Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Kayleigh McEnany called out for calling Jen Psaki an “autocrat” who gives “snarky answers”

As White House press secretary for the Biden Administration, Jen Psaki hasn’t been shy about debating Fox News’ Peter Doocy and others on the right. But she doesn’t insult them or try to bully them into silence — in contrast to Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who, as White House press secretaries in the Trump Administration, reflected Donald Trump’s view that reporters are the enemy of the people. Psaki is assertive but not belligerent; Spicer and Sanders were belligerent.

Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany, who was the last White House press secretary under Trump, attacked Psaki during a Tuesday, April 19 conversation with her colleague Harris Faulkner on the show “Outnumbered” — describing her as “snarky” and someone with the mentality of an “autocrat.”

This was laughable coming from an ally and defender of the overtly authoritarian Trump, and McEnany’s anti-Psaki comments are being slammed on social media.

Here’s what some of McEnany’s critics have had to say:

Majority of Republicans celebrate Capitol riots as “patriotism”: poll

It should be of little shock that the American electorate has two distinct interpretations — at least —of current political issues. Perhaps no single event, it turns out, has drawn as divergent opinions as last year’s Jan. 6 Capitol riot. 

The New Republic’s special May issue centers on the current state of democracy both domestically and internationally. As part of their coverage, the news site conducted a survey with polling firm Hart Research Associates to better understand why most people believe the American government is failing and uncovered some surprising results. In response to whether the United States’ current political system needs to see development anywhere from “major changes” to a “complete overhaul,” Republicans agreed by 44 percent and Democrats by 48. Asked about the confidence they have in a likely governmental overhaul, only 25 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of Democrats said they were optimistic democracy will look different in the next 10 or 20 years.

The data revealed America has two distinct interpretations of current political issues. “Perhaps the origins of the divergence can be traced to how differently members of the political parties conceive of the nature of our government,” states a TNR article summarizing the poll’s results. For example, Republicans agree by 47 percent that democracy means “the protection of individual rights and liberties” while 22 percent selected “decisions are made by a majority of citizens.” Democrats selected majority rule as their top answer at 29 percent but were also split on the question. 

As the survey questions go on, the divide between Republicans and Democrats is made strikingly clear.


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


One question asked if a Republican won the next presidential election would Democrats accept the election results or attempt to overturn it. In response to “Democrats will accept the result,” 88 percent of Democrats agreed while 79 percent of Republicans said “Democrats will work to overturn the result.” 

Another area that accentuated American political polarization was on questions about current threats to democracy. The majority of Democrats are concerned about the increasing prevalence of white nationalist groups and Republicans making voting more difficult for people. Republicans are most troubled by mask-wearing, vaccine mandates, and Democrats committing election fraud. Both party affiliates agreed “the possibility of political violence” posed a real threat to democracy. 

Most Republicans think of January 6 as an “act of patriotism” at 57 percent while 88 percent of Democrats label it an “insurrection.” 

RELATED: The Big Lie is here to stay: Republicans plot to overturn elections on every level

“I don’t know whether we should take a lot of comfort in knowing there are still 43 percent of Republicans who think that was wrong or despair that it’s only 43 percent,” said Guy Molyneux from Hart Research Associates for TNR. 

Asked about what they would do to strengthen democracy, Democrats would be satisfied with an elimination of the Electoral College, disposal of the filibuster, and making Puerto Rico a state. Republicans differ with a preference for reducing absentee voting, limiting early voting times, revamping border security, and a complete shutdown of all illegal immigration. Both parties agree on limiting the years Supreme Court justices can serve.  

Americans on both sides of the aisle found common ground in opposing splitting the country into two separate nations representing the increasingly diverging values of “red” and “blue.” Molyneux said for TNR that while Americans are angry at each other, they’re not ready “to literally take their marbles and go to a new home.”

Ted Cruz worries Disney will show “Mickey and Pluto going at it” and Twitter has questions

The bizarre right-wing war on The Walt Disney Company entered a new phase on Tuesday when United States Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, suggested that Disney plans on broadcasting animated gay pornography featuring two of its most beloved male cartoon characters.

Republicans have been beside themselves ever since Disney’s Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek publicly condemned Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law in March. A few weeks later, the corporation’s heir, Charlee, came out as transgender.

Numerous conservatives have berated Disney for supporting its LGBTQ+ employees. But Cruz’s latest remarks are by far the strangest uttered by GOP homophobes (until now, at least).

Recall that Cruz’s eldest daughter Caroline revealed in January that she is bisexual and declared that she “disagrees” with her father’s toxic bigotry.

“A lot of people judge me based upon him at first glance,” Caroline said at the time. “But I really disagree with most of his views.”

The Senator’s freaky rant made it abundantly clear that he is unmoved and will continue to promote intolerance.

“I think there are people who are misguided, trying to drive, you know, Disney stepping in saying, you know, in every episode, now they’re going to have, you know, you know, Mickey and Pluto going at it like, really?!” Cruz exclaimed on his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.

“Thank you for that image, Senator,” Cruz’s guest interjected.

“You know, but it’s just like, like, come on guys, like, like, these are kids, and, and, you know, you can always shift to Cinemax if you want that, like, like, why do you have – it used to be – look, I’m a dad,” Cruz continued. “Like, you used to be able to put your kids on the Disney Channel and be like, alright, something innocuous will happen.”

Watch below via The Recount:

Cruz being Cruz, he shared the clip and dug himself in deeper.

“Hysterical—Leftists think parents want woke corporations indoctrinating our kids,” he tweeted. “It ain’t complicated: don’t talk about sex—gay or straight—with little kids!”

Twitter, meanwhile, had a lot of questions, such as why people like Cruz are incessantly fixated on sex.

Libs of TikTok: The Twitter troll who took Trump’s place

How many millions of words have been exhausted by pundits trying to figure out what appeal Donald Trump has to the MAGA base? For years, theories were floated about his “populism” and the way that his run on “The Apprentice” deluded people into thinking he was actually a successful businessman. Much digital ink was spilled wondering how his followers didn’t notice his comical comb-over, orange make-up and the massive gap between his self-image as a tough manly man and the doughy senior citizen that he actually is. The curiosity lingers: What accounts for the charisma that his followers see that is utterly invisible to people with any modicum of decency? 

Turns out the secret to Trump’s success was not all that mysterious and staring us right in the face, 240 illiterate letters at a time: The man is a relentless Twitter troll.

So “relentless Twitter troll” is now the main skillset required not just to skyrocket to the top of the GOP attention economy, but to become the de facto party leader. When Republicans think of who they want as their leader for both the policy agenda and political strategy, the main thing they’re now looking for is someone with that right combination of total moral depravity and desperation for attention that drives them to abuse social media in the worst possible way.

We know this to be true because in the months since Trump was kicked off Twitter and Facebook for inciting a violent insurrection, Republicans found a new person to be the party leader in all but name: An anonymous Twitter troll who posts under the name “Libs of TikTok.” 

RELATED: On Twitter, “Libs of TikTok” stokes culture wars outrage

Well, she was anonymous until this week, when heroic Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz, who deserves all the Pultizers, published the name of the masked queen of the GOP: Chaya Raichik, a Brooklyn-based real estate salesperson. From the safety of anonymity, Raichik reposts TikTok videos made by ordinary Americans, mostly LGBTQ people, “often including incendiary framing designed to generate outrage.” Videos originally meant for small and friendly audiences are dangled out for the right’s daily Two Minutes Hate sessions. Raichik uses accusations of “grooming” to justify what is, in reality, a virtual effort to revive the practice of gay-bashing. All the worst people in America — including Fox News hosts and Joe Rogan — adore the account. Meanwhile, people have lost jobs and been subject to terror campaigns due to Raichik’s abuse. 

The uncut sociopathy on display at Raichick’s account means that, without even revealing her identity, she has become what Lorenz describes as “an agenda-setter in right-wing online discourse,” and what Media Matters staffer Ari Drennen characterized as “a wire service for the broader right-wing media ecosystem.” Her targeted harassment often goes viral and is frequently shared on Fox News for a national audience. 


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


But Raichik hasn’t been just the functional editorial director of Fox News. Her relentless drumbeat of queerphobia has, seemingly overnight, reshaped the entire political agenda of the GOP. On the state level, Republican lawmakers have focused their energies on crushing LGBTQ rights with “don’t say gay” laws, bans on gender-affirming care, and even forcing CPS workers to harass families with trans kids. On the Senate level, Republicans have circled back to the idea of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. In Tennessee, a bill meant to remake marriage into a straights-only institution has already been filed. 

“Triggering the liberals” is the main reason for being a Republican these days.

What’s notable about all these efforts is that, following Raichik’s lead, Republicans rarely bother to make coherent arguments against LGBTQ rights. Instead, their rhetorical strategy is focused mainly on trolling, primarily in the form of calling anyone who argues against these bigoted policies a “groomer.” No one who flings that word around, of course, actually thinks that LGBTQ people and their allies are in a conspiracy to sexually abuse children. It’s a pure troll, meant to be so beyond the pale that even responding to it slimes the person falsely accused. Republicans are so excited by this troll that they even used it to smear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with similar insinuations during her Senate confirmation hearing. No one believed the accusations — in fact, her approval ratings went up in response — but persuasion is not the point. The point of the troll is to get everyone arguing about the false accusation of “groomer” so that they’re not arguing about the real issue here: LGBTQ rights. 

RELATED: The goal of the GOP’s QAnon-influenced “groomer” troll: More political violence

Not surprising from a party that is so unable to defend their policy preferences that they got rid of the party platform and have pulled out of nationally televised debates. When Sen. Rick Scott of Florida tried to issue a shadow party platform that called for ending Social Security and raising taxes on disabled people and veterans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell responded with anger. No one is to puncture the bubble of secrecy that’s been established around what Republicans actually stand for. No one knows better than Republican leaders that their actual ideas are indefensible. Instead of trying to defend their ideas, they instead mire the public debate in bullshit and noise through relentless trolling. 

It works in no small part because ordinary Republican voters care little about policy, and are mainly focused on tribalistic hatred and resentment of liberals. “Triggering the liberals” is the main reason for being a Republican these days. The new class of Republican leaders are selected mainly for their trolling skills. That’s why people like McConnell or House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy may be the nominal leaders of the GOP, but the people they answer to are insurrectionist dirtbags like Georgia’s Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. These folks have nothing positive to offer the world, but they are extremely good at trolling. The result is that the official party leaders cater to the trolls, letting them set the agenda and never putting up any real resistance to their excesses.


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


Of course, the most dramatic example of this phenomenon is former president Donald Trump, a man who loves Vladimir Putin and declared on national television that injecting bleach into your lungs might be a good cure for COVID-19. He’s a man without conscience and without reading skills beyond the third grade. He is also the god-king of the GOP. He sits on his throne in Mar-A-Lago, watching Republican politicians debase themselves before him to get his approval out of the hope that his trollish grace will result in electoral wins. They don’t respect him or like him, but he is a very good troll who reliably triggers the liberals, so they must pay fealty. 

Republicans would rather engage in a go-nowhere debate over what is “doxxing” rather than answer hard questions about why they’ve made such a monstrous person their de facto leader.

Of course, Trump has been deprived of what remains the most potent weapon in the troll’s arsenal: social media. Without it, his provocations often go into the ether, with nary a liberal triggered or a reporter even paying attention. And not for lack of trying, either. On Monday, Trump issued a press release that basically called on Ukraine to surrender (though he tried to spin the demand as “working out some kind of agreement” with Putin) and threatened “everyone will be DEAD” if they don’t stop fighting the Russian invasion. Leveraging genocidal threats against a fledgling democracy is nuclear grade sociopathy, but Trump barely made a ripple with it. Without social media, his trolling is mostly stillborn. 

RELATED: Birth of a “Troll Nation”: Amanda Marcotte on how and why conservatives embraced the dark side 

Raichik, on the other hand, still has a Twitter account and is still using it to dish up bloody red meat to the ugliest souls in America. And even when she was outed, she and her defenders continued to use trolling as their main rhetorical strategy. They’re currently pretending to be outraged at Lorenz “doxxing” Raichik. This is, of course, laughable bad faith, since the entire point of Libs of TikTok is to expose private citizens to millions of bigots who will harass them, threaten them, and try to get them fired. But miring the public discourse in a bad faith “debate” over doxxing is about making sure people aren’t talking about what really matters here: That one of the two main political parties in the country takes their marching orders from an anonymous Twitter troll who has dedicated her life to personally ruining people’s lives to punish them for being queer. 

One can see why Republicans would rather engage in a go-nowhere debate over what is “doxxing” rather than answer hard questions about why they’ve made such a monstrous person their de facto leader. There are no good answers to those questions. The real answers are “we suck” and “holy crap, we are the absolute worst.” They know they can never win a public debate based on reason and evidence, which is why they resort to childish, bigoted provocation. It’s a reminder why Trump and his acolytes turned to violence on January 6, which Raichik apparently bragged about participating in. They have nothing to offer, in terms of persuasive arguments or meaningful ideas. All they have is inchoate hate. The entire Libs of TikTok debacle is yet more proof that the party of Trump is nothing but a troll nation

Legal experts: Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton could backfire and help Democrats instead

Former President Donald Trump’s litigious lifestyle got a little more complicated after he launched an expansive racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

As Politico reported, the Tuesday court filings could actually end up helping Democrats more than hurting them.

Among multiple claims alleged in the lawsuit are “racketeering” and “conspiracy” to commit injurious untruths: “Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” Trump seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, and claims he incurred expenses of at least $24 million “in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses.”

It’s similar to the allegations that many legal experts had with Trump’s special counselor investigating the Russia investigation. John Durham’s Feb. 2022 filing lays out some allegations, but as the New York Times explained, “these narratives are often based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation.”

The new Trump racketeering lawsuit is essentially doing the same thing to allege that nothing in the notorious dossier was true. It hands those he’s suing a gift that is twofold, according to legal experts.

First, as legal analyst Harry Litman pointed out last year, any lawsuit involving the 2016 election, the dossier and allegations over Russia means that the other side can ask questions that special counsel Robert Mueller wasn’t allowed to.

For example, because Mueller couldn’t indict a sitting president, he didn’t even go after information Trump had about Russia, Vladimir Putin and his contact with them in 2016 and before. At one point, activists mocked what was called the “take-home test,” a slate of questions by Mueller sent to Trump’s lawyers for him to answer.

A lawsuit from Trump opens him up to an actual deposition and questions about the 2016 election and contact with Russia without the power of the Oval Office to protect him. Donald Trump Jr. was also not questioned about his role in the Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Now, the individuals who Trump is suing could finally ask both men questions.

The second way that Trump’s own lawsuit could hurt him is what Politico cited in Tuesday’s filing: Now that there is a lawsuit against the law firm and lawyers involved in the dossier, they can claim the information falls under attorney-client privilege.

The Tuesday legal paperwork makes the argument that any details about confidential discussions about the dossier “should remain secret in part because Trump’s famous litigiousness.” The former president filed over 7,000 lawsuits before running for office.

The Politico report cited court filings from lawyer Marc Elias, who explained how the Trump lawsuit could help protect Democrats.

“I also generally remember being aware that [Trump] had used the threat of defamation litigation for tactical advantage and had filed and threatened meritless claims of defamation in the past,” he wrote.

“Significantly, I recall that during the Republican primaries in 2015 and 2016, candidate Trump threatened to sue several rival candidates, campaigns and political organizations for defamation,” Elias continued in the filing. “According to media reports, these included threatening to sue a conservative group for defamatory ads; threatening to sue a supporter of candidate Jeb Bush for defamation if that individual placed advertisements critical of candidate Trump; threatening to sue a political committee supporting candidate John Kasich if that committee aired advertisements critical of candidate Trump and tweeting ‘Watch Kasich squirm—if he is not truthful in his negative ads I will sue him just for fun!”; and threatening to sue candidate Ted Cruz for defamation related to campaign advertisements.”

Courts often uphold attorney-client privileges if the evidence was part of a lawsuit or with anticipation of litigation.

Read the full Politico report here.

Oklahoma middle school teacher says he was fired for Pride flags in classroom

A Tulsa, Oklahoma middle school teacher was allegedly fired after refusing to remove Pride flags from his classroom. 

Last Friday, Tyler Rathe, a seventh grade science teacher at Jenks Middle School, lost his job after displaying a number of flags representing his students’ identities and countries of origin, according to KWGS. Initially, Rathe was put on administrative leave but was subsequently sacked after rejecting the school’s request to take the flags down. 

The ACLU has strongly objected to Rathe’s firing, arguing in a Tuesday letter to the school’s superintendent that the move was “unlawful” and “discriminatory.”

“The administration’s termination of Mr. Rathe for failure to remove Pride flags from a 2SLGBTQ+ teacher’s classroom, unguided by any written policy, is an inherently arbitrary and prejudiced attack on free speech and free association,” wrote staff attorney Hanna Roberts. “Erasing 2SLGBTQ+ imagery from the classroom will never erase  2SLGBTQ+ students or teachers, but it will certainly send a clear message to the Jenks Public Schools’ 2SLGBTQ+ community – you are not welcome; your identity is not valued here.”

According to KWGS, Roberts has not retained the ACLU to represent him in any legal challenge. 

RELATED: Fired over CRT: Missouri high school teacher accused of teaching “critical race theory” loses job


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


Jenks Public Schools Communications Director Rob Loeber has suggested that Rathe’s allegations are “not factually accurate” but declined to provide any more details, citing the school’s confidentiality policies.

“Jenks Public Schools would be in violation of confidentiality laws if employment records are disclosed. All employees deserve dignity and respect,” Loeber said. “Details of employment records will not be discussed or shared by JPS in a public forum. Employment actions taken by Jenks Public Schools are never based on discriminatory reasons. JPS adheres to non-discrimination policies in all personnel matters.”

Rathe is just the latest educator to be fired over concerns around LGBTQ+ representation in the classroom. 

Last week, a former Missouri high school teacher lost her job for passing out a worksheet titled “How Racially Privileged Are You?” And in December, a former high school teacher was similarly sacked after stating to his all-white classroom that white privilege was “a fact.”

RELATED: “Parental rights” started on th

New Jan. 6 texts: Oath Keepers involved in Capitol attack sought to protect Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson

WASHINGTON — In the most violent hour of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, alleged conspirators in the attack who were aligned with the far-right group the Oath Keepers discussed providing security for U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, an Amarillo Republican, according to text messages made public in newly released court documents.

“Ronnie Jackson (TX) office inside Capitol – he needs OK help. Anyone inside?” texted an unidentified person at 3 p.m., presumably referring to the Oath Keepers as “OK.”

“Hopefully they can help. Dr. Jackson,” another person wrote at 3:03 p.m.

A few minutes later, there was another call to provide help for the Texas congressman.

“Dr. Ronnie Jackson – on the move. Needs protection. If anyone inside cover him,” a person texted at 3:08 p.m. and included a photo that could not be seen from the court documents.

“He has critical data to protect,” the person added.

At 3:10, Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, responded to the text citing Jackson and instructed a person to “Give him my cell.”

Rhodes was arrested earlier this year in Little Elm, accused of conspiring with members of his organization and others to oppose the transfer of presidential power by force. ​​

A spokesperson for Jackson said in a statement that the congressman did not know the people texting about him.

“Like many public figures, Rep. Jackson is frequently talked about by people he does not know,” a Jackson spokesperson said in a statement. “He does not know nor has he ever spoken to the people in question. In fact, he stayed behind with Capitol Police to help defend the House Floor and was one of the last Members to be evacuated.”

“The liberal media’s attempt to drag him into a ‘story’ and make him part of something he has nothing to do with is yet another example of why millions of Americans are exhausted by the relentless, biased coverage of January 6th and its continued use as a political tool,” the spokesperson added.

The documents were filed as part of the case against Ed Vallejo, an Arizona man linked to the Oath Keepers who allegedly helped coordinate an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at a Virginia hotel the day before the attack. Vallejo is one of two people identified in that text chain.

The Oath Keepers claim to represent tens of thousands of present and former law enforcement officials and military veterans under the pretense of defending the U.S. Constitution. The group is, in effect, one of the largest far-right, anti-government groups that peddles in baseless conspiracy theories.

Before his time in Congress, Jackson served in the Navy and as the White House physician for Presidents Barack Obama and Trump.

The tranche of text messages reveals Oath Keepers were also interested in protecting other Trump allies involved in efforts to overturn the election results, including Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Ali Alexander and Michael Flynn.

At the time these texts were sent, the certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College vote, normally a ceremonial affair, was upended, with members of Congress fleeing the Capitol in terror. The minutes before and after these texts marked the peak moment of threat to members of Congress. The Senate chamber had been breached, as had U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, where staffers were barricading themselves against intruders calling for Pelosi.

Many House members at that point were still in their chamber, with a swarm of intruders trying to break into the Speaker’s Lobby, just off the House floor. At approximately 2:44 p.m., a Capitol Police officer shot Ashlie Babbitt as she attempted to breach the door into the Speaker’s Lobby, where House members were congregated.

Around this time, members on the floor barricaded themselves in the chamber. Several Texas Republicans with military and law enforcement backgrounds, including Jackson, held the door shut, according to a witness account U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon, a Sherman Republican, posted on Facebook that day.

“I serve with heroes,” Fallon wrote of Jackson and other Texans who stayed behind. “My Texas GOP colleagues have been my friends and now they are my heroes!!!”

Jackson was among a majority of Texas Republicans who voted to object to certifying the Electoral College votes from Pennsylvania and Arizona when the House was called back that evening after the Capitol had been secured.

On the one-year anniversary of the insurrection in January, Jackson said the individuals who breached the Capitol should be prosecuted, but he criticized the bipartisan Jan. 6 investigation committee.

“Look, I don’t think anybody was a domestic terrorist, that I’m aware of, yet,” he told MyHighPlains.com. “That hasn’t been proven at all. I think that the people who entered the Capitol forcibly, the people who destroyed property, the people who broke windows and knocked down doors, they need to be held accountable, absolutely.

“But this whole pursuing this thing like it was Pearl Harbor or 9/11, which is what the Dems are pushing out today, is absolutely ridiculous,” he added.

We can’t wait to welcome you in person and online to the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the day’s news — all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol from Sept. 22-24. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/19/oath-keepers-ronny-jackson-texas-insurrection/.

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

“Journalism is not a crime”: Human rights groups condemn judge’s Julian Assange extradition order

A British judge on Wednesday officially approved the U.S. government’s request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who faces espionage charges for publishing classified material that exposed war crimes by American forces.

The judge’s new and widely expected procedural order, the culmination of a drawn-out legal battle, places the final decision on Assange’s extradition in the hands of U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel, leaving the WikiLeaks publisher with dwindling options to fight his removal to the U.S.—where he could be hit with a 175-year prison sentence.

Patel is expected to make a final decision by May 18, after which Assange can attempt to appeal via judicial review, Reuters reported Wednesday. As Patel weighs the extradition order, Assange will remain jailed in a high-security London prison, where he has languished for years under conditions that experts have condemned as torture.

Human rights organizations wasted no time urging Patel to reject the extradition order. Allowing it to proceed, they warned, would endanger press freedoms around the world, given that the charges against Assange seek to punish a common journalistic practice.

“Publishing information that is in the public interest is a cornerstone of media freedom,” said Agnes Callamard, the secretary-general of Amnesty International. “Extraditing Julian Assange to face allegations of espionage for publishing classified information would set a dangerous precedent and leave journalists everywhere looking over their shoulders.”

“The charges against Assange should never have been brought in the first place. It is not too late for the U.S. authorities to set things right and drop the charges,” said Callamard. “In the meantime, given the politically motivated nature of the case and its grave implications for freedom of expression, the U.K. should refrain from representing the USA in any further appeals.”

The Espionage Act charges against Assange were originally brought by the Trump administration. Despite pleas from press freedom groups and progressive leaders across the globe, the Biden administration has opted to continue pushing for Assange’s extradition and prosecution.

Rebecca Vincent, director of operations and campaigns at Reporters Without Borders, stressed in a statement Wednesday that “the next four weeks will prove crucial in the fight to block extradition and secure the release of Julian Assange.”

“We are seeking to unite those who care about journalism and press freedom to hold the U.K. government to account,” Vincent added. “The home secretary must act now to protect journalism and adhere to the U.K.’s commitment to media freedom by rejecting the extradition order and releasing Assange.”

In January 2021, a British judge rejected the Trump administration’s request to extradite Assange to the U.S. to face espionage charges, citing the country’s horrific prison conditions.

But the Biden administration successfully appealed the ruling, and last month the U.K. Supreme Court rejected Assange’s request to file an appeal of his own.

“The U.K. has an obligation not to send any person to a place where their life or safety is at risk, and the government must not abdicate that responsibility,” Callamard said Wednesday. “The U.S. authorities have flatly stated that they will change the terms of Assange’s imprisonment in a federal facility whenever they see fit.”

“This admission,” she warned, “places Julian Assange at great risk of prison conditions that could result in irreversible harm to his physical and psychological well-being.”

The Big Lie is here to stay: Republicans plot to overturn elections on every level

Mike Allen of Axios, one of D.C.’s most venerated purveyors of conventional wisdom, dropped a big bomb last week when he wrote that Democrats who study polling are panicking over the possibility that Donald Trump could win the trifecta in 2024 and end up with a “compliant filibuster-proof Senate majority in January 2025” courtesy of what data analyst David Shor, best known for his “popularism” theory, predicted would be “a minority of the vote. 

How’s that for a cherry on top of a shit-sundae? 

Allen pointed to a piece by Yale’s Simon Bazelon who accuses Democrats of “sleepwalking into disaster, noting that a close presidential election in 2024 might take out Democratic Sens. Jon Tester in Montana, Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Jackie Rosen in Nevada. Allen writes, “in all those stateshardcore liberalism is a tough sell,” as if the Democrats are unaware of that and these candidates know nothing about the states they will be running in.

The sword of Damocles is hanging over our entire democracy at this point

Yes, of course, it will be a tough map for Democrats in 2024 because all those incumbents are up for re-election in what are, with the exception of West Virginia, battleground states which by definition are well … battles. Of course, that also means these same states are tough for Republicans. After all, they all lost in 2018.


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


The assumption in Allen’s piece, and others like this one from Ross Douthat, is that not only is the midterm election this November going to be a rout for Democrats because of an inevitable backlash against media-hyped “hardcore liberalism,” 2024 is already in the bag for the GOP as well.

This November is a lot closer and the usual midterm dynamics are apparent, so it’s not ridiculous to be worried about the Democrats losing control of Congress. But to assume Donald Trump has already won the 2024 election because of the party’s alleged “hardcore liberalism” is the predictable stale beltway dogma about politics in “Real America” which has never been an accurate analysis of why people actually vote. We should, howeverbe concerned that the Democrats will lose the 2024 election for an entirely different reason, and, in fact, every Democrats’ hair should be on fire. There is an excellent possibility that they will be shut out in 2024, but it won’t be because they lost the vote.

RELATED: Democrats don’t have to save themselves. Donald Trump is still here to help

We have all heard about Trump’s followers in various states making moves to strike Democrats from elections boards and run for secretaries of state to oversee future elections. We know that Trump himself is still obsessively pushing the Big Lie that he actually won the 2020 election — and that nearly 70% of Republicans believe him. We have learned recently that members of Congress were actively involved in helping him do that, even in one case, asking the White House chief of staff for talking points to help make the case. The result of all this is to make the majority of Republican voters accept election results, as Trump openly declared back in 2016, only if the GOP wins.

Additionally, I think everyone is rightfully concerned that there will be another insurrection and that it will be much worse if that happens. It’s the sword of Damocles hanging over our entire democracy at this point and it’s hard to see how that problem can easily be fixed.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The New York Times reported this week that Trump’s failed coup of 2020 is ongoing with action in various states to decertify the 2020 election and re-install Trump into the White House. Yes, it is preposterous, but it’s happening in a number of states with tremendous pressure being brought to bear on candidates and legislators to back up the idea that this is a legitimate process. The reporting indicates that many of these state officeholders understand that it is ridiculous but they are signing on to the idea as another way to curry favor with Trump and his henchmen.

Everyone is rightfully concerned that there will be another insurrection.

This effort is being led by John Eastman, the lawyer who proposed that the vice president can simply refuse to accept the electoral college votes and send it to the House of Representatives where a quirk in the Constitution would allow Trump to be certified for a second term. The judge who is overseeing the production of emails subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee referred to Eastman’s plan as “a coup in search of a legal theory” and proclaimed that the documents show Trump and Eastman “more likely than not” engaged in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct Congress. Apparently, Eastman remains undeterred and is still at it. According to the Times:

The fringe legal theory that Mr. Eastman and Mr. Epshteyn are promoting — which has been widely dismissed — holds that state lawmakers have the power to choose how electors are selected, and they can change them long after the Electoral College has certified votes if they find fraud and illegality sufficiently altered the outcome. The theory has surfaced in multiple states, including several that are political battlegrounds.

The Times characterized this project as being a way for some of the Trump grift crew, like Steve Bannon, Boris Epshtyn and Michael Flynn to remain relevant, but also as a way to keep the fervid True Believers agitated and engaged. All this handwringing over the 2020 election serves to reinforce the notion that the election system is entirely corrupt and untrustworthy, which is a real problem.


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


But that isn’t the most concerning aspect of this project.

The article quotes formerly highly respected conservative judge Michael Luttig making the most salient observation about what this is all about: “Trump and his supporters in Congress and in the states are preparing now to lay the groundwork to overturn the election in 2024 were Trump, or his designee, to lose the vote for the presidency.” He calls it “the clearest and most present danger to our democracy.” Lutting is anything but a “hardcore liberal” so you would think that the Republican establishment would be a bit nervous to hear something like that from a bonafide arch-conservative like him. But they aren’t. They are letting this happen because it benefits them.

There are many things they may not like about Donald Trump, but this isn’t one of them. After all, if for some reason, Donald Trump doesn’t legitimately win in 2024 and therefore has no coattails, the congressional elections in all those battleground states could be very close. If people believe that presidential elections can be overturned by state legislatures, there’s no reason that other races shouldn’t have the same privilege. So sure, Democrats should be worried about 2024 but they need to worry about what the Republicans will do if they lose just as much as what they’ll do if they win.

Tennessee GOP kicks Trump-backed candidate who sparked MAGA civil war off the ballot

The Tennessee Republican Party on Tuesday voted to remove Trump-backed House candidate Morgan Ortagus and two others from the primary ballot for failing to adhere to the party’s bylaws.

The Tennessee GOP’s State Executive Committee voted to boot Ortagus, a former Fox News commentator and Trump State Department spokesperson, from the August primary ballot in the state’s 5th congressional district after months of Republican infighting over her campaign bid, according to NBC News. Trump in February gave Ortagus his “complete and total endorsement,” even though she had just moved to Tennessee in 2021 and only took up residence in the 5th district in March. Prominent Trump allies like Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., and Candace Owens revolted over the endorsement, criticizing Trump for not backing MAGA favorite Robby Starbuck, a former music video producer and conservative influencer — who was also booted from the ballot in Tuesday’s vote by the state party. 

In recent years, Tennessee Republicans have removed numerous candidates off the ballot for not adhering to the party’s bylaws, which include a requirement to have voted in three of the last four Republican primaries and to actively participate in state or local Republican parties.

RELATED: Ted Cruz just handed Democrats a gift for the midterms — if they’re willing to use it

Ortagus told NBC News she was “deeply disappointed” in the decision.

“I’m a bonafide Republican by their standards, and frankly, by any metric. I’m further disappointed that the party insiders at the Tennessee Republican Party do not seem to share my commitment to President Trump’s America First policies,” she said. “As I have said all along, I believe that voters in Middle Tennessee should pick their representative — not establishment party insiders. Our team is evaluating the options before us.”

Ortagus’ campaign argued that she had voted in enough recent Republican primaries and has been involved in Republican women’s groups and donated to the state’s Republican Party.

“President Donald Trump believes I’m the best person to fight for his America First agenda and Middle Tennessee in Congress, and I’m working hard to ensure that my fellow Tennesseans, including TNGOP SEC members, understand why,” she said in a statement before the vote.

Trump’s endorsement of Ortagus had angered numerous Republicans in Tennessee, who argued that she was not far-right enough for the party’s nomination. Her critics cited her past criticism of Trump, whom she called “disgusting” during the 2016 campaign before joining his administration, and her previous support for Jeb Bush in that campaign. Others criticized her because her wedding was officiated by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

State lawmakers earlier this year passed a bill requiring congressional candidates to have lived in the state for at least three years to qualify for primary ballots, which would have disqualified Ortagus from the ballot. But Republican Gov. Bill Lee did not sign the bill before the April 7 filing deadline, allowing Ortagus to remain on the ballot until Tuesday’s vote.


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


“I voted for Trump. I supported him,” Republican state Sen. Frank Niceley, who sponsored the bill, told NBC last month. “I’ll vote for Trump as long as he lives. But I don’t want him coming out here to tell me who to vote for.”

Niceley, who sparked outrage last week after invoking Adolf Hitler as an example for homeless people seeking to turn their lives around, further suggested that Trump was only supporting Ortagus because she is Jewish, as are members of Trump’s family.

“I don’t think Trump cares one way or the other,” he said. “I think Jared Kushner — he’s Jewish, she’s Jewish — I think Jared will be upset. Ivanka will be upset. I don’t think Trump cares.”

Ortagus said in a statement that Niceley “should be ashamed of his repeated anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

“I will condemn anyone who traffics in this hate-mongering,” she added. “Sen. Niceley’s repulsive words could not be more clear in disparaging the Jewish people. This racism cannot stand.”

The Tennessean earlier this week reported that Republican National Committee member Beth Campbell had circulated an email claiming that “RNC sources” told her that “Trump is OK” with the state GOP booting Ortagus from the ballot. 

Trump’s team denied that forcefully. Spokesman Taylor Budowich told the Tennessean, “That is a dirty lie, which should not surprise anyone, given there are RINOs in Tennessee trying to quietly pull strings and illegally remove President Trump’s endorsed candidate, Morgan Ortagus, from the ballot.”

Trump allies like Owens and Cawthorn had hoped Trump would support Starbuck, who has drawn numerous endorsements from far-right allies of the former president. “Trump has this completely wrong,” Owens tweeted after Trump’s initial endorsement.

Starbuck was also booted from the ballot this week because he did not meet the party’s primary voting requirement, which he attributed to a “simple mixup.”

“My whole life I’ve only been registered with one party and I’ve only ever donated to Republican candidates,” he said in a statement last month before the vote. “Not allowing me on the ballot would disenfranchise a huge segment of our voters in Tennessee, discourage people from engaging in the process and most of all it would reek of the dirty politics that makes so many distrust our elections.”

After the vote on Tuesday, Starbuck tweeted a video of the late Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News, saying “war” as ominous music plays in the background.

Trump’s recent endorsements have drawn significant blowback from the far right, raising questions about how much sway he really has with the Republican base.

Trump’s recent endorsements have drawn significant blowback from formerly loyal supporters on the far right, raising questions about exactly how much sway he has over the party’s base. Trump allies raged over his endorsement of Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania’s Senate primary last week, calling it “horrible” and “inexcusable” because they don’t view Oz as sufficiently right-wing. Dozens of Republican leaders also tried to stop Trump from endorsing “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance in the Ohio Senate primary, citing Vance’s past criticism of Trump.

“While we were working hard in Ohio to support you and Make America Great Again, JD Vance was actively working against your candidacy,” GOP leaders wrote in a letter to the former president.

After the endorsement, Trump’s supporters in Ohio criticized him for listening to “RINOs,” or Republicans in Name Only.

“President Trump needs us. We don’t need President Trump. We need conservative leadership and there are other voices out there that can provide that leadership,” Tom Zawistowski, the president of the Tea Party group We the People Convention, told local media.

The Tennessee GOP on Tuesday also removed another candidate, Baxter Lee, for failing to meet the primary voting requirement, leaving few prominent candidates in the race. Republicans had clamored to jump into the crowded field after the Republican-dominated state legislature carved up longtime Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper’s formerly blue Nashville-area district to expand their partisan majority.

Cooper announced he would retire from Congress after redistricting, accusing the legislature of “dismembering Nashville.”

“This is a crisis for Nashville,” Cooper said earlier this year. “Gerrymandering is an extinction event for the political life of Nashville.”

Read more on redistricting and gerrymandering:

To curb smuggling, Norway has been killing confiscated wildlife

In 2010, Bjørn Åvik was driving from Sweden into Norway, carrying alcohol, tobacco, and four African gray parrots — intelligent, ash-colored birds he intended to breed and sell in Norway. But instead of declaring his items, Åvik skipped Swedish customs. A camera detector then registered his car, which was selected by Norwegian customs for an inspection.

The officers seized the parrots because Åvik lacked the necessary permit from the Norwegian Environment Agency, a national authority responsible for implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, a multinational agreement to protect wild animals and plants.

Åvik was eventually convicted for attempting to smuggle an endangered species and sentenced to 30 days in jail with two years of probation. As for the parrots, at the time of seizure, they were healthy and had another 50 or more years to live. Åvik says he expected the confiscated birds to be rehomed in a zoo. Instead, a veterinarian killed them under the direction of the Norwegian Environment Agency.

Over the past 15 years, Norwegian authorities have seized smuggled animals at least 30 times. In many of these instances, the animals were ultimately killed, raising questions about how the country handles confiscated animals at its borders. Wildlife trafficking experts and animal rights activists accuse the Norwegian Environment Agency of systematically killing endangered confiscated animals. And the problem, they say, extends far beyond Norwegian borders: Smuggled animals around the world often face a similar fate.

According to CITES guidelines, officials may euthanize confiscated animals, but only as a last resort, after trying to repatriate the animals to their country of origin or rehome them in local zoos or shelters. CITES does not require national authorities to track what happens to animals after they are confiscated, however, and the resolutions are not legally binding. As a result, critics say, national authorities too often kill animals in an effort to uphold a treaty designed to protect them.

Systematic euthanization is a “paradoxical way of enforcing the convention,” says Ragnhild Sollund, a criminologist who has spent over a decade tracking this practice in Norway.

Some experts say that there are legitimate, practical reasons for euthanizing. Trafficked animals can carry serious diseases; rehoming them is notoriously complicated; and repatriating them to their country of origin may actually exacerbate wildlife trafficking if these nations are themselves corrupt, says Ronald Orenstein, a zoologist, lawyer, and consultant for the global nonprofit Humane Society International, which he represents as an observer at CITES meetings.

Norway has no specifically designated zoos or rescue shelters that can regularly take in confiscated animals, and until recently, domestic law essentially forbade repatriation. Because of these constraints, experts say, killing was often the only viable option.

Norway’s situation “echoes what we’ve seen in many countries,” says Loïs Lelanchon, wildlife rescue program manager for the global nonprofit International Fund for Animal Welfare. The Philippines, Australia, and Belgium, among others, have all faced similar predicaments. “Frankly,” he says, “it’s everywhere.”

Kristiansand is a small industrial city at the southern tip of Norway. On a recent February morning, after more than 2 years of Covid-19 restrictions and a long winter season, it’s a snowed-in ghost town. Normally, however, Kristiansand is a lot busier: People hop on and off ferries from Denmark, just 2 to 3 hours away, and cargo ships come in, unloading large boxes of imported goods.

Because of this regular flow, Kristiansand has become a Norwegian hub for wildlife trafficking. Robert Ilievski, a veterinarian who works at Kristiansand’s border control post, has stopped several smugglers over the years. In one case, he recalls having to euthanize an illegally imported turtle that could have lived another 30 years. “It’s so difficult,” he says.

Ilievski is on the front line of a global battle against animal trafficking, an illegal market estimated at $7 to 23 billon per year, and often run by sophisticated, international networks. Around the world, at border control posts like the one in Kristiansand, customs officials are tasked with catching wildlife traffickers and enforcing the CITES treaty.

The CITES treaty came into force in 1975, as a multinational effort to ensure that the international trade of wildlife and plants does not threaten the survival of endangered species. CITES has become a powerful tool in regulating trade, enabling the recovery of endangered animals like the Nile crocodile and the South American vicuña. To date, no CITES-listed species has ever become extinct as a result of trade.

But CITES has played a lesser role in ensuring animal welfare standards are maintained, experts say. CITES resolutions act as guidelines, not law, and they don’t require member countries to monitor how they handle confiscated animals, making it virtually impossible to know the extent of euthanization practices around the world.

David Whitbourn, a spokesperson for CITES, points out that the treaty does encourage countries to report basic data on the handling of confiscated animals. He adds that CITES conducted a survey in 2017 that included 58 member countries and suggests that just 6 percent of respondents named euthanasia as their most frequently used option for dealing with confiscated animals. Lelanchon, however, suspects that number is a vast underestimate. “This is a lot of what government authorities don’t want to advertise,” he says.

In Norway, the Norwegian Environment Agency, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority, customs, and local zoos keep minimal, if any, records of what happens to seized animals. In an effort to better understand the situation, Sollund has retrieved seizure reports from customs and cross-referenced them with court records. Her results show that at least 41 animals were euthanized between 2008 and 2016, including almost 20 African gray parrots, a bengal cat, and a Chilean rose tarantula.

But Sollund says that number may actually be in the hundreds. Iliezski says there have been at least 20 cases at Kristiansand over the years in which he has had to euthanize animals — yet only one shows up in the customs reports Sollund compiled. 

In the past three years, though, euthanization of animals has seemingly ceased, according to veterinarians at Kristiansand and the Oslo Airport. Officials aren’t entirely sure why, but they point to a number of factors: Covid-19 border restrictions might have reduced opportunities for smuggling, says Sollund. If that’s the case, then one might expect an uptick in illegal activity once restrictions loosen, she adds — which they now are.

Additionally, Norway lifted its ban on private ownership of reptiles in 2017, a move that reduced smuggling. But Ilievski remains wary. In an effort to maintain profits, he guesses, traffickers might eventually shift their efforts, targeting species whose importation remains illegal. There will always be people who want animals that are not allowed, he says.

CITES management is complex, wrote Janne Bohnhorst, head of the Norwegian Environment Agency’s Section for Invasive Species and International Trade. In an email, she noted that her agency does “what is best for the animals based on an overall assessment.” The agency did not directly respond to a question about whether euthanization of confiscated animals was, or still is, the country’s official policy.

National authorities seek to find the best solution for the confiscated animal while also weighing costs and logisitical challenges, Whitbourn wrote in an email to Undark. “We do not believe that it is undertaken lightly at the national level,” he added, and in certain situations, euthanization may be “the alternative that best serves the interests of conservation or the animal itself.”

A recent amendment to Norway’s domestic law suggests that, until recently, the Norwegian Environment Agency was trapped in a legal predicament that essentially made euthanization a go-to policy. That’s because the country did not allow permits to repatriate animals brought in illegally. When animals were confiscated, the Norwegian Environment Agency would have to seek out nearby zoos — and the agency’s requests for housing were often rejected — or kill the endangered CITES-listed animals.

Under the new amendment, Bohnhorst says, repatriation is possible “if the situation allows it based on an overall assessment.” But experts still worry this only applies to the most endangered species. And Bohnhorst points out that, under a CITES resolution, countries are “obligated to prevent the return of the species,” when repatriation may exacerbate wildlife trafficking. (Other experts point out that because CITES provides guidelines, not rules, individual countries may decide what to do with confiscated animals.)

Regardless, there are valid reasons to avoid repatriation, explains Orenstein, the Humane Society consultant. Beyond the risk of handing animals back to the illegal market, it can be notoriously complex to track the animal’s country of origin. African gray parrots, for instance, often come from the Congo and may be shipped between two or three countries before arriving at their final destination. “Returning to the country of origin is ideally the right thing to do,” says Orenstein. “Practically it may often be the absolutely wrong thing to do.

Given the lack of legal clarity, rehousing the animals in zoos would seem to be the best alternative to euthanization, but Norway’s zoos lack the capacity to take in many new animals. Kristiansand Zoo, for instance, has rejected multiple requests. “We want to try to help,” says Rolf-Arne Ølberg, the director of animal care at the zoo. “But we have to see that we have space for them, we have a long term plan,” and that “we can give them a good animal welfare.”

Taking in animals, he explains, is a fraught process that requires serious ethical and ecological consideration. For one, Kristiansand Zoo needs to know where the animal comes from and evaluate whether it poses a health risk to other animals already residing there. Zoo staff also need to consider whether they have the space, habitat type, and resources to accommodate the animals in the long-run. In the past, Ølberg says, he received frequent requests to house certain kinds of animals — especially snakes, parrots, and turtles — which he inevitably had to reject to avoid overcrowding.

The zoo hosts all kinds of animals — from Scandinavian wolves and moose to Siberian tigers, flamingos, and orangutans. Many of these animals have large open spaces to accommodate their needs and habitats. Others, like the two rainbow-colored macaw parrots perched inside a small shed-like space, await the construction of new enclosures. The zoo also houses several African gray parrots sent here after being confiscated. Their space is currently full.

“I don’t have room for more parrots now,” Ølberg wrote in a follow-up email. “So if we get a request we probably would have to say no.”

But even if the zoo did have the space and resources, it’s unclear whether there is an imperative for staff to take in confiscated animals. “We’re not a rescue center,” Ølberg says. “We very rarely want to take confiscated animals; we have to put them in quarantine. It’s a lot of extra work for us.”

Other countries face the same issues as Norway, says Lelanchon. In 2017, Australian border officials found 11 snakes, nine tarantulas, and four scorpions hidden inside a shoebox. Eight of the tarantulas died in transit and the remaining animals were killed by Australian authorities. In 2018, Swedish officials euthanized 500 lizards by throwing them into liquid nitrogen, after failing to determine their origins. Morocco and many other countries lack resources and the legal framework to repatriate animals, says Lelanchon: If an animal’s origins can’t be determined — as is often the case — the animals may be killed.

Addressing these challenges will entail building a system that allows animals confiscated at borders to be quickly identified, transported, and temporarily housed before an evaluation is made, says Orenstein. The United Kingdom, for instance, a hub for wildlife trafficking, has a rescue center right next to Heathrow Airport that shelters animals while officials seek permanent housing with local zoos and rescue shelters.

Spain and the Netherlands have also partnered with organizations that help authorities process the influx of smuggled animals. While many border control post officers don’t have the expertise or capacity to determine whether a smuggled animal poses a risk (e.g. if it is venomous or carries a virus), these countries have established close ties with local organizations and experts that can help resolve exactly these questions, says Orenstein. The cost of not having this network can have dramatic consequences: In the Philippines, for instance, 339 parrots were confiscated and killed after border control officers incorrectly suspected that the birds carried a harmful virus.

Tackling this issue will also mean working with countries to make repatriation more feasible, building additional rescue centers, and providing basic resources at quarantine facilities so that the weight of responsibility doesn’t fall squarely on zoos, experts say. Further, rescue centers need to operate under a financially sustainable model, says Lelanchon, since so many of them can end up becoming shoddy facilities that can’t take care of animal welfare in the long-run. One way to do this, he says, would be for offenders to pay an additional fee that goes towards the care of smuggled animals.

Finding the money and political interest to develop better infrastructure for confiscated animals is easier said than done. In Norway, Øystein Storkersen, a principal adviser at the Norwegian Environment Agency, has already tried to establish a rescue and rehabilitation center. Storkersen didn’t respond to interview requests, but according to Sollund, the government didn’t want to fund the project.

“This is why we have seen, all these years, all these ad-hoc solutions,” says Sollund. Unless the country commits to making real change, Sollund says, confiscated animals stopped at Norwegian borders may continue to face a cruel two-fold fate. “The victims here are the animals: First they are victims of trafficking, and then they are killed by the authorities.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Environmentalists target mountains of fertilizer waste

In mid-September of 2016 in Tampa, Florida, News Channel 8 reporter Steve Andrews received an alarming phone call. A sinkhole had opened in Mulberry, a small city in Polk County about 30 miles to the east.

“I went up to the assignment desk and asked them to send the chopper up,” Andrews, who retired in 2020, recounted. “The guys radioed back and said, ‘Man, this looks like something from the moon.'” He later added: “It looked like a crater, like you could just drop down straight to hell.”

The sinkhole, which measured 152 feet across at its widest point and 220 feet deep as of October of that year, had opened beneath a 700-acre phosphogypsum stack, a pyramid-like structure of radioactive waste created during the fertilizer production process. The sinkhole sent 215 million gallons of acidic water into the Floridan aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the state.

According to a 2019 report from the Fertilizer Institute, an estimated 734 million tons of phosphogypsum have accumulated in the United States — a number the industry group projected to steadily increase each year. That material sits in more than 70 similar open-air piles, which can be hundreds of feet tall and hundreds of acres wide, rising above the horizon like powdery mountains the color of ash.

Fertilizer is a lucrative business, but for every ton of phosphoric acid produced, approximately 5 tons of phosphogypsum are too. The waste can contain substances that are dangerous to human health in large quantities, including arsenic, cadmium, and chromium. It also holds uranium, thorium, and radium, and emits radon gas. Radon is particularly concerning to health officials, and is the leading cause of lung cancer for non-smokers, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

About a third of the country’s phosphogypsum stacks are in Florida. The stack in Mulberry is managed by Mosaic, a Fortune 500 company with significant political clout in the state, and which produces the majority of phosphate fertilizer in the U.S. In 2015, the EPA and the Department of Justice reached a settlement with Mosaic to address alleged violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act related to the proper storage and disposal of hazardous waste at sites in Florida and Louisiana. In response to an emailed request for comment, Jackie Barron, a spokesperson for Mosaic, wrote: “The company made the decision to settle the matter and move forward.”

“It’s important to note the debate involved the handling of hazardous waste on-site,” she added. “There was never any action or concern involving any kind of off-site impact.”

Though Mosaic had immediately reported the 2016 sinkhole — or what the company called a “water loss incident” — to the EPA, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Polk County, no one alerted the local community for three weeks.

“There was a lot of anger that the state didn’t make it public,” Andrews said. “People felt that they were being put in danger, that a state was maybe too cozy with a big industry.” (DEP did not respond to request for comment on the criticism. A Polk County representative responded that Mosaic notified the appropriate state and federal agencies; the representative did not address the delay in notifying the public. A spokesperson from the EPA also confirmed that Mosaic notified the appropriate agencies, including the National Response Center and the State Watch Office within the Division of Emergency Management, and noted that, “Both emergency center notifications are publicly available immediately upon entry into the system.”)

Mosaic reported that there were “no offsite impacts from the incident” according to extensive monitoring data and, in May 2018, plugged the sinkhole with 20,000 cubic yards of grout. The company says it has updated its systems to monitor the site.

Rules regarding phosphogypsum have long been in place, but regulation of the waste is limited on the federal level. Since 1989, the EPA has mandated — with some exceptions — that phosphate producers dispose of phosphogypsum in the stacks because of the risk that it could emit radon. (According to the EPA, a crust forms on the stacks as the material dries out, limiting the amount of radon that can escape and protecting the waste from getting blown around by the wind.)

A 2019 Fertilizer Institute report states that 85 percent of phosphogypsum around the world is discarded or stored each year. The rest is used as a soil amendment, agricultural fertilizer, or in building materials. But gypsum stacks and wastewater from phosphoric acid production are exempt from the EPA’s hazardous waste standards, which establish base federal criteria for managing waste from “cradle to grave.” Instead, states are responsible for managing those materials.

Industry officials maintain that existing environmental standards are already strict enough. But environmental advocates disagree: In February 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity and People for Protecting Peace River filed a petition with the EPA on behalf of more than a dozen environmental groups, asking the agency to change how it regulates the disposal of phosphogypsum and process wastewater.

The EPA has so far denied one part of the environmentalists’ formal petition — a request to require testing of phosphogypsum and process wastewater. In a May 2021 letter to the petitioners, the agency told them they did “not set forth the facts establishing that it is necessary for the Agency to issue such a rule.” The EPA told Undark that it is still reviewing the rest of the petition, but did not say when it will complete its full response. And as the petitioners await the EPA’s answer, they say they are hopeful that the Biden administration will be amenable to their request.

“We hope it moves in the right direction, but changes on the federal level can take quite some time,” said Glenn Compton, the chairman of environmental organization ManaSota-88, one of the groups participating in the petition. “So I can’t say I’m optimistic. I would say I’m hopeful.”

Phosphogypsum stacks have a long history in Florida. On Dec. 12, 1983, west of Polk County, the Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider a request by the Gardinier chemical company to open a new phosphogypsum stack. (Gardinier was later acquired by Cargill, which in turn formed Mosaic through a merger between its crop nutrition division and mining and production company IMC Global in 2004. Cargill split from Mosaic in 2011.) The stack would be built near Progress Village, a lower-middle income Black community, near Tampa, as well as an elementary school. That evening, the room was so packed with people that the meeting had to be postponed and moved to a larger space.

Over the following months, hundreds of concerned community members attended public hearings about the proposed stack. Gary Lyman, an oncologist and professor of medicine at the University of South Florida at the time, submitted a report to the board suggesting that radioactive phosphogypsum could pose a health risk.

“It didn’t seem to make sense to any of us that you’d take a chance with children just because the community is in an area somewhat impoverished and can’t legally fight a company,” Lyman told Undark. County officials ultimately approved the new stack in August 1984.

A couple months later, the Federal Register reported that the EPA’s initial risk assessments for phosphogypsum stacks found that “individual lifetime risks from exposure to air emissions from these piles may be as high as eight in 10,000. Population risks may be on the order of one fatal cancer per year.”

In 1985, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a separate report by Lyman and colleagues that found a correlation between high levels of radiation contamination in groundwater near phosphate ore deposits and increased rates of leukemia.

That same year, researchers examined mortality among phosphate fertilizer production workers who worked at a Florida plant between 1951 and 1976, before the federal government updated mining safety legislation. In a 2015 update, researchers found elevated levels of lung cancer and leukemia in workers as compared to both the broader U.S. and Florida.

In 1988, Lyman and other researchers found an elevated risk of lung cancer for male nonsmokers who lived in the central Florida phosphate mining region. There appear to be no other comprehensive epidemiological studies that evaluate whether phosphate mining or phosphogypsum pose a threat to human health. Carl Cranor, a professor of legal and moral philosophy at the University of California at Riverside, has written extensively about toxic threats to public health, and said there are many obstacles to doing that kind of work, including finding funding. 

“They have to find resources to process results,” he said, adding that they also have to find individuals who were exposed and determine how much they were exposed. “All of that takes time and expertise and effort,” he said. “Those are barriers.”

A few years before Floridians began to argue over the proposed phosphogypsum stack in Hillsborough County, the federal government reevaluated how it would address the growing problem of municipal and industrial waste. Congress had enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976, by which it would govern the disposal of both hazardous waste and solid waste.

The RCRA rules were updated in 1980 to include an amendment — called the Bevill exclusion, named for Tom Bevill, a Democratic Congressman from Alabama and the son of a coal miner — that allowed certain wastes to be excluded from federal regulation as a hazardous waste. The exclusions were pending an EPA study on the potential adverse health and environmental risks of each waste. Phosphogypsum and related wastewater were among the 20 mineral processing wastes that the EPA considered for exemption.

In July 1990, the EPA published its findings on the mineral processing wastes, stating that both active and inactive phosphogypsum stacks and wastewater cooling ponds for which there was data had caused groundwater contamination and that the wastes contained high levels of radon. But the agency also found that regulatory compliance under the more stringent program could be cost prohibitive for the industry. Because of that high cost, the EPA tentatively determined that the RCRA’s less stringent rules would apply to phosphogypsum and process wastewater.

The EPA then created a committee to assess whether phosphogypsum and process wastewater could be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates chemicals produced or imported into the U.S., but the committee was unable to identify any suitable changes that could sufficiently reduce the volume or toxicity of phosphogypsum or process wastewater. (In response to an interview request from Undark, the EPA did not make anyone available.) The RCRA’s non-hazardous waste program requires states to implement federal regulations and allows states to set stricter requirements.

In an email to Undark, spokesperson Dee Ann Miller of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection wrote that the state has “some of the most stringent rules” for permitting and regulating phosphogypsum stacks, which include criteria for the “construction, operation, maintenance, inspection, environmental monitoring, closure, and long-term care” of closed stacks. For example, the state of Florida mandates that the stacks have protective liners. Florida also requires owners of the stacks to prove that they have the financial means to close and maintain them in the long term.

In March 2004, a U.S. House of Representatives’ subcommittee held a hearing at the Southwest Florida Water Management District headquarters to address the longstanding issue of the mountains of phosphogypsum piling up across the state. During the hearing, researchers discussed their proposed uses for phosphogypsum, including road construction filler, landfill cover, erosion control, and cat litter.

The EPA had previously banned the use of the waste in road construction, citing concerns that homes could one day be built on top of abandoned roads, exposing residents to radon. At the March hearing, then-Rep. Adam Putnam, the subcommittee’s chairman, pressed Elizabeth Cotsworth, then the director of the EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, on why the agency had issued the ban, as well as the agency’s perceived unwillingness to work with the industry to consider new uses for the material.

Cotsworth told Undark that a focused and specific hearing of that nature was unusual and, in fact, the phosphogypsum hearing was the only field congressional hearing of her career. “I thought it was an effort to embarrass the agency to make us look like pinheaded bureaucrats that didn’t listen,” Cotsworth said. “That we were not just overly conservative and inconsistent in decision-making, but that we’d been sloppy. We were kind of in the crosshairs in our processes and our science and our decision-making.” (Putnam did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Undark.)

But critics maintain that the standards across the U.S. are not only inconsistent across states, but insufficient. “That’s why we’re petitioning the federal government to take over responsibilities,” said Jaclyn Lopez, the Florida director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Because the state has shown itself incapable or unwilling to do the job well enough.”

The 2021 petition asks the EPA to reverse the Bevill Amendment, to regulate phosphogypsum and process wastewater under the more stringent waste rules of the RCRA, initiate the process to evaluate the wastes under the Toxic Substances Control Act, require testing of the wastes to ensure they do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment, and issue a determination that using phosphogypsum as filler in road construction is a significant new use in order to prohibit or limit it.

Phosphate mining is a powerful economic and political force in Florida. A 2016 economic impact study prepared for Port Tampa Bay found that the phosphatic fertilizer industry generated $12.2 billion in total economic value to that region alone.

Mosaic owns more than 317,000 acres of property in central Florida, making it a “significant landowner” in the state by its own estimation. It has spent millions on lobbying and political contributions at the local, state, and federal levels, according to lobbying disclosure and campaign finance records. When asked to comment on those contributions, Barron, the spokesperson, replied that “Mosaic supports various campaigns much like many other companies and individuals.”

When he was governor of Florida in 2013, Sen. Rick Scott held $14,000 of Mosaic stock, according to a public disclosure of financial interest filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics. (Representatives for Scott did not respond to a list of emailed questions.) Political figures have at times taken an active role in advocating for the industry. EPA scientists had been concerned about the radiation levels around reclaimed mines in Lakeland, Florida, since at least the 1970s, according to reporting by the Center for Public Integrity. But in 2014, the agency abandoned its plan to clean up a contaminated site after state elected officials intervened.

Mosaic sought to establish a relationship with the EPA during the Trump administration. In June 2017, Katie Walsh, a Republican National Committee official emailed the EPA’s policy chief, requesting a meeting between Mosaic’s president and CEO, Joc O’Rourke, and Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator at the time. In the email, made public through a lawsuit brought against the EPA by the Sierra Club, an environmental nonprofit, Walsh noted that Mosaic had been “egregiously over regulated during the Obama administration,” a situation that had placed an “unnecessary and costly regulatory burden” on the company.

Agency emails show that in August 2017, EPA officials were scheduling a dinner with Eileen Stuart, Mosaic’s then-vice president of government and regulatory affairs, who was involved with the company’s lobbying efforts. The email noted that Stuart was close to then-Gov. Scott and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Stuart, who is no longer with Mosaic, told Undark the meeting never took place because of scheduling problems, but gave no additional comment.

When asked to comment on whether Mosaic had ever met with EPA officials, Barron replied that the company has “regular meetings with all of the government entities that regulate the industry, which include those at the county, state, and federal level.”

In October of 2020, Trump’s EPA reversed the long-standing rule that phosphogypsum could not be used in road construction. The decision came nearly 30 years after the EPA had made its determination that the material was unsafe to use in roads. The industry had long appealed the EPA to allow alternative uses of phosphogypsum, but this was the first time the agency had budged.

In 2021, the Biden administration withdrew the approval, following a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups.

Lopez of the Center for Biological Diversity pointed out that the Biden administration has repeatedly stated its commitment to environmental justice. “Phosphogypsum presents a significant environmental justice risk that needs to be addressed,” she said. Approving the petition “would be consistent with the administration’s stated priorities of protecting vulnerable communities from disproportionate harm from corporate polluters.”

In April 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency in Manatee, Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties, requiring the evacuation of more than 300 homes. The plastic liner of a 77-acre retention pond on top of a phosphogypsum stack at Piney Point had leaked, threatening to inundate the surrounding community with 460 million gallons of acidic water.

To avoid a major flood, the state’s environmental agency ordered that more than 200 million gallons of the water, which had been sitting atop the phosphogypsum stack, be discharged into Port Manatee, allowing field crews to repair the leak. The crisis prompted Florida lawmakers to set aside $100 million to clean up Piney Point and Gov. DeSantis ordered DEP to close the facility. By mid-April the leak had been temporarily repaired. However, in early January 2022, the state announced it had identified “three low-volume seepage areas” and was working to contain them. According to public announcements made that month, “There continues to be no indication of any concern with the integrity or stability of the stack system, and there are no offsite discharges occurring at this time.”

Environmentalists say the ongoing problems at the site show why stricter regulations are necessary, and have filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and others. Meanwhile, in a 100-page document opposing the pending EPA petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups, the Fertilizer Institute said that between the existing federal and national regulations, some of which were enacted after the Bevill Amendment, along with enforcement actions related to the consent decrees, oversight is already comprehensive and sufficient.

In a separate letter, the Fertilizer Institute’s vice president of government affairs Ed Thomas emphasized that the Piney Point facility “is not representative of phosphate facilities currently in operation” because phosphoric acid production had stopped there in 1999.

The EPA has never before approved the reversal of a Bevill Amendment applied to a mining waste. But Louella Phillips, an environmentalist who lives in Mulberry, Florida, at the center of four different stacks, said she hopes that the coming responses from the agency will help resolve what she sees as an environmental justice issue.

“People who live in an environment like this aren’t getting justice,” said Phillips. “Who’s going to take care of the phosphogypsum when they leave? You can’t clean that up.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Is free speech a casualty of the Ukraine war? America’s commissars crack down on dissent

The ruling class, made up of the traditional elites that run the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, is employing draconian forms of censorship on its right-wing and left-wing critics in a desperate effort to cling to power. The traditional elites were discredited for pushing through a series of corporate assaults on workers, from deindustrialization to trade deals. They were unable to stem rising inflation, the looming economic crisis and the ecological emergency. They were incapable of carrying out significant social and political reform to ameliorate widespread suffering and refused to accept responsibility for two decades of military fiascos in the Middle East. And now they have launched a new and sophisticated McCarthyism. Character assassination. Algorithms. Shadow banning. De-platforming.

Censorship is the last resort of desperate and unpopular regimes. It magically appears to make a crisis go away. It comforts the powerful with the narrative they want to hear, one fed back to them by courtiers in the media, government agencies, think tanks and academia. The problem of Donald Trump is solved by censoring Donald Trump. The problem of left-wing critics, such as myself, is solved by censoring us. The result is a world of make-believe.

YouTube disappeared six years of my RT show, “On Contact,” although not one episode dealt with Russia. It is not a secret as to why my show vanished. It gave a voice to writers and dissidents, including Noam Chomsky and Cornel West, as well as activists from Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, third parties and the prison abolitionist movement. It called out the Democratic Party for its subservience to corporate power. It excoriated the crimes of the apartheid state of Israel. It covered Julian Assange in numerous episodes. It gave a voice to military critics, many of them combat veterans, who condemned U.S. war crimes.

RELATED: Democrats won’t oppose the war state: Are they the lesser evil — or the more effective one?

It no longer matters how prominent you are or how big a following you have. If you challenge power, you are at risk of being censored. Former British MP George Galloway detailed a similar experience during an April 15 panel organized by Consortium News in which I took part:

I have been threatened with travel restrictions were I to continue the television broadcast I had been doing for almost an entire decade. I have been stamped by the false label “Russian State Media,” which I never had, by the way, when I was presenting a show on Russian state media. It was only given after I ceased to have a show on Russian state media, ceased because the government made it a crime for me to do so.

My 417,000 Twitter followers had been gaining a thousand a day, going like a runaway train, then suddenly it hit the buffers when the Elon Musk story emerged. I expressed the view that oligarch that he no doubt is, I prefer Elon Musk to the kings of Saudi Arabia, who it turns out are presently major shareholders in the Twitter company. As soon as I joined that fight, my numbers literally crashed to a halt, with shadow bans and all the rest of it. …

All of this is happening before the consequences of the economic crash brought about by Western policy and our misnamed leaders has really hit yet. When economies begin to not just slow down, not just hiccup, not just experience levels of inflation not seen for years, or decades, but becomes a crash, as well it might, there will be even more for the state to suppress, especially any alternative analysis as to how we got here and what we must do to get out of it.

Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and Marine Corps intelligence officer, called out the lie about weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Recently, he was banned from Twitter for offering a counter-narrative about dozens of killings in the Kyiv western suburb of Bucha. Many of the victims in Bucha were found with gunshot wounds to the head and with their hands tied behind their back. International observers and eyewitnesses have blamed Russia for the killings. Ritter’s alternative analysis, right or wrong, saw him silenced.

Ritter lamented the Twitter ban at the forum: 

It took me three years to get 4,000 followers on Twitter. I thought that was a big deal. Then this Ukraine thing comes up. It exploded. When I got suspended for the first time for questioning the narrative in Bucha my account had just gotten over 14,000. By the time my suspension was lifted I was up to 60,000. By the time they suspended me again I was close to 100,000. It was out of control, which is why I am convinced the algorithm said: You must delete. You must delete. And they did. The excuse they gave was absurd. I was abusive and I was harassing by telling what I thought was the truth. 

I don’t have the same insight in the Ukraine I had in Iraq. Iraq, I was on the ground doing the job. But the techniques of observation and evaluation that you are trained as an intelligence officer to apply to any given set apply to Ukraine today. Simply looking at the available data set, you cannot help but draw the conclusion that it was Ukrainian national police, mainly because you have all the elements. You have motive. They don’t like Russian collaborators. How do I know? They said so on their website. You have the commander of the national police ordering his people to shoot people in Bucha on the day in question. You have the evidence. The dead bodies on the street with white armbands carrying Russian food packets. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Could there be data out there I am not aware of? Absolutely. But it is not there. As an intelligence officer, I take the available data. I access the available data. I provide assessments based on that available data. And Twitter found that objectionable.

Two pivotal incidents contributed to this censorship. The first was the publication of classified documents by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The second was the election of Donald Trump. The ruling class was unprepared. The exposure of their war crimes, corruption, callous indifference to the plight of those they ruled and extreme concentration of wealth shredded their credibility. The election of Trump, which they did not expect, made them afraid they would be supplanted. The Republican Party establishment and the Democratic Party establishment joined forces to demand greater and greater censorship from social media.

Two pivotal incidents led to this censorship: The publication of classified documents by WikiLeaks, and the election of Donald Trump. The ruling class was unprepared.

Even marginal critics suddenly became dangerous. They had to be silenced. Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in 2016, lost about half her social media following after mysteriously going offline for 12 hours during the campaign. The discredited Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, charged Stein, along with Trump, with being a Russian asset. The Senate Intelligence Committee spent three years investigating Stein, issuing five different reports before exonerating her.

Stein spoke of the threat to freedom of speech during the forum: 

We are in an incredibly perilous moment. It’s not only freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but it is really democracy in all its dimensions that is under threat. There are all these draconian laws now against protest. There are 36 that have been passed that are as bad as a 10-year prison sentence for demonstrating on a sidewalk without a permit. They differ state by state. You need to know the laws in your state if you protest. Drivers have been given license to kill you if you are out in the street in some states as part of a protest.

The first indication that we were not only being marginalized — one accepts that if you defy established power and practice independent journalism, you will be marginalized — but censored came in November 2016. Craig Timberg, a technology reporter for the Washington Post, published a story headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.” It referred to some 200 websites, including Truthdig where I wrote a weekly column, as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.”


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


Unnamed analysts, described as “a collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds” from the anonymous “organization” PropOrNot, made the charges in the story. PropOrNot’s report drew up “the list” of 200 offending sites that included WikiLeaks, Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Naked Capitalism, Counterpunch, AntiWar.com, LewRockwell.com and the Ron Paul Institute. All these sites, they said, either wittingly or unwittingly functioned as Russian assets. No evidence was offered for the charges, since of course there was none. The only common denominator was that all were critics of the Democratic Party leadership.

When we challenged the story, PropOrNot tweeted out: “Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject — they’re so vewwy angwy!!”

We were blacklisted by anonymous trolls who sent out Twitter messages, later deleted, that sounded as if they were written by a gamer living in his parent’s basement.

Timberg did not contact any of us beforehand. He and the paper refused to reveal the identity of those behind PropOrNot. I taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. If one of my students had turned in Timberg’s story as a class assignment, he or she would have failed.  

The established elites desperately needed a narrative to explain the defeat of Hillary Clinton and their own growing unpopularity. Russia fit. Fake news stories, they said, had been planted by Russians in social media to elect Trump. All critics, on the left and the right, became Russian assets. Then the  fun began.

The outliers many of us find repugnant began to disappear. In 2018, Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify deleted the podcasts, pages and channels of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars website from their platforms. The precedent was set. Once they could do it to Jones, they could do it to anyone.

When Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify deleted everything by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the precedent was set. Once they could do it to Jones, they could do it to anyone.

Twitter, Google, Facebook and YouTube used the charge of foreign influence to start employing algorithms and shadow banning to silence critics. Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud, chair of the  Kingdom Holding Company, which dismissed Elon Musk’s recent offer to buy the social media platform, has a large stake in Twitter. It is hard to find a more despotic regime than Saudi Arabia, or one more hostile to the press, but I digress.

Sites that once attracted tens or hundreds of thousands of followers suddenly saw their numbers nosedive. Google’s “Project Owl,” designed to eradicate “fake news,” employed “algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content” and downgrade “offensive” material. Traffic fell for sites such as AlterNet by 63%, Democracy Now by 36%, Common Dreams by 37%, Truthout by 25%, The Intercept by 19% and Counterpunch by 21%. The World Socialist Web site saw its traffic fall by two-thirds. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were all but erased. Mother Jones editors in 2019 wrote that they suffered a sharp decline in their Facebook audience, which translated to an estimated loss of $600,000 over 18 months.

The IT people at Truthdig, where I had a weekly column at the time, found that impressions — specific words such as “imperialism” typed into Google, that bring up recent stories including mine — now did not include my stories. Referrals to the site from impressions for my stories fell from over 700,000 to below 200,000 in a 12-month period.

But pushing us to the sidelines was not enough, especially with Democrats’ looming loss of Congress in the midterm elections and Joe Biden’s abysmal poll numbers. Now we must be erased. Dozens of lesser-known sites, writers and videographers are disappearing. Facebook, for example, removed a “No Unite The Right 2-DC” event connected to a page called “Resisters,” appearing to advertise a counter-rally on the anniversary of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Paul Jay, who runs a site called The Analysis, ran a video essay on Feb. 7 called, “A Failed Coup Inside a Failed Coup.” YouTube banned the piece, saying it was “content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.”

Former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, after posting on March 13 that the U.S. had funded bio labs in Ukraine and blaming the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Biden’s foreign policy, said she was shadow-banned on Twitter. The “Russians with Attitude” podcast account was suspended on Twitter. It covered the information war in Ukraine and “cried foul” on the “Ghost of Kyiv.” Social media platforms have been especially harsh on those questioning COVID policy, blocking websites and forcing users, social media platforms or online outlets to delete posts. 

These sites make billions of dollars by selling our personal information to corporations, advertising agencies and political public relations firms. They know everything about us. We know nothing about them. They cater to our proclivities, fears, habits and prejudices. And they will silence our voices if we do not conform. 

Censorship will not halt America’s march toward Christian fascism. Weimar Germany tried to thwart the Nazis by enforcing rigorous hate speech laws … but the persecution of Nazi leaders only enhanced their stature.

Censorship will not halt America’s march toward Christian fascism. Weimar Germany attempted to thwart Nazi fascism by enforcing rigorous hate speech laws. In the 1920s, it banned the Nazi party. Nazi leaders, including Joseph Goebbels, were prosecuted for hate speech. Julius Streicher, who ran the virulently antisemitic tabloid The Stormer (Der Stürmer), was fired from his teaching post, repeatedly fined and had his newspapers confiscated. He was taken to court numerous times for libel and served a series of jail sentences. 

But like those serving sentences for the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, or like Trump, the persecution of Nazi leaders only enhanced their stature the longer the German ruling class failed to address the economic and social misery. 

There are many similarities to the 1930s, including the power of predatory international banks to consolidate wealth into the hands of a few oligarchs and impose punishing austerity measures on the global working class. 

“More than anything else, the Nazis were a nationalist protest movement against globalization,” notes Benjamin Carter Hett in “The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power and The Downfall of the Weimar Republic.”

Shutting down critics in a decayed and corrupt society is equivalent to turning off the oxygen on a seriously ill patient. It hastens mortality rather than delaying or preventing it. The convergence of a looming economic crisis, fear by a bankrupt ruling class that they will soon be banished from power, the growing ecological catastrophe and the inability to thwart self-destructive military adventurism against Russia and China have set the stage for an American implosion.

Those of us who see it coming, and who desperately seek to prevent it, have become the enemy.

Read more from Chris Hedges on war, peace and freedom of speech:

Ukraine war fuels a weapons gold rush — and defense contractors are already cashing in

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought immense suffering to the people of that land, while sparking calls for increased military spending in both the United States and Europe. Though that war may prove to be a tragedy for the world, one group is already benefiting from it: U.S. arms contractors.

Even before hostilities broke out, the CEOs of major weapons firms were talking about how tensions in Europe could pad their profits. In a January 2022 call with his company’s investors, Raytheon Technologies CEO Greg Hayes typically bragged that the prospect of conflict in Eastern Europe and other global hot spots would be good for business, adding that “we are seeing, I would say, opportunities for international sales… [T]he tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.”

In late March, in an interview with the Harvard Business Review after the war in Ukraine had begun, Hayes defended the way his company would profit from that conflict:

“So I make no apology for that. I think again recognizing we are there to defend democracy and the fact is eventually we will see some benefit in the business over time. Everything that’s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DoD [the Department of Defense] or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business over the next coming years.”

Arms to Ukraine, profits to contractors

The war in Ukraine will indeed be a bonanza for the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. First of all, there will be the contracts to resupply weapons like Raytheon’s Stinger anti-aircraft missile and the Raytheon/Lockheed Martin-produced Javelin anti-tank missile that Washington has already provided to Ukraine by the thousands. The bigger stream of profits, however, will come from assured post-conflict increases in national security spending here and in Europe justified, at least in part, by the Russian invasion and the disaster that’s followed.

RELATED: America is united on the Ukraine war, right? Still, let’s follow the money

Indeed, direct arms transfers to Ukraine already reflect only part of the extra money going to U.S. military contractors. This fiscal year alone, they are guaranteed to also reap significant benefits from the Pentagon’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, both of which finance the acquisition of American weaponry and other equipment, as well as military training. These have, in fact, been the two primary channels for military aid to Ukraine from the moment the Russians invaded and seized Crimea in 2014. Since then, the United States has committed around $5 billion in security assistance to that country.

According to the State Department, the United States has provided such military aid to help Ukraine “preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO.” So when Russian troops began to mass on the Ukrainian border last year, Washington quickly upped the ante. On March 31, 2021, the U.S. European Command declared a “potential imminent crisis,” given the estimated 100,000 Russian troops already along that border and within Crimea. As last year ended, the Biden administration had committed $650 million in weaponry to Ukraine, including anti-aircraft and anti-armor equipment like the Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin anti-tank missile.

Despite such elevated levels of American military assistance, Russian troops did indeed invade Ukraine in February. Since then, according to Pentagon reports, the U.S. has committed to giving approximately $2.6 billion in military aid to that country, bringing the Biden administration total to more than $3.2 billion and still rising.

Some of this assistance was included in a March emergency-spending package for Ukraine, which required the direct procurement of weapons from the defense industry, including drones, laser-guided rocket systems, machine guns, ammunition and other supplies. The major military-industrial corporations will now seek Pentagon contracts to deliver that extra weaponry, even as they are gearing up to replenish Pentagon stocks already delivered to the Ukrainians.


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


On that front, in fact, military contractors have much to look forward to. More than half of the Pentagon’s $6.5 billion portion of the emergency-spending package for Ukraine is designated simply to replenish DoD inventories. In all, lawmakers allocated $3.5 billion to that effort, $1.75 billion more than the president even requested. They also boosted funding by $150 million for the State Department’s FMF program for Ukraine. And keep in mind that those figures don’t even include emergency financing for the Pentagon’s acquisition and maintenance costs, which are guaranteed to provide more revenue streams for the major weapons makers.

Better yet, from the viewpoint of such companies, there are many bites left to take from the apple of Ukrainian military aid. President Biden has already made it all too clear that “we’re going to give Ukraine the arms to fight and defend themselves through all the difficult days ahead.” One can only assume that more commitments are on the way.

Another positive side effect of the war for Lockheed, Raytheon and other arms merchants like them is the push by House Armed Services Committee chair Adam Smith, D-Wash., and ranking member Mike Rogers, R-Ala., to speed up production of a next-generation anti-aircraft missile to replace the Stinger. In his congressional confirmation hearing, William LaPlante, the latest nominee to head acquisition at the Pentagon, argued that America also needs more “hot production lines” for bombs, missiles and drones. Consider that yet another benefit-in-waiting for the major weapons contractors.

The Pentagon gold mine

For U.S. arms makers, however, the greatest benefits of the war in Ukraine won’t be immediate weapons sales, large as they are, but the changing nature of the ongoing debate over Pentagon spending itself. Of course, the representatives of such companies were already plugging the long-term challenge posed by China, a greatly exaggerated threat, but the Russian invasion is nothing short of manna from heaven for them, the ultimate rallying cry for advocates of greater military outlays. Even before the war, the Pentagon was slated to receive at least $7.3 trillion over the next decade, more than four times the cost of President Biden’s $1.7 trillion domestic Build Back Better plan, already stymied by members of Congress who labeled it “too expensive” by far. And keep in mind that, given the current surge in Pentagon spending, that $7.3 trillion could prove a minimal figure.

For the U.S. arms industry, the big bonanza of the war in Ukraine won’t be immediate weapons sales, but changing the nature of debate over Pentagon spending.

Indeed, Pentagon officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks promptly cited Ukraine as one of the rationales for the Biden administration’s proposed record national-security budget proposal of $813 billioncalling Russia’s invasion “an acute threat to the world order.” In another era that budget request for Fiscal Year 2023 would have been mind-boggling, since it’s higher than spending at the peaks of the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam and over $100 billion more than the Pentagon received annually at the height of the Cold War.

Despite its size, however, congressional Republicans — joined by a significant number of their Democratic colleagues — are already pushing for more. Forty Republican members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have, in fact, signed a letter to President Biden calling for 5% growth in military spending beyond inflation, which would potentially add up to $100 billion to that budget request. Typically enough, Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., who represents the area near the Huntington Ingalls company’s Newport News military shipyard in Virginia, accused the administration of “gutting the Navy” because it contemplates decommissioning some older ships to make way for new ones. That complaint was lodged despite that service’s plan to spend a whopping $28 billion on new ships in FY 2023.

Who benefits?

That planned increase in shipbuilding funds is part of a proposed pool of $276 billion for weapons procurement, as well as further research and development, contained in the new budget, which is where the top five weapons-producing contractors — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman — make most of their money. Those firms already split more than $150 billion in Pentagon contracts annually, a figure that will skyrocket if the administration and Congress have their way. To put all of this in context, just one of those top five firms, Lockheed Martin, was awarded $75 billion in Pentagon contracts in fiscal year 2020 alone. That’s considerably more than the entire budget for the State Department, dramatic evidence of how skewed Washington’s priorities are, despite the Biden administration’s pledge to “put diplomacy first.”

One of the top five weapons contractors, Lockheed Martin, was awarded $75 billion in contracts for 2020 alone. That’s more than the entire budget of the State Department.

The Pentagon’s weapons wish list for FY 2023 is a catalog of just how the big contractors will cash in. For example, the new Columbia Class ballistic missile submarine, built by General Dynamics Electric Boat plant in southeastern Connecticut, will see its proposed budget for FY 2023 grow from $5.0 billion to $6.2 billion. Spending on Northrop Grumman’s new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, will increase by about one-third annually, to $3.6 billion. The category of “missile defense and defeat,” a specialty of Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is slated to receive more than $24 billion. And space-based missile warning systems, a staple of the Trump administration-created Space Force, will jump from $2.5 billion in FY 2022 to $4.7 billion in this year’s proposed budget.

Among all the increases, there was a single surprise: a proposed reduction in purchases of the troubled Lockheed Martin F-35 combat aircraft, from 85 to 61 planes in FY 2023. The reason is clear enough. That plane has more than 800 identified design flaws and its production and performance problems have been little short of legendary. Luckily for Lockheed Martin, that drop in numbers has not been accompanied by a proportional reduction in funding. While newly produced planes may be reduced by one-third, the actual budget allocation for the F-35 will drop by less than 10%, from $12 billion to $11 billion, an amount that’s more than the complete discretionary budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since Lockheed Martin won the F-35 contract, development costs have more than doubled, while production delays have set the aircraft back by nearly a decade. Nonetheless, the military services have purchased so many of those planes that manufacturers can’t keep up with the demand for spare parts. And yet the F-35 can’t even be properly tested for combat effectiveness because the simulation software required is not only unfinished, but without even an estimated completion date. So the F-35 is many years away from the full production of planes that actually work as advertised, if that’s ever in the cards.

A number of the weapons systems which, in the Ukraine moment, are guaranteed to be showered with cash are so dangerous or dysfunctional that, like the F-35, they should actually be phased out. Take the new ICBM. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has called ICBMs “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a president would only have minutes to decide whether to launch them in a crisis, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm. Nor does it make sense to buy aircraft carriers at $13 billion a pop, especially since the latest version is having trouble even launching and landing aircraft — its primary function — and is increasingly vulnerable to attack by next-generation high-speed missiles.

A number of weapons systems which are guaranteed to be showered with cash — such as ICBMs and aircraft carriers — are so dangerous and dysfunctional they should actually be phased out entirely.

The few positives in the new budget, like the Navy’s decision to retire the unnecessary and unworkable Littoral Combat Ship — a sort of “F-35 of the sea” designed for multiple tasks, none of which it does well — could easily be reversed by advocates from states and districts where those systems are built and maintained. The House of Representatives, for instance, has a powerful Joint Strike Fighter Caucus, which, in 2021, mustered more than one-third of all House members to press for more F-35s than the Pentagon and Air Force requested, as they will no doubt do again this year. A Shipbuilding Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., and Rob Wittman, R-Va., will fight against the Navy’s plan to retire old ships to buy new ones. (They would prefer that the Navy keep the old ones and buy new ones with more of your tax money up for grabs.) Similarly, the “ICBM Coalition,” made up of senators from states with either ICBM bases or production centers, has a near-perfect record of staving off reductions in the deployment or funding of those weapons and will, in 2022, be hard at work defending its budgetary allocation.

Toward a new policy

Coming up with a sensible, realistic and affordable defense policy, always a challenge, will be even more so in the midst of the Ukrainian nightmare. Still, given where our taxpayer dollars go, it remains all too worthwhile. Such a new approach should include things like reducing the numbers of the Pentagon’s private contractors, hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are engaged in thoroughly redundant jobs that could be done more cheaply by civilian government employees or simply eliminated. It’s estimated that cutting spending on contractors by 15% would save around $262 billion over 10 years.

The Pentagon’s three-decade-long, near-$2 trillion “modernization” plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles and submarines, along with new warheads, should, for instance, simply be scrapped in keeping with the kind of “deterrence-only” nuclear strategy developed by the nuclear-policy organization Global Zero. And the staggering American global military footprint — an invitation to further conflict that includes more than 750 military bases scattered on every continent except Antarctica, and counterterrorism operations in 85 countries — should, at the very least, be sharply scaled back. 

According to the Center for International Policy’s Sustainable Defense Task Force and a study of alternative approaches to defense carried out by the Congressional Budget Office, even a relatively minimalist strategic rethinking could save at least $1 trillion over the next decade, enough to make a healthy down payment on investments in public health, preventing or mitigating the worst potential impacts of climate change or beginning the task of narrowing record levels of income inequality.

Of course, none of these changes can occur without challenging the power and influence of the military-industrial-congressional complex, a task as urgent as it is difficult in this moment of carnage in Europe. No matter how hard it may be, it’s a fight worth having, both for the security of the world and the future of the planet.

One thing is guaranteed: A new gold rush of “defense” spending is a disaster in the making for all of us not in that complex.

Read more on the Ukraine war and its global ripple effects:

Public health experts are split on whether we still need masks on airplanes

Are you required to wear a mask on an airplane? For the first time in nearly two years, the answer depends on which airline you’re flying.

On Monday night, news broke that masks are no longer required on airplanes by the federal government, as a Florida judge struck down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) mask mandate for transportation. That CDC mask mandate had been in effect for 14 months, and applied to airports, public transit and airplanes.

As a result of a federal judge’s ruling, the federal order is no longer in effect, and citizens are no longer required to wear masks on public transportation or commercial planes — at least, according to federal guidelines. Many airlines have responded by making masks optional on domestic flights.

The move came nearly a week after the CDC extended its mandate until May 3, 2022. The extension was made to give public health officials additional time to assess whether BA.2, a subvariant of the omicron variant of the coronavirus, is going to surge and cause another public health crisis. Indeed, coronavirus cases across the country have started to rise again, though hospitalizations and deaths remain relatively low at the moment.

The CDC’s extension also occurred as the Biden Administration faced pressure from airline executives to remove all pandemic-related restrictions.

RELATED: Mask mandate ruling is a “political act”

“Lifting the mask mandate in airports and onboard aircraft can be done safely as England has done,” executives wrote in the letter at the end of March. “It makes no sense that people are still required to wear masks on airplanes, yet are allowed to congregate in crowded restaurants, schools and at sporting events without masks, despite none of these venues having the protective air filtration system that aircraft do.”

The executives argued that people who wish to further protect themselves with high-quality masks can do so if they choose.

Experts previously said they believed flying unmasked on airplanes had become a riskier proposition as new, ultra-contagious variants emerged.

“The science clearly supports lifting the mask mandate, as demonstrated by the recently released CDC framework indicating that 99 percent of the U.S. population no longer need to wear masks indoors,” the executives wrote.

But as Salon reported in February, experts previously said they believed flying unmasked on airplanes had become a riskier proposition as new, ultra-contagious variants emerged. Studies suggest that BA.2 is between 30 and 50 percent even more contagious than its predecessor, which was already more contagious than the most contagious virus previously recorded in human history (measles).

“We have evidence that you can get COVID-19 on an airplane,” John Volckens, an aerosol scientist and professor in the Colorado School of Public Health at Colorado State University, previously told Salon. “Most of that evidence is from previous variants, but you can bet that if the alpha or delta variant can be spread on a plane, then so can omicron.”

Among public health experts, there has been a general consensus throughout the pandemic that airplanes have not been a primary source of transmission. Yet some experts believe that is in part because it is difficult for researchers to study and track outbreaks on planes, as Salon previously reported. In making their case, executives cited “several studies completed before we had the added layer of widespread availability of vaccines,” which included one from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and another from the U.S. Department of Defense.

Strangely, the first study referred to in the executives’ letter advocates for the use of universal masking in airports and on airplanes. While the report stated that exchange of air and HEPA filters on planes removes 99 percent of the particles containing the virus from cabin air, the researchers still recommended masks.


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


“Our team found that, together with their high-performing ventilation systems, the actions that the airlines put in place — including mandatory use of face masks — significantly reduce risks of viral transmission aboard an airplane,” Leonard Marcus, Co-Director of Aviation Public Health Initiative (APHI), said in a statement.

The second study cited showed “low exposure risk from aerosolized pathogens like COVID-19.” However, as infectious disease experts have noted before multiple times, there are various points throughout air travel that could be where transmission can occur, and they are not always on aircraft. Plus, previous studies have also shown that a person is at a greatest risk of acquiring an infection from someone two rows behind them, or in one’s own row.

“I think the decision to overturn the federal mask mandate on public transportation is fine at this point and will not worsen the pandemic,” Gandhi said via email. “The country is ready for this step.”

So, where do infectious disease experts stand now? Surprisingly, they appear to be split on whether or not the country is ready to go without masks on airplanes right now.

Marcus from the APHI said ventilation on airplanes is important and can help curb the spread of COVID-19 transmission, but proximity of people together on a plane is another concern, too. This is one reason why Marcus is in favor of multiple mitigation measures being put in place on airplanes.

“Only depending on the ventilation, when we continue to be in the middle of this pandemic, does pose higher risks,” Marcus said. “The other thing is, right now, a third of the population is not vaccinated, and even more are vaccinated but not boosted — so if you look at that statistic it means in a row of three people, one of those people could very well not be vaccinated.”

Marcus said for that reason, being able to maintain multiple layers of protection — like masking in addition to the ventilation, in addition to any other measures being taken — is just “good public health sense.”

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and critical care medicine doctor, told Salon that “there’s a distinction between a government mandate and what individuals choose to do.”

“Just because there is not a government official telling someone to wear a mask doesn’t mean they can’t of their own accord,” Adalja said. “Airplanes in particular are a low risk setting because of ventilation, and it makes little sense to require masks on airplanes, but not in higher risk situations.”

Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Salon she believes it’s time to go without masks on airplanes.

“I think the decision to overturn the federal mask mandate on public transportation is fine at this point and will not worsen the pandemic,” Gandhi said via email. “The country is ready for this step.”

Gandhi pointed to one study stating that “one-way mask protection seems to work extremely well in physical science studies on mannequins,” adding that those who want less exposure on public transportation should wear a N95, KN95, FFP2, KFN94 or double up on masks (surgical plus cloth). Notably, cloth masks remain relatively ineffective: the CDC said in January that cloth masks were the least effective in preventing COVID-19.

Gandhi’s risk calculus was partially derived from comparative public health data from California counties. 

“During the delta surge, California counties with mask mandates fared no better than those without mask mandates, in terms of cases and hospitalizations, if vaccination rates were similar,” Gandhi said. “At this point, although mask mandates can’t justifiably be reimposed with the data over the past two years, the CDC can recommend vulnerable individuals wear fit and filtered masks in crowded indoor spaces moving forward.”

Indeed, the more contagious the variant, the less effective masks are said to be in preventing infection. This is why some experts aren’t worried about the dropping of masks on public transportation: the viruses are already so incredibly contagious that piecemeal masking practices cannot fully stop them. 

William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told Salon he thinks masking can still help prevent infection, but it is important to recognize BA.2 is “so highly contagious.”

“It’s spreading in our communities,” Schaffner said. “I have to tell you whether or not masking on public transportation, trains, planes and buses, actually reduces in a noteworthy manner the amount of spread — I can’t say that. But in any event, in terms of personal protection, once again, those folks in the high-risk group are well-advised to keep their masks on.”

Despite the mandate being on hold, the CDC is still recommending that everyone wears masks on public transportation.

“CDC continues to recommend that people wear masks in indoor public transportation settings at this time,” the CDC states on its website.

Read more on COVID-19:

Garland faces demands to investigate if Trump “mutilated or destroyed” records to cover up crimes

A few weeks after the revelation that White House documents turned over to the panel probing the attack on the U.S. Capitol contains a seven-hour-and-37-minute gap in call logs, a pair of U.S. groups on Monday called for an investigation into whether former President Donald Trump “willfully mutilated and destroyed critical records of his presidency before leaving office.”

Building on a February 8 letter — sent before the call logs were shared last month with the U.S. House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021—Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and National Security Archive again wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray.

Demanding an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the groups’ letter emphasizes that the “significant gap” in Trump records corresponds to “a critical period when the Capitol was under attack by insurrectionists, raising the possibility that portions of the call logs were willfully destroyed to cover up evidence of criminal misconduct.”

“As our previous letter outlines,” the document reiterates, “former President Trump engaged in a pattern of conduct throughout his tenure in office that violated his record-keeping obligations under the Presidential Records Act in multiple ways.”

“The time period during which there is a gap in the phone logs includes at least five calls from or to President Trump whose occurrence has been documented in the public record,” the letter notes, pointing to his reported correspondence with then-Vice President Mike Pence, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, then-Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah—who supposedly passed his phone to Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala.

The letter also lays out key events between 11:06 am—when Trump finished a call with then-Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.—and 6:54 pm, when he had the White House operator contact an adviser who earlier this month was referred to the DOJ for not cooperating with the January 6 panel, Dan Scavino:

President Trump spoke to a gathering of his supporters near the White House beginning at noon that day, less than an hour after his call with Senator Perdue. One hour later an initial wave of protestors began storming the Capitol, and by 1:30 pm they had overcome the police. Nearly one hour later at 2:24 pm. President Trump tweeted his criticism of Vice President Pence for lacking “the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” At 3:36 pm White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted that President Trump had ordered the National Guard to the Capitol. At 4:17 pm President Trump tweeted a video directed to his supporters inside the Capitol urging them to go home but also telling them “We love you. You’re very special.” Shortly after 6:00 pm police were able to clear the Capitol.

Trump’s actions that day—including his furtherance of the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from him—led to his historic second impeachment just days before President Joe Biden took office, though the U.S. Senate, then controlled by Republicans, declined to convict the GOP leader.

The new call for a DOJ probe into the call logs gap comes as members of the January 6 panel are reportedly weighing whether to refer Trump to the department for prosecution.

The letter notes that U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter concluded last month that it is “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6,” and that he and his ex-attorney, John Eastman, “dishonestly conspired” to do so.

“Judge Carter’s conclusions also suggest the need for further investigation to determine whether former President Trump attempted to shield his actions during the January 6th insurrection from being discovered by Congress and the public,” the document asserts. “Information contained in the missing call logs likely would help elucidate the former president’s full role in those events.”

“The public must have confidence that all individuals—including former President Trump—will be thoroughly and fairly investigated,” the letter adds, “and be held accountable if they engaged in criminal misconduct to attack the heart of our democracy.”

MAGA PAC losing millions after funneling donations to pay for Trump’s mounting legal bills: report

Donald Trump’s campaign committee reported campaign losses for the third straight quarter after paying about $1.1 million in the former president’s legal fees.

Campaign finance disclosures show Make America Great Again PAC lost $1.2 million at the start of 2022, with more than 40 percent of its $2.6 million in total expenses going to lawyers, and the committee’s cash on hand dropped from $6.66 million at the end of 2021 to around $5.47 million at the end of March, reported “The Daily Beast”.

The MAGA PAC paid off the bulk of Trump’s legal costs in the first half of 2021, spending $7.8 million of the $8 million total spent on lawyers’ fees, although those payouts dropped late last year after the Republican National Committee agreed to pay up to $1.6 million in legal expenses related to investigations into his business practices.

But those payouts spiked again in the first quarter of 2022, with $410,000 to election challenger Jesse Binnall’s firm, which also subcontracts with other lawyers around the country whose names aren’t listed on the campaign finance reports.

Binnall’s firm, its local subcontractors and Elections LLC, a joint venture between three former top campaign aides, soaked up more than half of Trump’s legal costs in the quarter.

The rest of the PAC’s expense report showed a $1.17 million in payments to a Delaware-based company called 2M Document Management and Imaging, LLC, for “research consulting,” after it was paid $1.6 million by the MAGA PAC last year.

6 shocking Abercrombie & Fitch revelations from Netflix’s new documentary “White Hot”

Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F), the infamous retail company best known for flaunting their signature images of scantily clad models, wasn’t always the epitome of prep and sex. In fact, the store first started off as an elite outdoorsman brand in 1892 and was worn by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt and Ernest Hemingway. Polo shirts, crisp trousers and hunting attire, however, weren’t the only products sold in stores. Popular merchandise also included books, fishing gear and shaving cream — a collection of products fit for the traditional gentleman.

By the 1970s, A&F tanked financially — eventually filing for bankruptcy — and was forced to revamp their brand in order to rejoin the market. What came afterwards was a fashion line that embodied a very specific, idealized version of the all-American youth, meshing nauseatingly white fraternity culture with ample amounts of sex and allure. The brand’s signature tees, which were adorned with block stitched letters of the store’s own name, quickly became the sought-out apparel among young millennials while images of half-nude models plastered on the store walls and bags became the bane of every parent’s existence.  

RELATED: The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch

The A&F look was simple and could be described using three short adjectives: Natural, American and Classic. It exuded a sense of cool and exclusiveness that was pushed by the company’s former CEO Mike Jeffries. But over the years, that exclusivity revealed itself to be expressed through blatant racism, discrimination and prejudice.  

Such wrongdoings are now being explored in Netflix’s latest documentary, “White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch,” as it takes a closer look at how a $1.76 billion company managed to thrive — and survive — off of this exclusion. Up to a point.

From a shameless ranking system to a collection of offensive slogans, here are six shocking revelations from the documentary:

1  The discriminatory recruiting process

As bizarre as this sounds, A&F recruiters were required to hire only “good-looking people” to work part-time — anywhere from  $5-15 an hour — in stores. To help make the process easier, store managers were provided a literal book that strictly outlined “what good-looking looks like.”

“Exhibiting the A&F look is a tremendously important part of the A&F stores,” the book reads. “We are selling an experience for our customer, an atmosphere that people want to experience again and again. Our people in store are an inspiration to the customer.”

A literal book strictly outlined “what good-looking looks like.”

It goes on to state that a “neatly combed, attractive, natural, classic hairstyle” worn on an image of a white model is acceptable while dreadlocks, which are showcased on a Black model, is unacceptable for both men and women. Gold chains are not acceptable for men but a “thin, short, delicate, silver necklace” on women is perfectly OK. Additionally, if employees — aka “Brand Representatives” — chose to wear watches, the design must be both “understated and cool.” And lastly, brand representatives are required to wear appropriate undergarments at all times.

As American fashion editor Robin Givhan says in the documentary, “No other mall brand went to the extreme that Abercrombie did in micromanaging the look of everything from the store down to the person who was cleaning up the stockroom.”

2 The weekly ranking system of employees

Abercrombie & Fitch modelsAbercrombie & Fitch models during Abercrombie & Fitch Store Opening on 5th Avenue in New York City at A & F 5th Avenue in New York City, New York, United States. (David Pomponio/FilmMagic for Paul Wilmot Communications/Getty Images)Racial discrimination was also rampant in the store’s work environment. According to journalist Moe Tkacik, A&F had weekly employee review sheets, which required store managers to rank each of their employees on a look-based scale of “cool to rocks.” If certain employees weren’t deemed as cool — which was a coded way of saying unattractive — they were dropped from the work schedule and silently fired.  

In the end, the brand didn’t care about individual sales or job performance.

“All that mattered was that the employees that you took pictures of and sent back to headquarters were hot,” says Tkacik, who describes the whole process as feeling “illegal.”

It was later understood that the discriminatory review policy was a way for the brand to continue pushing its overwhelmingly white standard. In June 2003, nine former employees of color filed a suit against the company, alleging that A&F refused them sales jobs, forced them to work in undesirable positions and terminated their contracts on the basis of their race. A settlement was eventually reached and included a consent decree, requiring the company to change its policies to promote diversity within the workforce, prevent discrimination and appoint a Vice President for Diversity.

The company later launched their own diversity & inclusion team and in 2011, approximately 53% of the store’s employees were non-white. But aside from that, nothing really changed following the consent decree. Instead, the brand came up with new, disparaging corporate lingo, which once again excluded workers of color. Employees were no longer called “Brand Representatives.” Instead, they were divided into two categories with two distinct titles: “Impact” employees were mainly people of color who worked in the back and “model” employees were mainly white people who worked up in the front.  

“The idea was that calling their minimum wage retail employees ‘models,’ you know, Abercrombie could get away with anything that a modeling agency could get away with,” explains Tkacik.  

3 The graphic tee slogans

Graphic tees paired with quirky slogans were basically a “personality” for A&F. “They really wanted us to be irreverent,” says Kelly Blumberg, the former A&F graphic design director. “They really wanted us to be funny, relevant to that late teen, early 20s college crowd.”

The brand’s most notorious shirt featured … the slogan, “Two Wongs can make it white.”

To the brand, being “funny” also meant being racist. As the documentary outlines, a specific theme for the shirts was called “Buddha fest” and featured a cliché portrait of an oversized Buddha drawing. Another shirt had the slogan, “Juan more for the road” next to a picture of a donkey holding a taco with a sombrero. The brand’s most notorious shirt featured an illustration of the “Wong brothers” who wore matching conical hats and advertised a fictional laundry service. The slogan, “Two Wongs can make it white” appeared at the bottom.  

Despite the stereotypical portrayals and offensive rhetoric, the tees were a hit among A&F consumers. The shirts were finally pulled from the stores and burned after multiple Asian American student groups publicly protested the company and its apparel.

4 Allegations of sexual misconduct about photographer Bruce Weber 

Fashion photographer Bruce Weber is the mastermind behind the brand’s salacious and glossy 1990s ad campaigns. Over the years, however, Weber has been at the center of controversy after multiple male models accused the photographer of inappropriate touching, coercive sexual behavior and sexual assault.  

According to former A&F model Bobby Blanksi, Webber frequently invited models over for private dinners and advertised the outings as innocent meetings. If models refused the offer, Weber would fire them on the spot.  

“There was a guy that would get a call from Bruce. He would get invited to come over for dinner,” explains Blanksi. “Then they’d go over, and I would not see them the next day.”

5 Jeffries’ traditional, heterosexual ideas of femininity and masculinity

White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & FitchMike Jeffries in “White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch”. (Netflix)

“We don’t want her to look too butch.”

In a story that journalist Benoit Denizet-Lewis wrote for Salon in 2006, he revealed that the A&F CEO has proudly boasted that his brand is “exclusionary,” frequently making the point that the brand’s clothes are not size-inclusive. As Denizet-Lewis recalls, Jeffries obsessively analyzed how jeans would look on the mannequins kept in the company’s headquarters. In one instance, Jeffries allegedly said, “We need to make this dude look more like a dude,” while looking at a male mannequin. And to a nearby female mannequin, Jeffries criticized, “We don’t want her to look too butch.”

A similar remark was made when Jeffries evaluated a pair of women corduroys which he deemed were too masculine.

“Who the f**k are you designing for? Dykes on trikes?” the CEO asked.       

6 The brand’s headscarf intolerance

In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at A&F but was eventually declined a position due to her choice to wear a black head scarf. According to the company, Elauf’s scarf went against its “Look Policy” and its “classic East Coast collegiate style” dress code. Elauf filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a suit against Abercrombie, which defended its company policy and asserted that it bans all types of headgear, regardless of religious affiliation.

The case was also heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Elauf and found that A&F violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which states that employers must provide “reasonable accommodation without undue hardship.”

“Title VII forbids adverse employment decisions made with a forbidden motive, whether this motive derives from actual knowledge, a well-founded suspicion or merely a hunch,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

“White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch” is now streaming on Netflix. Watch a trailer for the documentary below, via YouTube.

More stories you might like:

I can hear Julia Child’s voice in my head again after six weeks of “The Julia Child Challenge”

Welcome to the finale of “The Julia Child Challenge,” a very silly and good-hearted show that has made me roll my eyes and spring tears in roughly equal measure. There are three contestants remaining: Bill, the resourceful and elegant cookware distributor who lives in my neck of the woods and should probably invite me to dinner; Dustin, the enterprising fitness instructor; and Jaíne, who is simply the most delightful woman alive and — as one of the other challengers called her in a previous episode — a near embodiment of Julia in terms of spirit and presence. Only tearier. Julia wasn’t much of a crier, from what I can tell.

Speaking of tears, there are going to be some here today — fair warning.

Our three contestants begin by watching a “French Chef” clip in which Julia Child, in discussing the intimidation factor involved with caramelization (the fear is real!), names the “awful American syndrome of fear of failure.” I’m not sure why that makes me cry. I think maybe I felt a bit too seen? Julia does that to me.

Dorie Greenspan is the guest judge! After quite a few TV chefs and star cooking show contestants, we’re back on my beloved home ground, and I maybe cry a little more. The other judge is Brooke Williamson, who I don’t know, but she seems nice.

The first challenge is to take a croque monsieur — a classic fried sandwich of ham and cheese — and turn it into an upscale first course. I’ll have to say that while this show has strained credulity at times with its connections to Julia’s life and legacy, the challenges themselves have mostly made sense. But folks are running into trouble . . .

Dustin has the idea to make a Vietnamese croque monsieur, which does make some sense. One way to do that would be to go with a banh mi, but he intends to make rice flour crepes. Crepes, however, famously go wrong in front of TV cameras. When they don’t work out, he switches his plan up and makes a pretty straight-ahead croque monsieur with herbaceous Vietnamese touches — cilantro, basil, et cetera.

RELATED: Omelets are hard to master and more lessons learned from “The Julia Child Challenge”

Bill wants to make a frisée salad with croque monsieur croutons, a turnaround on the traditional croque monsieur served with a salad side. I would like to be eating this right now, though I wonder if the croutons are enough to get across the croque-ness?

Well, it turns out it doesn’t matter. Bill’s sandwiches aren’t frozen enough to fry into croutons on time, so he has to make a game-time decision and change his plans. He fries them into what looks like mozzarella sticks. I wouldn’t throw them out of bed. 

Jaíne makes ham and cheese croquettes. This is very smart. Julia actually has a classic French ham and cheese croquette recipe, but Jaíne takes them in a more Spanish direction

This Brooke judge is wandering around breaking people’s concentration. That’s her job, but it’s pissing me off.

“I remember standing there, letting it soak in just after I’d finished the Julie/Julia Project. It’s corny as hell, but that was a big moment for me. “

As the final three cook, some new footage plays, including a snapshot of Jaíne and her boyfriend at Julia’s kitchen in the Smithsonian. I cried the first time I watched it, and I’m crying again now. I’m nearly 50 years old, with a cold, dead heart, but that kitchen still gets me. I remember standing there, letting it soak in just after I’d finished the Julie/Julia Project. It’s corny as hell, but that was a big moment for me. 

Dustin and Bill both struggle with this first challenge. Neither attempt winds up as elevated as was hoped. Dorie thinks Dustin’s sandwich is entirely too much for a first course, while head judge Antonia Lofaso (“Top Chef“) compares Bill’s rolls to the aforementioned mozzarella sticks. (I don’t know what the hell people think are wrong with mozzarella sticks, but OK.) Only Jaíne sails through. Her dish looks elegant and delicious — and all the judges love it.

Before they’re given their next challenge, Jacques Pépin makes an appearance via video. Awww, man. His relationship with Julia splits my heart in twain. Anyone who has gotten their fill of “The French Chef” should move on to “Julia and Jacques Cooking at Home.”

The Julia Child ChallengeHost Antonia Lofaso with the contestants of “The Julia Child Challenge” (Photo courtesy of Food Network/Discovery)

Crikey, so this last challenge is a doozy. They are to make a three-course meal, with takes on duck a l’orange, boeuf bourguignon and croquembouche (which is a stack of cream puffs drizzled with caramel and topped with spun sugar). In three hours. This is, in my estimation, technically impossible.

Bill makes a root vegetable orange soup with duck hash, a deconstructed boeuf bourguignon and orange cream puffs with orange chantilly cream. He makes use of two pressure cookers, which seems absolutely necessary.

Dustin continues his Vietnamese theme with a duck a l’orange pho, which makes all the sense in the world. He’s roasting some marrow bones, making a short rib marmalade (I don’t know what that is!) and braising short ribs for a sort of “Bourguignon Three Ways” concept. His dessert is a Paris-brest, which he calls a kind of French donut, with lime curd. 

Jaíne again turns to her native country of Brazil, making plantain gnocchi, pan-fried in duck fat with cracklings and orange sauce. She’s going to do her bourguignon ropa vieja-style, shredded with rice and beans. She bunts a bit on the dessert, making what she calls “croquembouche crepes.” So, no cream puffs. She’s simply working with the orange and cream profile. 

Julia ChildJulia Child poses in her kitchen, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972. (Hans Namuth/Photo Researchers History/Getty Images)The cooks have to present their first courses and then run back to the kitchen. All do well, though there are concerns the duck doesn’t come through on Jaíne’s gnocchi.

On to the boeuf bourguignon. While they’re cooking, another “French Chef” clip plays, in which Julia bitches about grocery store stew meat, which is cut too small. “It looks like cat food, and I don’t like it.” I start crying again. I don’t know why. Somehow, I feel like I’m saying goodbye to her all over again. 

Jaíne has managed to burn her meat. Oh no, Jaíne! Everyone is rushing because this is an insane thing to ask people to do. Dustin exhorts everyone to “breathe, organize and push through.” For the record, this is why I don’t do spin classes — I would totally have a misdemeanor assault charge by now.

In the end, Jaíne somehow manages to save her boeuf — and the judges all love it. Dustin’s fancy-dan bourguignon three ways lacks the winey sauce that defines the stew. Dorie says the marmalade isn’t really marmalade, but since I was never sure what a short rib marmalade was supposed to be, I feel no loss. Bill’s sauce is fantastic, even if his concept is not incredibly note-worthy.

“Every once in a while, there is some justice in this world. “

The dessert stage is freaking everyone out — and me along with them. But then they get to finally sit the f**k down and relax. The judges like all of their dishes, which man, thank you, give them a damn break already.

Jaíne wins, and she’s going to Paris because every once in a while there is some justice in this world. 

I’ve gone on too long here, but I have to give in to my emotions here for a second. Contestants and judges alike have spoken over this short season of hearing Julia’s voice in their heads, which was of course the starting point of my blog and book. Watching this has reawakened that voice for me, much to my distress. I have never liked sharing her. No real Julia-head does. So, recapping this has been a little tough. But it’s worth remembering that beneath the dumb corporate exploits, there’s a genuine bond. Jaíne feels it, and I guess my cold dead heart still does as well.


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


A fond look back at “The Julia Child Challenge”: 

The false triumph of that nonsensical “Anatomy of a Scandal” ending

Something being a novelist will teach you: people love happy endings

Perhaps the more discerning reader loves a deserved ending, one that makes sense in the context of the fiction. Not every romantic pair is going to end up together. Not every want will be fulfilled, based on what happened before. 

That’s why the weird triumph at the end of Netflix’s “Anatomy of a Scandal” rings as particularly hollow. The rushed ending of the story feels unearned and false, presenting justice where there is none and a happy, hollow resolution that is anything but resolved. 

RELATED: Evan Rachel Wood alleges Marilyn Manson raped her on camera: “No one was looking after me”

“Anatomy of a Scandal,” based on a novel by Sarah Vaughan, was created by David E. Kelley and Melissa James Gibson. The story examines what happens when British “golden boy” Tory MP James Whitehouse (Rupert Friend) has an extramarital affair with a younger aide, Olivia Lytton (Naomi Scott). The relationship becomes public. His wife, Sophie Whitehouse (Sienna Miller) is informed. But the worst is yet to come. It seems that not all of James and Olivia’s sexual encounters were consensual. Whitehouse is accused of rape and must stand trial. 

“Anatomy of a Rape” was not catchy enough, or maybe the show didn’t want to give away the accusation.

The barrister on the prosecution? Kate Woodcroft (Michelle Dockery of “Downton Abbey”) who, it turns out, has a very personal connection to the case, something motivating her even more than her usual drive to get a conviction,  Kate’s former name was Holly Berry (I know). And – this is a major spoiler yet minor surprise – back in her college days, when she was an unpopular, bookish girl and tutorial partners with Sophie, James raped Holly. She never reported it and did not tell Sophie, instead leaving school suddenly and transferring. 

I’m no lawyer, but Kelley was, and it’s odd that such a glaring conflict of interest, not to mention an unethical one, is a huge part of the show, its biggest reveal and one Vulture calls the most obvious and overdetermined, shocking twist in recent TV memory.” That’s not even approaching the weak end of the story.

Vaughan is a British novelist and former journalist. “Anatomy of a Scandal” is her third novel, one where she utilized her experiences reporting on politics and her own background as a student at Oxford.

Perhaps a crime reporter could have helped the mix a bit because, like many Kelley shows such as “Ally McBeal” and “The Practice,” a good part of “Anatomy of a Scandal” takes place in a courtroom. But it’s not a mere scandal being examined as the title would have you believe. Not Anthony and Kate of Bridgerton sharing a stolen kiss. It’s rape. 

Hell hath no fury like a woman whose husband is definitely a rapist but was acquitted and also confessed to her some bad things he did in college.

“Anatomy of a Rape” was not catchy enough, or maybe the show didn’t want to give away the accusation leveled at James. Or since this is billed as an anthology series, the next season won’t be specifically about rape. But, like the majority of rape cases, there is no justice here.

According to The Washington Post, less than 1% of rape cases end in felony convictions. The BBC recently published findings that rape prosecutions in England and Wales have fallen by 70% over the past four years, attributing the falling rates to victims withdrawing their cases (after waiting years in some instances), to an overwhelming amount of evidence difficult for law enforcement to process and to government funding cuts.

So perhaps it’s unsurprising that, despite pretty damning evidence, James Whitehouse is found not guilty. What is surprising is the neat bow that “Anatomy of a Scandal” attempts to tie on the mess. 

Sure, James got away with rape (twice, that we know about), but his wife Sophie has some dirt on him. Hell hath no fury like a woman whose husband is definitely a rapist but was acquitted and also confessed to her some bad things he did in college involving heroin and his merry frat band of drinking buddies, the Libertines

Sophie brings to light evidence of those bad things, which also implicate the Prime Minister as being responsible for a fellow student’s death, and later meets up with Kate. She’s discovered Kate’s former identity as Holly Berry – because of left-handedness and neat note-taking, naturally; that’s a dead giveaway! 

She’s tipped off the press like she’s Deep Throat and like Bruce Willis in “Die Hard,” tosses out the show’s last line.

But Sophie isn’t going to use that information to help her husband. Instead, she reveals that she leaked his past to the press, which implies that James will hopefully convicted this time, though not for the crimes against Kate or his former aide, Olivia. It’s much easier to get convicted of involuntary manslaughter than rape, apparently, which Sophie calls: “Course correction for the greater good.”

As there is no real justice in this show, there’s also no reconciliation between the two women. No reckoning. Former classmates, tutorial partners and now linked by a terrible crime, they could form an uneasy alliance. Or, Sophie could confront Kate/Holly for unethically prosecuting her husband’s case. Or, Kate could confront Sophie for marrying and protecting a rapist.

There’s none of that. Instead, after engaging in some light victim-blaming and then playing the misunderstood victim (“A lot of people think they know me. You think you know me. Trust me, you don’t”), Sophie says she’s tipped off the press like she’s Deep Throat and then like Bruce Willis in “Die Hard,” tosses out the show’s last line casually before stalking away: “Merry Christmas, Holly Berry.” 

Wait. It’s Christmas?!


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


This is supposed to pass for a satisfying ending. Instead, it’s simply bizarre. Is this all rape survivors can hope for?

In this hollow happily ever after, Kate chuckles and grins. We’re treated to a montage of the arrests of James and the Prime Minister, and a final scene of Sophie frolicking without a care on the English coast. Sophie gets to run around in fields with her children and dog in the lovely countryside, far from the scandal or rape or press. Because she’s rich, she’ll be fine. Kate, though, gets back to work. 

One would hope that legally Kate would not be allowed to prosecute James again, even if her duplicity in the first case was not uncovered (which would likely disbar her). But with this story, which relies little on sense or earning its triumphant finish, you never know. 

More stories like this:

This éclair cake is so easy, an 8-year-old could make it

Éclairs are a staple of the French pastry case, elegant elongated poufs lovingly filled and dunked in ganache or fondant. You might think that means that they’re one of those things that is just too fancy to make at home, or at least not a project you should tackle without having a day or two where you can afford to be leashed to your kitchen. And sure, éclairs can be fiddly to fill without crushing them.

But if you want all that éclair flavor without the hassle, the best way to go is with Resident Carolina Gelen’s Éclair Cake, which harnesses the delicacy of the patisserie with good old-fashioned icebox cake. It’s so easy that an 8-year-old can make it — and I should know, because I recently made it with an 8-year-old.

The 8-year-old in question, my partner’s cousin, is a particularly precocious baker. He’s attempted mirror glazes and started his own “bakery” with a group of fellow schoolmates, so I knew he’d be up for a project. What’s lovely about the éclair cake, aside from the fact that it tastes very, very good, is that it harnesses the same techniques as a traditional éclair, but in a format that’s a lot more forgiving.

The staple ingredient in this éclair cake, and indeed all éclairs, is pâte à choux, an eggy dough that you cook on the stove before finishing in a stand mixer. In regular éclairs and cream puffs, the dough rises in the oven, dries out, and forms a hollow pocket inside that can be filled with pastry cream or whipped cream or sweetened cream cheese. The éclair cake version uses that same dough piped into a square — you don’t need to worry about it puffing up and forming a pocket, and if it doesn’t rise well, who cares? You’re going to layer it with pastry cream, top with another square of choux, and cover the whole thing in chocolate ganache. I promise it will taste good.

My 8-year-old friend noted that the most fun part of the process, aside from piping the pâte à choux into two careful squares that make the layers of the cake, was making chocolate ganache — you just melt chocolate into hot cream, stirring vigorously until it turns into a thick, icing-like mixture. His least favorite part? Waiting. Once you assemble the éclair cake you have to tuck it into the fridge overnight, and ideally for a whole day. Waiting is excruciating, particularly if you’re 8, but it’s the only way to get that crucial icebox cake texture. The pastry cream sets, the choux gets that crispy-gone-soggy feel, and the glossy chocolate layer tops it all off. It’s worth the wait, but pro tip: let your assistant lick the ganache spoon to make it a little easier.

***

Recipe: Éclair Cake

Yields
9 servings
Prep Time
11 hours
Cook Time
55 minutes

Ingredients

Pastry cream:

  • 1/2 cup (99 grams) granulated sugar
  • 4 large egg yolks
  • 1/3 cup (37 grams) cornstarch
  • 1/4 teaspoon kosher salt
  • 1 1/2 cups (341 grams) whole milk
  • 1/2 cup (114 grams) heavy cream
  • 1/2 vanilla bean (or 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract)
  • 2 tablespoons (29 grams) unsalted butter, cubed

Pâte à choux:

  • 1/2 cup (114 grams) whole milk
  • 1/4 cup (57 grams) unsalted butter
  • 1 teaspoon (4 grams) fine sea salt
  • 1 1/2 cups (180 grams) bread flour (or all-purpose flour)
  • 5 large eggs (have an extra 2 on hand, just in case)

Chocolate ganache:

  • 1 cup (227 grams) heavy cream
  • 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
  • 1 cup (170 grams) chopped dark or semisweet chocolate (or chips)

 

 

Directions

  1. Make the pastry cream: Stir together the sugar, yolks, cornstarch, and salt in a heatproof bowl. Combine the milk, cream, and vanilla in a medium saucepan over medium heat and heat until hot. While whisking, slowly stream about half of the hot liquid in the yolk mixture. Pour this tempered yolk mixture into the pot with the rest of the milk mixture (you can pour through a fine-mesh sieve if you’re worried about any cooked egg bits). Cook over low to medium-low heat for 4 to 8 minutes, stirring frequently, until bubbling and thickened like pudding. Turn off the heat, then mix in the butter. Strain through a fine-mesh sieve into a heatproof bowl, discarding any clumps caught in the sieve. Cover the pastry cream with plastic wrap to prevent a skin from forming. Refrigerate until cold. (This step can be done up to 2 days in advance.) 
  2. Make the pâte à choux: In a medium saucepan, combine 1/2 cup (114 grams) of water, the milk, butter, and salt. Bring to boil over medium heat. Stir in all of the flour with a silicone spatula or wooden spoon. Reduce the heat to low and continue to cook, stirring constantly, until the mixture becomes sticky paste and there’s a visible film of starch on the bottom of the pan, 2 to 3 minutes. Transfer the flour mixture to the bowl of a stand mixer fitted with a paddle attachment. Whisk the eggs in a large liquid measuring cup. With the mixer running on medium speed, add the eggs in slow, steady stream and continue mixing until totally incorporated, about 4 minutes total. Dip the paddle into the batter and lift it up — the batter should form a V shape that eventually breaks away from the batter in the bowl. If the dough is too stiff or pulls away too quickly, add another egg to loosen the consistency.
  3. Bake the pâte à choux: Heat the oven to 375°F. Get out an 8-inch square baking dish. Line a sheet pan with parchment paper. Using the baking dish as a guide, trace two squares with pencil on the parchment, then flip the parchment. Pipe or spread the choux evenly inside those two squares (about 320 grams of pâte à choux per square), leaving a 1/2-inch or so border for the pastry to expand in the oven and fill out the squares. Bake for 30 to 40 minutes, until puffed and golden brown. (Don’t open the oven during the first 25 minutes, otherwise the choux will depuff.) Transfer the baked choux squares to a wire rack to cool completely. 
  4. Make the ganache: In a medium saucepan over medium-low heat, bring the cream to a simmer. Remove from the heat and add the chocolate and salt. Wait a few minutes, then stir until the chocolate is silky smooth. Let cool until barely warm. 
  5. Assemble the éclair cake: If needed, use a pair of scissors to trim the border of the choux squares so they can fit inside the baking dish. Place one choux square at the bottom of the baking dish. Stir the pastry cream to smooth out, then evenly spread that on top. Place the second choux square on top. Spread the chocolate ganache on top. Tightly cover the pan and refrigerate for 10 to 24 hours before slicing and serving.

Keisha Lance Bottoms denied service: It’s time to admit restaurants have a racist dress code problem

Over the weekend, Keisha Lance Bottoms, the former mayor of Atlanta, fired off a one-sentence tweet punctuated by a shrug emoji: “I was just turned away at @CapitalGrille at Perimeter Mall because I have on leggings.” 

Commenters, including Atlanta newscaster Kristin Holloway, quickly responded with screenshots of the dress code posted on the upscale chain steakhouse’s website, which thanks guests for “not wearing” the following items: gym attire, sweatpants, tank tops, hats, clothing with offensive language or images and exposed undergarments.

“I know that’s frustrating, they do have a polite notice on their website at the bottom asking guest[s] not to wear gym attire or sweat pants,” Holloway wrote. “Hopefully they’re enforcing it with all guest[s] and not picking and choosing.”

Related: The Korean Vegan hopes her 60-second recipes will make you less racist

A cursory search through social media photographs taken at the restaurant’s various locations appears to show customers dressed in all manner of clothing, including ball caps, gym attireripped jeans exposing fishnet stockings — even leggings. However, there is one noticeable discrepancy. The aforementioned patrons were white, while Bottoms is Black. 

Bottoms alluded to this seemingly unequal enforcement of the dress code in a follow-up tweet. 

“Odd that a restaurant in a mall parking lot turns away customers in ‘mall’ attire,” she wrote. “Asked if I could sit in the bar area and was told, ‘No.’. Rules are the rules, just wonder if the woman who came in immediately after me, who I did not see come back out, was also denied service.” 

Former City of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance BottomsCity of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms speaks during the Super Bowl LIII Atlanta Host Committee Press Conference on Jan. 28, 2019 at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta. (Photo by (Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)Capital Grille has yet to release a statement about the incident, but Salon Food has reached out with a request for comment.

Unfortunately, this is only the latest example of what critics describe as the use of dress codes at bars and restaurants as a means of perpetuating racism. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of managers and staff barring patrons of color for purportedly not being dressed “appropriately,” despite the fact that white customers were seen dining in similar attire. 

It’s a practice that is classist gatekeeping at best and racial discrimination at worst — and it all boils down to whom dining establishments want to invite in and whom they want to keep out. 

In 2019, author R. Eric Thomas tweeted a photograph of the posted dress code at Baltimore’s Choptank. In a similar fashion to Capital Grille, it specified that athletic attire, excessively baggy clothing, backwards or sideways hats and work and construction boots were banned. “Pants must be worn at the waist,” it stated. “No shorts below the knee.” 

“There’s a long, toxic and well-documented history of restaurant dress codes like this one being little more than thinly-veiled (if veiled at all) anti-Black racism!”

Immediately, Choptank began to receive blowback online. New Yorker food writer Helen Rosner tweeted, “There’s a long, toxic, and well-documented history of restaurant dress codes like this one being little more than thinly veiled (if veiled at all) anti-black racism!” 

Those comments were followed by an opinion piece from the Baltimore Sun editorial board, which urged the restaurant to rethink the dress code and its implications. 

“The original dress code didn’t explicitly say that African Americans or other minorities aren’t welcome at the eatery,” the editorial board wrote. “But the way the code was written definitely left the impression that they were the group of patrons the Atlas Restaurant Group, owner of the crab house and several other Baltimore restaurants, was trying to target.” 

The editorial went on to note that many of the items of clothing on the “banned” list had been popularized by Black entertainment figures and adopted by their fans. 

“The fact that some other establishments in Fells Point employ similar dress codes didn’t make it any better; they also need to dump those rules,” it concluded. 

In response, Choptank management had a change of heart. The tone of its updated dress code is radically different. “Atlas Restaurant Group promotes a dining atmosphere and the suggested dress is business casual,” it says. “We kindly ask our guests to abide by these suggestions to create an enjoyable environment for all guests.”

Related: Bryant Terry says he just wrote his last cookbook — but this top chef hasn’t finished leaving his mark

The following items are currently prohibited: gentlemen’s tank tops or sleeveless shirts; men’s hats; exposed undergarments; and clothing with language or graphics that are vulgar or sexually explicit. Footwear is also required, however, there is no listed restriction on the style. 

Across the country, there have been many other reports of allegedly racist dress codes. Some are more veiled; the now-shuttered Chicago bar Bottled Blonde, for instance, had listed in its rules that Jordan Brand shoes were banned, while Chuck Taylors and Vans were permitted. Some are more blatant, such as the case of a Detroit sports bar that instructed patrons not to wear “ghetto gear.” 

As TV station WXYZ Detroit reported at the time, the individual who posted a viral image of the bar’s sign spoke under the condition that their face would not be shown. 

“I’m afraid,” they said. “I don’t like going into places and seeing that. It felt like a modern-day ‘no colored’ sign to me. I just didn’t feel comfortable. I didn’t feel wanted, and honestly, I was a little offended — very offended — by that sign.” 

These regulations are a troubling intersection between the racism that is often inherent to ideals of professionalism and presentability — perhaps most publicly displayed in the insidious and persistent dismissal of Black women’s natural hair and hairstyles as unfit for corporate workplaces — and fine dining. 

These regulations are a troubling intersection between the racism that is often inherent to ideals of professionalism and presentability — perhaps most publicly displayed in the insidious and persistent dismissal of Black women’s natural hair and hairstyles as unfit for corporate workplaces — and fine dining. 

Zachary Brewster, an associate professor of sociology at Wayne State University who has studied the restaurant industry extensively told the food publication Heated in 2019 that roughly half of the servers he surveyed nationally admitted to discriminating against Black diners. In those discussions, pervasive myths about Black diners were cited, such as stating that they “don’t tip well, for example, or that they’re more demanding customers. Such stereotypes allow servers to express their anti-Black bias while claiming that their discrimination is about money, not race.”


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


“What goes on in a restaurant is kind of indicative of what goes on in the broader culture,” Brewster said. “Whites are certainly still privileged when dining out.”

Investigative reporter Lisa Rab, who wrote that piece for Heated, cited other examples of subtle ways restaurants can make Black patrons feel unwelcome, such as when the Ritz-Carlton in downtown Charlotte added a 15% surcharge to food and drink tabs during the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association tournament for historically Black colleges and universities or when several high-profile fine dining restaurants in New Orleans shut down for the 2016 Fourth of July weekend with nearly 500,000 Black tourists in town for the annual Essence Festival. 

In the long history of dress codes being implemented unevenly among Black and white patrons, Bottoms has become yet another name on an ever-growing list.

Read more: 

Scientists record the sound of a single bacterium’s motion

Some people would say there is a rhythm to life, but in fact, there is a hum. Beyond visible movements and growth, every living cell emits vibrations known as “nanomotion.” Thanks to a relatively new material, known as graphene, scientists were able to amplify frequencies of such nanomotion, which individual bacteria emit, and reproduce audio recordings. Via an ultra-thin bilayer membrane of graphene — the latest “spyware,” so-to-speak, in a decades-long arms race against antibacterial-resistant “superbugs” — they were able to rapidly distinguish living and deceased bacteria in a laboratory culture.

In other words, scientists were able to “listen” to the sound of a single bacteria, moving all by itself in the water. The recording, which is linked below, is an unprecedented view into the usually-invisible microscopic world.

The recordings came about as a result of an engineering experiment. Investigating nanomechanical applications of graphene at Delft University of Technology, a research team wondered just how sensitive it was. Could a membrane of graphene, for example, detect vibrational forces of a single bacterium?

“What we saw was striking,” Cees Dekker said in a statement. “When a single bacterium adheres to the surface of a graphene drum, it generates random oscillations with amplitudes as low as a few nanometers that we could detect. We could hear the sound of a single bacterium.”

Published in Nature Nanotechnology, their results could prove critical for monitoring infectious diseases. Particularly as antibiotic-resistant infections become increasingly pervasive, “optimizing our weapons to fight” infections has become critical, according to corresponding author Farbod Alijani. The graphene experiment gives new insight into the world of bacteria.

Graphene is a peculiar material with superb mechanical and conductive properties. Essentially a lattice of pure carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb-like grid, graphene is both the thinnest and strongest material ever created. Pure carbon comprises both pencil lead and diamond, one of the weakest and strongest materials respectively — which goes to show that the arrangement of the atoms determines material strength. Graphene takes advantage of carbon’s tight and strong bonds, as evidenced in how it behaves in diamond, yet comes in membrane-like sheets, as carbon behaves in pencil lead. 

Still, unlike pencils and diamonds, graphene has only been around for a little over a decade. While the material is novel, the basic process is not. All audio processing systems, from the human ear to the modern microphone, utilize similar membrane-like receptors to register frequency and amplitude. 

RELATED: Graphene, a futuristic carbon material, could change civilization

Graphene’s utility is only beginning to be understood, and when it was invented few could have predicted the substance might be used to fight antibiotic resistance.

“Antibiotic resistance is going to be the next big problem that the global community will face,” Alijani asserted.

In 2019 the CDC reported an average of over 2.8 million infections and 45,000 deaths from antibiotic resistant microbes in the United States alone. The agency issues an urgent warning, calling for more rapid and informative testing methods. 

“When a single bacterium adheres to the surface of a graphene drum, it generates random oscillations with amplitudes as low as a few nanometers that we could detect. We could hear the sound of a single bacterium.”

The Netherlands-based researchers believe they have a solution. Collaboration between Dekker’s nano biology lab and Steeneken’s nanomechanics lab has thus far yielded impressive results, running their first experiments with E. coli bacteria.

“We are optimizing our setup, and we are validating it against a variety of pathological samples in clinical isolates of bacteria, not only E. coli,” Alijani said, alluding to ongoing studies. “For instance, pseudomonas is another bacteria that we are working with and some other gram positive and gram-negative bacteria. In a nutshell, it is not something that is only for E. coli, but we can in fact detect this sound for a wide variety of bacteria cells.”

While its exact origin remains mysterious, nanomotion provides a definitive life signature in real-time, which Steeneken called “an invaluable tool in the fight against antibiotic resistance, an ever-increasing threat to human health around the world.” 


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


Delivering precise assessments within two hours, their vibrational monitoring vastly outperformed standard lab tests. If the bacteria no longer vibrate, the antibiotic in question did their job as intended. Case closed.

“This is something that could really shift the current paradigm in the way that we are performing our antibiotic sensitivity tests and can make the diagnosis of infectious diseases much faster,” Alijani added.

Typical turnaround times of one or two days in clinical laboratories remain a dangerously slow status quo. Yet broad application of real-time, cell-level monitoring could revolutionize antibiotic resistance testing, begging the question: why did nobody think to listen for signs of life in bacteria before?

In essence, they might have, but recording such minuscule vibrations is no simple feat of audio engineering. Researchers were only able to do so with a thin yet incredibly strong membrane of graphene, against which the force of vibrations were recorded. 

It was not until 2010, when the Royal Swedish Society of Sciences awarded Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov with the Nobel Prize in Physics for doing what was thought impossible, synthesizing a “thin flake of ordinary carbon, just one atom thick,” which they called “the perfect atomic lattice,” that such a technological marvel became possible.

Read more from Salon on the life of bacteria:

6 ways to repurpose leftover vanilla bean pods, according to Dorie Greenspan

Today, Guest Editor Dorie Greenspan is sharing five ways to capture every last drop of flavor from vanilla bean pods.

Vanilla is earthy. It’s ethereal. It’s exotic. It’s indispensable in some recipes and, when added to others on a whim, seems essential. And it’s expensive. At least the good stuff is, and it’s the good stuff that you should be using. Always. If you’re using vanilla extract, make sure it’s pure. A good whiff should either make your head spin or compel you to dab a little behind your ears. And the beans . . . ah, the beans. Vanilla beans are the queens of the vanilla family. The ne plus ultra of flavoring.

A good vanilla bean should be plump and bendable. Dry beans won’t give you the flavor you yearn for (and paid for). The beans should feel moist, maybe even a little sticky, and if they’ve got a kind of silvery sheen, that’s fine.

The most coveted part of the bean is the inner pulp, but the pod packs flavor too and, even after you’ve scraped out the inner seeds or poached both pod and pulp, the pod’s got more to give. 

Here are five ways to repurpose leftover vanilla bean pods.

1. Vanilla sugar and salt

The most common use for spent beans is to dry them and bury them in a jar of sugar. Or, better yet, dry the pods and whirr them in a blender or food processor with sugar. The same technique will give you something more unusual: Vanilla salt, a flavoring that you can use in cookies — use it in or on top of chocolate chip, butterscotch, or all-chocolate cookies — caramels, puddings, and more. Tuck the spent pods into a salt cellar or jar filled with kosher salt and let ’em hang out for a few weeks. Of course, the salt is also good on the savory side: try it on roasted carrots, lobster, shrimp, or sweet potatoes. If you want to go all out, whirr the dried pods with some sea salt and then mix that salt with fleur de sel or flake salt. As a rule of thumb, use vanilla sugar or salt in place of the regular version in any recipe. Use it to salt the rim of a margarita glass for an unexpected sweet flavor that will touch your lips. Stir vanilla sugar into your coffee or roll balls of sugar cookie dough in it before baking.

Every few days, give the jar of sugar or salt a shake to ensure that the vanilla flavor is evenly dispersed through the mixture. Oh, and don’t think that you need to use white sugar. Coconut sugar, palm sugar, and even brown sugar will all benefit from the extra oomph.

2. Pierced and poached fruit

Pods — dried, or still fresh — are great for poaching fruit. To get the most flavor out of the pods and into the fruit, run the pods through the fruit — think skewer — and poach away. Vanilla is wonderful with almost every stone fruit as well as with apples, pears, and prunes. Oh, and don’t forget to save the syrup. Depending on what spices you added, it might be nice to sweeten tea, serve over ice cream, or to poach more fruit.

3. Homemade extract

The traditional way to make vanilla extract is to start with fresh beans, slice them lengthwise, and steep them in vodka, counting 3 to 4 beans to about 1 cup of booze. Put the ingredients in a glass jar, shake, then store in a cool, dark place for a couple of months (or longer), shaking whenever you remember. But you can do the same thing with spent beans or pods. You might not have the requisite number of beans at the beginning, but start with what you’ve got and keep adding to the jar, using an extra bean or two (to make up for their spentness). And for a different, somewhat richer flavor, try making the extract with Cognac.

4. Flavored coffee and tea

If you like vanilla coffee, save your pods to stir your joe. Or add a pod to your coffee beans and grind them together. My own preference is to steep the spent pod in tea. The best? Chai tea with vanilla; honey, too.

5. Bath salts

This great idea comes from my assistant, Mary Dodd. She chops old vanilla beans, mixes them with epsom salts, adds a splash of vanilla extract, and has bath salts that are wildly aromatic, calming, and good for all that might ail you.

6. Vanilla oil

This idea comes from our friends at Beyond Good. To make vanilla oil, heat a light, neutral oil such as vegetable, olive oil, or even coconut oil in a saucepan. You don’t want it to sizzle, just have it get warm enough that it will aid the infusion. Place a spent, split vanilla pod into a heat-resistant glass mason jar. Once the oil is warm, pour it slowly and carefully into the jar over the pod — wait until the oil has reached room temperature before putting the lid on. Let it steep for at least a few days and then use it anytime a recipe calls for oil, such as dressings and marinades, or even brownies.