cabbage and salads of kale and coconut. Now the chef, a food writer and recipe just released his debut cookbook, “The Cook You Want to Be: Everyday Recipes to Impress.” Baraghani joined us on “Salon Talks” to talk about salad, baking and why your phone shouldn’t be your kitchen timer. Watch our episode here or read a Q&A of our conversation below.

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

Let’s talk about what it means to be the cook you want to be. You start out this book by saying you didn’t want to be a cook at all.

No, fully.

You ran from it. What sucked you in, what made you come back to this thing that you love?

I think it was very early that I loved food. I have proof in the book. There’s a photo of me with a Fisher-Price kitchen. I think at that age, when I was very, very young and adolescent, what drew me to it was just the act of eating and the pleasure you got. And how it just made me smile and how it was all about taste.

Then it evolved into something that clearly became a passion. Probably around the age of 11, 12, I really became more curious beyond just eating, but also cooking and experimenting in my parents’ kitchen. It was beyond flavor at that point, it was about how many other things it touched. Techniques, regional cuisines, different cultures. It was a way for me to really expand, not just my palate, but my mind. That’s why I decided to pursue it as a profession and then go into restaurants.

This book is also about, as you say, context. It’s about challenging us to rethink, what is American food? What is home cooking? It’s not just one particular thing. You make your family influences and your cultural influences as a Californian, as a New Yorker, as a Persian American, first generation. How do you incorporate that into what you’re doing for this wider audience, including foods and techniques that maybe some people have never seen before?

I really thought about the lessons I’ve learned throughout my life, working in this kind of funny, beautiful, delicious food space I refer to. Growing up Iranian-American, working in restaurants around the country, working in food media, I try to distill these lessons and try to put it in the book for the reader.

“I really wanted to write the recipes in a way where it didn’t come from this authoritative place, but more of a place where I’m right there with you.”

I realized that if you’re trying to push someone to try a new ingredient, that’s probably the one thing they’re going to get from the recipe. You don’t want to add a recipe that has 10, 12, 13 steps. It’s finding that balance. It is important for people in this book to not just fall in love with the recipes and make them and have it be a part of the repertoire, but really go the extra step.

If you’ve learned about an ingredient or a technique or about a regional dish, then I feel like I have succeeded. That is the big goal for me, is for people to go one step further with the recipes.

All of us have a different idea of that concept of being “the cook you want to be.” I don’t know how intentional this was in the book, but every recipe, the name of it sounds so good. Everything is fluffy. Everything is crunchy, extra crunchy. Spicy, extra spicy. You build these ideas of thinking about what our dishes are. I’m not just going to go into the kitchen and make eggs, I’m going to make fluffy eggs. I’m going to make crispy eggs. I’m going to make jammy eggs.

Thinking in terms of the love language for food feels like an important starting point in identifying what we want to cook, by identifying what flavors we like. How do we start that dialogue with ourselves?

I have a chapter that is really about my essential tools and ingredients. I say in the very beginning, these are the kind of tools that I find that I need that are essential to me in my kitchen. These are the ingredients that I continue to grab and they have become the foundation, the building blocks to the recipes you’ll see throughout this book.

That being said, use them, fall in love with them, but also explore and see what ingredients, what tools benefit you. I have no use for a garlic press, frankly. But if that is something that you want in your kitchen, that’s okay. I think it’s more about exploring and being okay with trying things. Things that you might like, might not like. Because the worst thing that’s going to happen is you just might not buy it again.

You don’t have an Instant Pot. You say you’re very meticulous and very compact about what you have.

A part of it is also living in New York City, having a very tiny apartment and having a very small kitchen. I have shipped away things that I don’t find essential. When it comes to knives, I really just talk about the three knives that I use — a bread knife, a chef’s knife, a paring knife. I have a few pots, skillets, a few good cutting boards. I find that too many tools almost cloud your judgment and get in the way, and also calls for more dishes.

When it comes to the ingredient part, I have understood the flavors that I’m drawn to. I know that I love acid in the form of citrus, in vinegars, plenty of herbs. Chili in the form of both dried and fresh. Fat in the form of nuts and seeds, but obviously a high percent fat content of butter.

RELATED: Why Jessica Seinfeld is a part-time vegan

And yogurt. You’re all about yogurt.

A lot of yogurt. Full fat yogurt, all the way.

One of the pieces of equipment that you are very in favor of is a real timer.

A real timer, yes. I think a real timer is dedicated to just that, timing your dishes or counting down. As soon as you start to grab your iPhone or your phone, assuming that people all have iPhones, it’s a place for so many distractions. Emails, phone calls, texts. I try to avoid that. I never use the timer on my phone, and I promise it’ll make you more focused.

I heard you’re renovating your kitchen now. As you’re laying out a kitchen, for those of us who can’t afford a redo right now but are maybe thinking of how to arrange it or structure it in a way that makes sense, what are you thinking about?

My kitchen is so small, but for me it was very important to have proper amount of workspace. That was essential. So I am extending so I do have a good amount of counter space. And so that, the fridge doesn’t bump out, it’s flush so there’s a good movement. Gas stove, I prefer. And first time ever having a dishwasher in 14 years. So that’s going to be the big thing for me.

“Whether it’s a crunchy veg salad or a leafy green salad, I want a salad to be properly dressed.”

I feel flushed just as you said that. My heart just kind of stops.

Then everyone else outside of New York is just like, “You want a dishwasher?” It’s like, “Yeah, that’s going to make a big difference.”

A lot of us feel intimidated about cooking. Even approaching new cookbook feels like, “Oh God, I’m going to have to learn stuff.” But you get it, because you talk in the book about how you’ve only got five dessert recipes. You’re not a big dessert person. You admit that you’re trying to push yourself a little out of that comfort zone. How has it changed to you, starting a little bit more as a beginner and having that learning curve?

There’s so many things I could talk about right now. I’ve been very lucky to work for different food publications over the years. Part of that is developing recipes. When I decided to write this book, I really wanted to write the recipes in a way where it didn’t come from this authoritative place, but more of a place where I’m right there with you. I’m right there in the kitchen, I’m encouraging you.

There’s been so many great cookbooks over the years that I’ve seen. Obviously there’s a template. You have a head note, you have a list of ingredients, and a method, but I didn’t want it to be feel too strict. With the recipes I wanted to make sure that it feels like there’s movement and it’s fluid. And there’s my voice right there to encourage you and to let you know that it’s okay that it might not be this exact size or perfectly cooked in this way. I promise it’ll still be delicious.

I do talk about in the intro for the dessert chapter, that desserts have been my Achilles’ heel of sorts in food. I worked in restaurants and developing so many recipes, the majority has been savory over sweet. But I do love desserts. I genuinely want to just develop more dessert recipes. There’s only five in the book, I’ll admit that. What’s really important for me, and I think for anybody who is creative or has their respected craft, is to acknowledge that the process isn’t always linear. For me there’s been a lot of bumps and unprotected left-hand turns, but those have been essentials in my love for food and my career in this food world. Desserts have been that learning curve.

But I welcome it, and I think that’s what makes me the cook that I am. My goal is hopefully, if, when maybe I write another book, that the dessert chapter might be the biggest chapter in the book. That’s my greatest hope, is to continue to evolve and grow and never to stay stagnant.

All right, I’m going to reel you back into your comfort zone. I’m going to put you right where you are on top — salads. You are the salad man. What are the keys to a great salad?

Whether it’s a crunchy veg salad or a leafy green salad, I want a salad to be properly dressed. Dressed enough so there isn’t too much of a pool of vinaigrette or creamy dressed on the side. I want it to be light and airy and never weigh down. I want good acidity with each mouthful and an irregular bite and crunch. I want it to kind of fool the palette and keep you guessing. That’s what I think a great salad is.

You have a technique. I am on your side on this one, I believe it too. You are a hands-on.

Oh, for sure. I believe in tossing a salad with your hands, specifically I would say leafy salads. A vinaigrette, for sure. Because you’re taking these leafy greens, whether it’s endive or a gem lettuce, whatever that kind of green may be, it is quite delicate. Hands are a lot more easier to toss around and feel that each green is dressed, rather than wooden serving spoons or some kind of salad tosser. Because I think that end up bruising the greens very easily.

What are the cookbooks that changed your life, that really stick with you and you hear in your head?

First and foremost, I’d say all of David Tanis’s books. My mentor, my friend, a chef I worked under at Chez Panisse. From “A Platter of Figs,” his first book, to “The Heart of an Artichoke.” He personally and his books have taught me so much. He’s a very special human being. Friends of his, we call him the wizard. He just has the touch.

I would say “The Zuni Café Cookbook,” for sure. It’s feels very California, a lot of these.

But it’s what I grew up with. “The Zuni Café Cookbook,” the Boulevard cookbook. Very much when I was a teenager, I would look at that book all the time. So many of Nigel Slater’s books. I think, and it’s telling. I don’t know majority of them, I really only have a relationship with David, but I would want them to read this book and hopefully I make them proud.

There’s something that I think all of those authors and in not just their books, but in their cooking, it’s very intuitive. That is something I really tried to push in this book, intuitive cooking.

More Salon Talks with our favorite cooks: