Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Two men accused of Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot found not guilty

A federal jury on Friday found two men suspected of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer not guilty, with the jury deadlocked on charges against the other two defendants.

The decision culminates a weeks-long trial that began on March 9 over whether Adam Fox, Brandon Caserta, Barry Croft Jr. and Daniel Harris conspired to kidnap the governor, and in the process, use a weapon of mass destruction. The jury found both Harris and Caserta not guilty on all charges but could not deliver a verdict for Croft and Harris.

According to prosecutors, the alleged plot developed over the course of several months, starting back in early 2020, in response to what the defendants felt were overly restrictive COVID-19 policies, according to the Associated Press. 

All four men allegedly sought to construct and deploy explosives to dismantle a bridge near Whitmer’s residence in Elk Rapids, Michigan, which according to their alleged plan, would have prevented police from intervening by car. 

RELATED: Former militia member apologizes for plot to kidnap Michigan’s Gov. Whitmer, vows to “deradicalize”

Prosecutors detailed extensive text messages and recordings of the defendants allegedly hatching their scheme.

“In America, there’s a lot of things you can do. You can criticize the government publicly, absolutely,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Nils Kessler said during the trial, according to the Detroit Free Press. “If you don’t like the government’s policies, you can protest them. If you don’t like elected leaders, you can vote them out at the ballot box. What you can’t do is kidnap them, kill them, or blow them up.”

The defense, meanwhile, argued that all four men fell victim to an illegal practice known as entrapment, in which undercover law enforcement officers coerce people into committing crimes they would have not otherwise committed. 


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


“Somebody rattles the keys, somebody beats the drum and gets ’em all worked up,” said Christopher Gibbons, an attorney representing Fox. “That’s unacceptable in America. That’s not how it works. You don’t make terrorists so we can arrest them.”

Key to the defense’s argument was the FBI’s informant, Dan Chappel, who they alleged was the real ringleader of the plot, egging all the men on at every step of the way. According to the defense, Chappel drove the men to training exercises, meetings, and participated in a reconnaissance mission at the governor’s cottage. 

“Dan Chappel makes everything happen,” Gibbons said at one point. 

A total of fourteen men have been implicated in the plot. Two men, Ty Garbin and Kaleb Franks, previously pleaded guilty on several charges related to the apparent plot. 

RELATED: New “weapons of mass destruction” charges filed against accused Whitmer kidnap plotters

Many of the men involved have or had affiliations with paramilitary militias or right-wing extremist groups. Croft, for instance, was an apparent member of the Three Percenters.

Starbucks hit with new wave of union wins after spending millions on anti-unionization efforts

The wave of Starbucks worker organization continued to sweep the U.S. this week as employees of the global coffee chain voted to unionize in three New York stores and took steps to form unions in numerous other states.

On Thursday, three upstate New York Starbucks—two in Rochester and one in Buffalo—voted to unionize. In Rochester, workers at a new Starbucks in the Whole Foods Plaza on Monroe Avenue voted 10-3 for a union, while the tally was 13-11 at the company’s Mount Hope location, according to WXXI.

“We are overjoyed,” Rochester organizer Hayleigh Fagan said in a statement. “This is what it’s all about. Partners truly becoming partners. Throughout this process there has been nothing I’ve come to appreciate more than every partner standing next to me, every partner so courageously advocating for themselves.”

Meanwhile in Buffalo, the vote was 18-1 in favor of forming a union at a downtown Starbucks on the corner of Delaware Avenue and Chippewa Street, making that location the sixth local branch of the coffee chain to unionize, Spectrum News 1 reports.

The overwhelmingly lopsided Buffalo vote came despite Starbucks’ efforts to thwart the unionization.

“Starbucks has continuously used our store for their union-busting media,” said Rose Doherty, a barista at that location. “They stay in the hotels across from our store that none of us can afford. They send the president of Starbucks North America to yell at closing shifts for not calling in partners to help with an under-scheduled closing.”

Doherty added that “Starbucks has continuously tried to make our store an uncomfortable and uncaring place, but we fought through it as partners and family. We are ecstatic at our victory today, but we wish that we didn’t have to go through this, and call on Starbucks to sign the fair election principles so no other store has to go through the heinous treatment we endured.”

From Illinois to ColoradoMassachusetts, New Jersey, and other states, Starbucks workers this week also moved to form unions.

“I think that we are going to continue to see this momentum,” Kathy Hanshew, manager of the Chicago and Midwest Joint Board of Workers United and the international vice president of Workers United, the Service Employees International Union affiliate representing the Starbucks workers, told the Chicago Tribune. “I think it speaks to the service sector industry in and of itself and a lot of the challenges of working within that industry.”

The Starbucks union wave comes amid a nationwide surge in worker organization. Last week, employees of an Amazon warehouse succeeded in forming the first union in the e-commerce giant’s history, while ballots are currently being counted after workers at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama facility held a union vote.

Workers United says 14 Starbucks have voted on unionization—with just one location failing to form a union—while 180 other stores in 29 states have filed paperwork to organize.

This week’s union victories follow workers at a flagship Starbucks in New York City voting 46-36 to unionize.

There have also been setbacks, mostly in the form of corporate retaliation against workers seeking to organize. On Monday, Laila Dalton, an outspoken leader of her Phoenix store’s unionization drive, said she was fired after recording reprimands from her managers that she and coworkers say increased along with her organizing activity.

“My heart is broken. I work soo hard,” Dalton tweeted after her termination, optimistically adding that “my store will still win the election! We will unionize!”

The simple cherry yogurt cake that reminds pastry chef Dominique Ansel of his French childhood

According to James Beard Award-winning pastry chef Dominique Ansel, any child raised in France has learned to make yogurt cake at home with their mother or grandmother, likely “using the yogurt cup as a measuring tool for the ingredients in the recipe.” 

“Even though I was just 6 or 7 when I first made one, I still have the recipe memorized by heart,” Ansel said in a release. 

Related: James Beard Award-winning pastry chef Dominique Ansel shares his go-to brownie recipe with Salon

That’s why Ansel has partnered with Icelandic Provisions — a company known for their traditional rich and creamy Icelandic skyr — to create a new special Cherry and Almond Skyr Yogurt cake. This light and fluffy pound cake incorporates creamy whole milk skyr studded with ripe black cherries and chopped almonds. It is then topped with toasted almonds and a flurry of confectioner’s sugar. 

“I’m excited to team up with Icelandic Provisions to create a new take on this childhood memory,” Ansel said. “The creamier, richer texture of their whole milk skyr paired with chopped almonds and juicy pieces of ripe cherries in their newest flavor gives the yogurt cake a decadent texture.” 

Ansel plans on serving the cake at his SoHo Dominique Ansel Bakery — the same bakery that earned international acclaim for the invention of the cronut — through April 10; proceeds will go to City Harvest. 

Cherry and yogurt cakeCherry and yogurt cake (Icelandic Provisions/Dominique Ansel)Not in New York? No worries. Ansel and Icelandic Provisions have provided the recipe for skyr lovers and bakers alike to enjoy at home. 

***

Recipe: Cherry & Almond Yogurt Skyr Cake 

Yields
2 small loaf cakes
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
35 minutes

Ingredients

2 containers* (250 gr) Icelandic Provisions Fruit & Nut Cherry & Almond Skyr

1 container (150 gr) sugar

½ container (64 gr) grapeseed oil (or vegetable oil)

3 each (150 gr) eggs

1 tsp (4 gr) vanilla extract

1 tsp (5 gr) salt

2 ½ containers (250 gr) AP flour

½ tsp (2 gr) baking soda

15-20 whole Amarena cherries

½ cup sliced almonds

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 320℉ (160℃).
  2. In a mixing bowl, combine the skyr yogurt, sugar, oil, eggs, vanilla extract, and salt with a spatula. Mix until smooth.

  3. Add the flour and baking soda, stirring until just combined (be careful not to overmix).

  4. Butter your loaf pans. Fill both pans halfway up with batter. Divide cherries and scatter the cherries on top of the batter in both pans. Top off with remaining batter until each pan is ¾ full (do not fill to the top, as the cakes will rise in the oven). Sprinkle the tops with a handful of almonds.

  5. Bake for 30-35 minutes, or until a paring knife/cake tested comes out clean and the surface is golden. Let cool for 5-10 minutes before unmolding. Slice and enjoy! 

 

More easy dessert recipes that make us swoon:

Texas received $2 billion in rental assistance but landlords that got paid evicted tenants anyway

When Cherice Scott received a notice last September that she, her husband and their four children would soon be kicked out of their Katy apartment, she said employees at the complex told her not to worry about it.

Scott and her husband had fallen behind on rent in June after Scott stopped working to take care of her youngest daughter, who has Down syndrome, and the medical bills piled up.

The next month, their landlord started the eviction process, even though Scott, 37, had taken the rental office staff’s advice and requested help from Texas’ $2 billion, federally backed rental assistance fund. Scott said she spoke to the office staff and walked away believing she didn’t need to worry about eviction as they waited for the relief money — or to bother showing up to court.

When the state sent the rent relief check to the wrong address, Scott said the staff assured her they were working to get the money re-sent.

“I trusted them,” Scott said. “I shouldn’t have.”

Scott had landed a new job as a dietician at a local hospital when she returned from work one afternoon in early October to find most of her belongings spread out on the lawn and the locks changed. Thieves had walked off with their electronics.

Jeff Williams, a Harris County justice of the peace, had approved the eviction without Scott present in court — a typical outcome in eviction cases when tenants don’t show up to their hearings.

Scott wanted to know: What happened to the rent relief money?

After weeks of phone calls, a Texas Rent Relief program staffer told Scott that her former landlord had indeed received the rent relief money in mid-November — more than $11,000, enough to cover the six months’ back rent they owed.

“They were very well informed that that money was there and it was coming to them,” said Scott, who’s now living in a short-term rental in Missouri City with her four kids. “Yet they still pushed us out.”

Scott’s former landlord — Blazer Real Estate Services, a Houston property management company — did not respond to calls and emails requesting comment. An employee at Blazer’s office who answered the phone declined to answer questions.

The federal government and the state of Texas both had people like Scott and her family in mind when they hurriedly created a safety net for struggling renters amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Texas received more than $2 billion out of the American Rescue Plan Act, the $1.9 trillion federal stimulus package President Joe Biden signed into law last year, to set up the Texas Rent Relief program, designed to help such families stay in their homes as the pandemic triggered a tsunami of business closures and hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

But The Texas Tribune interviewed tenants from across the state who were approved for federal rental assistance and were evicted anyway.

Two landlords, like Scott’s, evicted their tenants in the period between the initial rent relief application and when the government money arrived and then kept it — an apparent violation of the program’s requirements for landlords. In those cases, the check was initially sent to the wrong property — and only arrived after the tenant was kicked out.

One landlord received federal money through the Texas Rent Relief program and later chose not to renew their tenant’s lease — which was legal in that case.

In order to receive federal rent relief funds through the state, landlords had to sign an agreement that forbids them from evicting tenants for nonpayment during the time period covered by the assistance.

But housing advocates and lawyers who represent tenants facing eviction say they routinely see cases of Texas landlords accepting thousands of dollars from the government and evicting the tenants the money was intended to help.

The Tribune contacted government agencies involved in the program and found that none of them — including the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which runs the state rent relief program — track how often this happens.

And it’s not just happening in Texas.

According to the National Housing Law Project, 86% of the 119 lawyers across the country who responded to a survey gauging how the end of a federal moratorium on evictions was affecting tenants said they had seen cases where landlords either declined to apply for assistance from rent relief programs or took the money and proceeded to kick out their tenants.

“The industry standard here is fraud,” said Stuart Campbell, managing attorney at Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center, speaking generally about instances in which landlords receive rent relief funds and evict tenants. “These landlords are the prime beneficiary of these rental assistance programs and just en masse have been violating the provisions of the programs and on top of that consistently misleading judges and securing judgments and evictions, even when they’re receiving funds.”

Many landlords have tried to work with their tenants to try to avoid evictions for back rent during the pandemic, said David Mintz, vice president of government affairs for Texas Apartment Association, a trade group of rental property owners.

But receiving rent relief dollars wasn’t guaranteed, so some landlords filed for eviction in case the money didn’t come through and as a last resort after months of going without rent, Mintz said. Under the program rules, landlords are allowed to evict only in specific situations, such as lease violations related to criminal activity, property damage or “physical harm” to others, Mintz pointed out.

If tenants feel they have been unjustly evicted, they can appeal the eviction, Mintz said. Any allegations that “either a renter or a rental property owner isn’t following the program rules” should be reported to the program to be investigated, he said.

“We believe owners have done their best to try to understand the intricacies of the program and comply with its requirements,” Mintz said.

When Congress set aside more than $46 billion for emergency rental assistance, they intended for that money to keep people in their homes, said U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia, a Democrat from Houston. The idea of landlords taking rent relief dollars and still evicting tenants is “outrageous,” she said, and could warrant investigation.

“I think any landlord that accepted money or got money directly for rent absolutely should not have evicted anyone,” Garcia said. “And if they did, it should be audited and reviewed by [government investigators] so that we can recoup our funds for the misuse of the dollars.”

A group of Austin-area lawmakers — state Reps. Celia Israel, Sheryl Cole, Vikki Goodwin, Gina Hinojosa, Donna Howard and Eddie Rodriguez — alerted TDHCA this week that they have seen “alarming calls from constituents” whose rent relief money went to the wrong address, and called on the agency to fix the problem. Those constituents were told “they were unable to receive their eligible assistance” while the agency recouped the funds, the lawmakers wrote Thursday to TDHCA board Chair Leo Vasquez.

“Our constituents experienced significant unreliability during an already challenging set of circumstances, all the while, both renters and landlords alike had unclear direction from TDHCA for weeks — or months — if and when the approved funds would finally arrive,” the lawmakers wrote.

Texas closed the rent relief program to new applicants in November, citing overwhelming demand for rental assistance dollars. The state received another $47 million in March, which TDHCA said would go toward helping tenants who applied before the November cutoff. As of Wednesday, the program has assisted more than 300,000 households.

The money was considered crucial to prevent a wave of tenants losing their homes as eviction bans expired; in recent months, three Texas metro areas — Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth — have seen some of the highest eviction case filings in the country among the 31 cities tracked by Eviction Lab, a research center based at Princeton University that tracks eviction filings.

To qualify for rental assistance from the Texas program, tenants had to fall below a certain income level, prove they experienced some kind of financial hardship during the pandemic and make the case that they would be at risk of losing their home if they didn’t receive rent relief.

A collection of state and federal agencies — including the TDHCA — are tasked with looking into allegations of fraud, waste and abuse in rent relief programs. But none of the agencies contacted by the Tribune would say whether any landlord has been credibly accused of taking rent relief money and improperly ousting their tenants, or whether they have imposed penalties on landlords for doing so.

Some tenants who spoke to the Tribune about their cases said they called a hotline used to report fraud, waste and abuse in the state rent relief program and never heard back about their complaints.

Scott said she complained to a program staffer in October about her landlord’s conduct, and the staffer referred the complaint to the program’s anti-fraud division. Two months later, Scott received an email acknowledging her complaint — but said she hasn’t heard back since.

“I was a good tenant”

Stephanie Gates also thought the state rent relief program would save her from an eviction. In her case, the check arrived in time — but went to the wrong place.

At the height of the pandemic in 2020, Gates, a 42-year-old Round Rock resident, saw her hours as a temp working in guest services at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport cut in half, and by January 2021 she was behind on rent for her two-bedroom apartment. In June, Gates said she lost her job after she missed a week of work because of a medical problem.

But in September, Gates received good news: Not only did she qualify for help paying back rent, but the program would cover her rent through November — 11 months all together, totaling $12,740.

“I’m sitting thinking, ‘My rent’s paid, OK, all I have to worry about is December and January,”’ Gates said.

Then in December, the property owner filed an eviction case against Gates and gave her a notice to vacate.

It turns out the state program had sent the check in September — to the wrong address.

At a Jan. 10 eviction hearing, Gates said she told Williamson County Justice of the Peace KT Musselman she had been approved for rent relief and explained that the check went to the wrong address — facts she said the property manager, who represented the landlord in court, backed up.

Despite that, the property manager told Musselman they wanted to proceed with the case, Gates said. Musselman sided with Gates’ landlord and granted the eviction.

In a phone interview, Musselman declined to say why he ruled in favor of Gates’ landlord. But Musselman expressed sympathy for the landlord, noting that they had gone 11 months without rent from Gates. Even if the rent relief check was in hand, it wouldn’t have covered the amount sought by the landlord, Musselman said.

“I can understand an apartment complex coming at this point in the process and saying, ‘It’s time to figure out what’s going to happen here or move forward,'” Musselman said.

Alexander Stamm, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid who is representing Gates, said Musselman shouldn’t have let the trial take place at all because of a Texas Supreme Court order requiring judges to postpone eviction cases if a landlord confirms they have joined a tenant’s application for rent relief.

“In our view, the judge made a mistake letting the trial proceed as soon as [the property manager] confirmed that the owner had a pending application for rental assistance,” Stamm said in an email.

On Jan. 27, Williamson County constables came to execute the eviction. Newly homeless, Gates stood on the curb in the cold guarding her belongings until a friend could get off work to help her move them.

“I did everything right, and to still have my stuff thrown down the street … it’s just something that I’m still trying to process,” Gates said.

Less than two weeks after Gates’ eviction, she spotted something in her online account with the rent relief program: A pair of checks totaling $12,650 had cleared the property owner’s bank account. Her former landlord had taken the rent relief funds after they evicted her.

Attempts to reach the property owner — RDRH Holdings Inc., an Austin-based corporation — and its president were unsuccessful. Lee Reznicek, a property manager who oversees Gates’ former home for Austin-based Hill Country Property Management, declined to comment when reached by email.

Stamm alleges that RDRH Holdings violated six requirements set out by the program in a contract landlords must sign in order to receive funds.

For example, the program bars landlords from accepting rent relief payments after they evict a tenant. The rent relief checks cleared RDRH’s bank account on Feb. 4 — less than two weeks after Gates was evicted.

Landlords who received rent relief dollars can’t evict tenants “for any reason related to rent or fees during the time period covered by the funds,” according to the program requirements. But those are the exact grounds that RDRH Holdings cited when it sued to evict Gates, Stamm said.

According to the program rules laid out in the agreement Gates’ landlord signed July 13 to receive the funds, if a landlord receives rent relief money after evicting the tenant, they’re supposed to send the money back to TDHCA within 10 days. As of Feb. 17, Gates’ former landlord hadn’t done so, Stamm said.

“You can’t have it both ways with Texas Rent Relief,” Stamm said. “You can’t get paid directly, and also break the promises you made that were designed to keep someone in their home.”

At the moment, Gates is bouncing back and forth between her father’s house and a friend’s while she appeals her eviction in an attempt to strike it from her record and make it easier for her to find a new place.

“I was a good tenant,” Gates said. “You know, we just had the problems from [the pandemic] last year, which everybody did.”

“Tenants are still the ones holding the bag”

Both the federal and state government added enforcement provisions when they created the rent relief programs. In Texas, two state agencies — the TDHCA, which oversees the statewide rent relief program, and the State Auditor’s Office — have the authority to look into allegations of waste, fraud or abuse within the program. At the federal level, that job falls to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General.

TDHCA operates the state hotline where complaints originate. If the agency finds the allegations are credible, it can refer the cases to the state auditor’s office, the Treasury’s inspector general or local law enforcement agencies.

TDHCA says it has received more than 7,500 complaints through the hotline — not all of them related to fraud, waste or abuse — but the agency won’t say how many times it has referred cases to outside agencies for investigation. The State Auditor’s Office declined to say whether it has launched any investigations into potential fraud, waste and abuse of the program.

As of last week, $20.1 million in rent relief has been recaptured, TDHCA spokesperson Kristina Tirloni said, adding that not all of that was connected to allegations of fraud, waste or abuse.

Tirloni said the agency doesn’t track what portion of those clawed-back funds came from landlords found to have improperly evicted their tenants after receiving assistance — or categorize what scenarios would result in recapturing the money.

“TDHCA has taken very seriously the responsibility of helping Texas renters and landlords overcome the financial burden brought on by the pandemic,” Tirloni said.

But none of that recovered money is helping tenants ousted from their homes, said Julia Orduña, Southeast Texas regional director for Texas Housers, a nonprofit low-income housing advocacy group.

“Maybe the money will be returned to Treasury and the wrong will be righted for the government,” Orduña said. “But the tenants are still the ones holding the bag.”

That happens even when tenants win their eviction cases in court.

Diana Johnson, 35, was waiting on rent relief in January when her landlord tried to evict her and her seven children from their three-bedroom apartment in Southeast Dallas.

Johnson, a manager of a hair salon and certified nursing assistant, had asked the program in October for help covering rent while she recovered from giving birth to her son and couldn’t work. Texas Rent Relief approved her for a little over $3,100 — about three months’ worth of rent.

Johnson’s landlord — a partnership owned by Mark Musemeche, a Houston developer — had already accepted more than $4,200 in federal money in August to pay four months of rent, according to a copy of Johnson’s rent ledger she provided to the Tribune. Around that time, Johnson said she caught COVID-19 and had to miss a month of work.

Johnson had asked the office manager whether they had received the latest check, she said. They told her there was no way to see if they had received it, she said.

The morning of her March 18 eviction hearing, a Texas Rent Relief staffer told Johnson that her landlord had cashed the check two days earlier and gave her the check number. Johnson’s lawyer recorded the call.

When Dallas County Justice of the Peace Juan Jasso heard about the check and phone call, he asked the property manager whether they had received the check, Johnson said. The property manager quickly confirmed that they had — and Jasso tossed the eviction.

But Johnson’s victory was short-lived. The same day, her landlord told Johnson her lease wouldn’t be renewed when it expired the following week, she said.

Johnson’s trying not to dwell on the saga. She’s focused on finding a new place for her and her seven children to live. Her landlord gave her until the end of May to do so.

“​​The more I sit here and think about it, I just know to just go ahead and do what I need to do,” Johnson said.

Calls to Musemeche were not returned. An employee at the apartment complex, Crestshire Village Apartments, declined to comment.

“It takes away your pride”

Since their October eviction from their Katy apartment, Scott and her four children have lived in hotels and other temporary settings.

She said the past few months have been hard. Around the time of the eviction, Scott and her husband separated. He took the car, which made it difficult for Scott to hunt for work and shelter. Then she gave up her job at the Katy hospital to care once more for her youngest daughter.

Weeks after her eviction, Scott received an email from Texas Rent Relief on Nov. 9 acknowledging that it had initially sent the check to the wrong address. But the program had fixed that error, the email said.

“As the tenant was evicted from the unit associated with this application, pursuant to program policies, rental arrears are only approved for the time period the tenant was in the unit,” the email reads.

In other words, Scott had already been evicted, but Texas Rent Relief was letting the landlord keep the money — more than $11,000 — in apparent contradiction of its own policy.

Tirloni, the TDHCA spokesperson, declined to discuss individual tenants’ cases, including Scott’s, citing state law that prevents TDHCA from disclosing information about people who receive benefits from programs administered by the agency. But she said the program doesn’t allow landlords to receive back rent if they’ve evicted a tenant — the opposite of what the email to Scott said.

“We strive to always do better,” Tirloni said in an email. “As much as we work to mitigate human error, the potential for application errors exists. If issues are discovered or brought to our attention, like payments sent to an incorrect address, or payments sent to a landlord who has evicted the tenant, we will take corrective measures, like recapture or other necessary steps.”

Meanwhile, Scott is trying to rebuild her life. In late March she started a new job teaching at an early learning center. But she still hasn’t found a place to live. She said she has spent thousands of dollars on application fees to at least 10 homes and apartment complexes — and all of them have denied her because she now has an eviction on her record.

“It’s embarrassing,” Scott said. “It takes away your pride and makes me feel like I failed as a parent. It hurts, that really hurts. But I don’t want to give up.”

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

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/08/texas-landlords-rent-relief-evictions/.

Dozens arrested as more than 1,000 join largest ever “scientist-led civil disobedience campaign”

More than 1,000 scientists across the globe chained themselves to the doors of oil-friendly banks, blocked bridges, and occupied the steps of government buildings on Wednesday to send an urgent message to the international community: The ecological crisis is accelerating, and only a “climate revolution” will be enough to avert catastrophe.

What organizers described as “the world’s largest-ever scientist-led civil disobedience campaign” kicked off just days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report detailing the grim state of efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C by century’s end, a target set by the Paris accord.

As one of the report’s authors put it during a press call earlier this week, “Unless there are immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, 1.5°C is beyond reach.”

Warning that the IPCC report’s language was watered down at the behest of governments unwilling to rapidly phase out fossil fuels, scientists and their allies took that message further during their direct actions on Wednesday, operating under the slogan “1.5°C is dead, climate revolution now!”

“I’m taking action because I feel desperate,” said U.S. climate scientist Peter Kalmus, who along with several others locked himself to the front door of a JPMorgan Chase building in Los Angeles. A recent report found that the financial giant is the biggest private funder of oil and gas initiatives in the world.

“It’s the 11th hour in terms of Earth breakdown, and I feel terrified for my kids, and terrified for humanity,” Kalmus continued. “World leaders are still expanding the fossil fuel industry as fast as they can, but this is insane. The science clearly indicates that everything we hold dear is at risk, including even civilization itself and the wonderful, beautiful, cosmically precious life on this planet. I actually don’t get how any scientist who understands this could possibly stay on the sidelines at this point.”

The Los Angeles demonstration was accompanied by other protests across the U.S., the largest historical emitter of planet-warming carbon dioxide and home to some of the most powerful fossil fuel companies in the world.

In Washington, D.C., climate scientists chained themselves to the White House fence and were ultimately arrested as they demanded that U.S. President Joe Biden declare a “climate emergency,” a step that would unlock a range of tools needed to combat global warming.

“We have not made the changes necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C, rendering this goal effectively impossible,” said Dr. Rose Abramoff, one of the scientists arrested at the White House. “We need to both understand the consequences of our inaction as well as limit fossil fuel emissions as much and as quickly as possible.”

“I’m taking action to urge governments and society to stop ignoring the collective findings of decades of research,” Abramoff added. “Let’s make this crisis impossible to ignore.”

Similar acts of civil disobedience were held across the globe as scientists took to the streets to demand that governments ramp up their transitions to renewable energy as the climate crisis intensifies extreme weather, endangers critical ecosystems, and takes lives worldwide.

In Madrid, Spain, scientists splashed red paint on the walls and steps of the Congress of Deputies to decry lawmakers’ inaction in the face of the existential climate threat. More than 50 scientists were arrested during the demonstration, according to organizers.

Scientists also mobilized in Germany, blocking a bridge near the country’s parliament building.

In an op-ed published in The Guardian on Wednesday, Kalmus warned that “Earth breakdown is much worse than most people realize.”

“The science indicates that as fossil fuels continue to heat our planet, everything we love is at risk,” he wrote. “For me, one of the most horrific aspects of all this is the juxtaposition of present-day and near-future climate disasters with the ‘business as usual’ occurring all around me. It’s so surreal that I often find myself reviewing the science to make sure it’s really happening, a sort of scientific nightmare arm-pinch. Yes, it’s really happening.”

“If everyone could see what I see coming,” Kalmus added, “society would switch into climate emergency mode and end fossil fuels in just a few years.”

Hiding in plain sight: How Donald Trump became the most powerful religious leader on the right

As Salon’s Kathryn Joyce reported on Friday, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo, who fashions himself “the new master strategist of the right,” is not a man afraid of the spotlight. On the contrary, he’s surprisingly candid for a man whose policy ambitions, such as destroying public education as we know it, are deeply unpopular. He loves to brag, on social media and into any microphone you’ll put in front of him, of how he cynically concocts baseless moral panics with repeated false claims about everything from “critical race theory” to conspiracy theories about Disney “grooming” children for pedophilia

But there’s one thing that Rufo is surprisingly mum about: Religious faith.

Rufo’s agenda is obviously being set by the religious right. He works closely with Hillsdale College, a fundamentalist school that functions as the Christian right’s war room. His goals are aligned directly with long-term religious right targets. Searching his Twitter account, however, one swiftly finds that he never talks about his religious beliefs. There’s no real mention of God or Jesus or the Bible. When he does speak about Christianity, it’s only in the context of pushing conspiracy theories about how white Christians are victims of ethnic oppression by “woke” forces. His conspiracy theories are clearly designed to get Christian conservatives in particular riled up. For instance, he heavily hyped ridiculous claims that children are being taught to pray to Aztec gods in public schools — but he carefully avoids getting theological with it. 

RELATED: The guy who brought us CRT panic offers a new far-right agenda: Destroy public education

It wasn’t always this way with the religious right. During the George W. Bush years, Republicans tended to wear their Bible on their sleeves. The God talk was frequent and explicit. Bush himself spoke of being “born again,” and frequently did evangelical events thick with fundamentalist jargon that was impenetrable to outsiders. The public school fights weren’t over “critical race theory” and false claims that kids were being taught sex acts in kindergarten. Instead, it was over whether schools should replace science with creationism and replace sex ed with abstinence-only texts that had been written by religious organizations. This public piety from Republicans was more muted during the Barack Obama administration, but only slightly. Throughout those years, the difference between a church service and a Republican fundraiser was often undetectable. 

The best way to impose theocracy on Americans is to dress it up as a secular movement.

Then Donald Trump became president. On paper, Trump appeared to be as much of a supplicant to the relentless Jesus talk on the right as every other Republican. He hit up the same evangelical schools for speeches, waved Bibles around in public, and even did photo-ops where a bunch of grifty ministers prayed over him. But, as far as I can tell, almost no one was actually fooled by this. Trump’s ignorance of Christianity was absolute. He wasn’t even aware that the central tenet of his supposed faith was a focus on penance and forgiveness. He called Christians “fools” and “schmucks” behind their backs. But no matter how often Trump’s evangelical base was reminded that he is not one of them, they stuck by his side. They believed, correctly, that he could deliver them the policy outcomes they desired: A rollback of reproductive and LGBTQ rights, the destruction of public education, and an end to the separation of church and state. 


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


Turns out that Trump is the most powerful religious right leader of all, precisely because he so obviously isn’t a believer. He created a “secular” cover that allowed the Christian right to hide in plain sight. Now he’s out of office, but the lesson was learned well: The best way to impose theocracy on Americans is to dress it up as a secular movement.

Nowadays, the main public discourse on the right about Christianity is focused on identity, not theology. Fox News pundits like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity talk about Christianity mainly in demographic terms, as part of a larger conception of what it means to be a “real” American. It’s less about what you believe, and more about what tribe you belong to. Across the country, Republicans are passing laws that are clearly designed to advance the Christian right agenda, from abortion bans to the “don’t say gay” law in Florida. But the Jesus talk has taken a backseat to QAnon-inflected fantasies about pedophilia and litter boxes in schools. 

RELATED: Salon investigates: The war on public schools is being fought from Hillsdale College

That the QAnon-style conspiracy theories would work better than lots of public praying seems weird at first blush. But it works for one simple reason: The Christian right has terrible branding. 

Church ladies waving crosses around are nobody’s idea of a good time. A lot of Americans, even Republican-voting Americans, don’t go to church very often, if at all. What Trump understood, and the GOP, in general, has glommed onto, is that people want to have fun or at least create the illusion of being fun people. Packaging misogyny and homophobia as religious faith may give it a moral justification, but it’s also a drag. Putting those ideas into the mouth of someone like Joe Rogan or Carlson in his current “naughty boy” persona, however, makes it feel transgressive, cool, and exciting. 

Trump gave the right permission to stop trying to dress up their ugly views in Christian piety. He pushed calorie-free bigotry. You get the pleasures of being a bully, but you don’t have to pay the price of doing boring crap like going to church. Of course, it sells well.


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


The confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett is a perfect illustration of this shift. Barrett has a long history of public piety in the Bush mold. It’s why Trump chose her so that the religious right would feel absolutely secure that she will be the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But during her confirmation hearing, when Democrats tried to make hay over Barrett’s lengthy record of super public religiosity, Republicans cried foul, pretending that Barrett’s beliefs were an entirely private matter that had no impact on her jurisprudence. This bad faith was aided by the fact that Barrett happily stood by Trump’s side in public, apparently indifferent to his long history of adultery and repeated divorce. That willingness to be in the same room with Trump, perversely, only helped bolster her image as a “reasonable” person who had no intention of forcing her fundamentalism on the American public. But, of course, that’s exactly what she was hired to do. 

Right now, the nation is being swept by a tidal wave of theocratic legislation, and the situation only looks like it’s getting worse. So far, however, the public mostly doesn’t seem to take much notice. The various abortion bans barely make a ripple in the public discourse and the threats to hard-won LGBTQ rights aren’t really raising many alarms either. Part of that is due to Democratic complacency after President Joe Biden’s 2020 win, of course. But part of it is that people respond, especially in our short-attention-span era, to aesthetics more than substance. The Christian right has stopped looking like the Christian right and instead embraced the secular-seeming vibe that Trump, because he’s godless, embodies effortlessly. It’s hard to convince the public that fundamentalists are coming for them when the fundamentalists have gotten so good at pretending to be someone else. 

Union accuses Amazon of violating labor law in second election after first election results tossed

With hundreds of ballots still being challenged from an inconclusive union vote at an Amazon facility in Alabama, a national labor organization on Thursday called for possibly setting aside the results due to alleged illegal behavior by the e-commerce giant.

The Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU) filed 21 objections to Amazon’s conduct with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), accusing the company of yet again interfering with the rights of its workers in Bessemer, Alabama.

The Bessemer vote coincided with an organizing victory in New York City and followed a determination by the NLRB in January that the Alabama workers should get a new election after Amazon “interfered with the employees’ exercise of a free and reasoned choice” last year.

“Workers at Amazon have endured a needlessly long and aggressive fight to unionize their workplace, with Amazon doing everything it can to spread misinformation and deceive workers,” said RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum in a statement.

“The company violated the law in the first election, and did so again in this re-run election, without any doubt,” he added. “We will continue to hold Amazon accountable and ensure workers’ voices are heard. We are filing objections on Amazon’s behavior during this election, which [includes] countless attempts to intimidate workers, even going so far as to terminate and suspend workers who supported the union.”

The filing includes multiple allegations of retaliation, intimidation, surveillance, and new rules to prevent the spread of pro-union literature. RWDSU also accuses the company of unlawfully interfering with an employee engaged in protected activities in the break room, providing the union with a voter list with substantial errors, and illegally threatening facility closure.

“Amazon’s behavior must not go unchallenged, and workers in Bessemer, Alabama must have their rights protected under the law,” said Appelbaum. “We urge the NLRB to carefully review our objections and ensure no company, not even with the bottomless pockets of Amazon, is allowed to act above the law.”

Of the 2,375 ballots cast in Bessemer, 993 opposed the union and 875 supported it. However, 59 ballots were voided and 416 are being challenged by Amazon and the RWDSU. The NLRB has not yet scheduled a hearing for the challenged ballots.

Amid organizing in Alabama and New York—part of a national wave of unionization efforts at companies across the country—Amazon has faced mounting criticism for its anti-union tactics.

The Verge reported Thursday evening that Amazon is planning to object to the results of the NYC election, according to a deadline extension request the company filed with the NLRB that, among other claims, alleges the union “threatened employees to coerce them into voting yes.”

The “David-versus-Goliath” union victory at the Staten Island warehouse has been hailed by organizers on the ground, labor rights advocates nationwide, and top political figures, including President Joe Biden and Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Manhattan DA says Trump probe still alive but Trump’s lawyers are “delighted” at what’s happening

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr. held multiple interviews on Thursday claiming to still be investigating Donald Trump, but a new report suggests that the case has been unraveling.

“For Mr. Bragg, a series of interviews on Thursday as well as the release of a lengthy formal statement represent an attempt to quell the intense criticism he has faced over his handling of the high-stakes investigation into the former president,” The New York Times reported Thursday.

“In December, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., directed the two senior prosecutors leading the inquiry, Mark F. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne, to present evidence to a grand jury with the goal of seeking an indictment of Mr. Trump,” the report continued. “Mr. Bragg, two months into his tenure, halted that presentation after disagreeing with Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne on the strength of the case.”

“Their subsequent resignations led to public criticism of Mr. Bragg, particularly after The New York Times published a copy of Mr. Pomerantz’s resignation letter, in which he said he believed that the former president was ‘guilty of numerous felony violations’ and that it was ‘a grave failure of justice’ not to hold him accountable,” the report added.

The Daily Beast on Thursday had more on the investigation.

“Over the last several weeks, the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into former President Donald Trump has appeared to be unraveling, with the two top prosecutors on the case resigning over the lack of charges and the DA feeling so attacked over the lack of movement that he issued a statement Thursday saying an indictment against Trump could still come,” The Beast reported. “But inside the DA’s office, the inertia and frustration over Trump potentially avoiding culpability looks worse than ever before.”

The Beast’s sources do not expect Trump to be indicted in Manhattan.

“Yet another prosecutor appears to have been pulled back from the case, according to knowledgeable sources who say it could be further proof of the probe’s failure,” The Beast reported. “And sources now seem to think Trump dodging an indictment is inevitable.”

“Solomon Shinerock—a lead investigator who helped drive much of the intensive, four-year effort—is no longer as actively involved in the case,” three people with knowledge of the matter said. “In recent weeks, Shinerock’s pullback from the team investigating Trump has been conspicuous enough to frustrate some who have been on the prosecutors’ side—and has been noticeable enough to quietly delight lawyers working on the ex-president’s and Trump Organization’s end.”

Ammon Bundy jailed after trying to pass off work for his own campaign as mandated community service

Far-right activist Ammon Bundy is once again on the wrong side of the law in ongoing fallout after he was arrested for trespassing at the Idaho state capitol.

Judge Annie McDevitt ordered Bundy to spend ten days in jail after being found in contempt of court for not completing 40 hours of public service, KTVB-TV reports.

“The sentencing judge told Bundy that he could complete that service at a church or non-profit of his choice, but explicitly warned him that working for his own organization, or any service for which he got paid would not count. However, Bundy submitted hours that he had worked on his own political campaign, turning in a letter on his own ‘Ammon Bundy For Governor’ letterhead certifying that he had completed all 40 hours,” the network reported.

Bundy was also ordered to pay a $3,000 fine.

“On Thursday, Judge Annie McDevitt ruled that not only did his campaign work not satisfy the requirement, but that it showed blatant disrespect for the instructions he had been given. Bundy did not just blow off his court-ordered service – which happens with defendants sometimes – but instead willfully made ‘a mockery of the sentence you received,’ McDevitt told him,” the network reported.

Prosecutor Whitney Welsh played videos of Bundy’s extremism at the hearing.

“He does not obey laws with which he does not agree,” Welsh argued.

Bundy’s campaign called the ruling “a demonstration of abuse of power and systemic corruption of our legal system—you are witnessing it right now.”

In 2020, Bundy was dragged out of the statehouse in 2020 in handcuffs.

“That’s not how this world works”: Josh Hawley gets schooled on the Senate floor

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, tore into Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., on Thursday for blocking the confirmation of a number of Defense Department staffers, accusing the conservative lawmaker of “damaging the department.”

“This comes from a guy who raised his fist in solidarity with the [Capitol riot] insurrectionists,” Schatz said during a fiery Senate floor speech. “This comes from a guy who, before the Russian invasion, suggested that maybe it would be wise for [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy] to make a few concessions for Ukraine and their willingness to join NATO.”

“[Hawley] voted ‘no’ on Ukraine aid, and now he has the gall to say it’s going too slow,” Schatz added. 

Over the past several months, Hawley has repeatedly claimed that he will not back down from his crusade unless Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken resign from their postings. 

Schatz called this request “preposterous.”

“That’s not a serious request!” the Democrat raged. “That’s not how this world works. That is not a reasonable request from a United States senator.”

RELATED: “Evil” Josh Hawley hit with bipartisan pushback after call to drop U.S. support for Ukraine NATO bid

Among the officials stonewalled by Hawley were Celeste Wallander, an expert on Russia relations who has argued the U.S. was slow to respond to the country’s invasion of Ukraine; David Honey, a research and and development expert, and Melissa Dalton, who now serves as the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and Americas’ security affairs.

Wallander and Honey were officially confirmed in February after Democrats managed to circumvent Hawley’s logjam by filing a cloture motion to hasten the debate and bring the nominations to the full Senate floor, according to Politico. Dalton was likewise confirmed in March.


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


Still, a number of officials have yet to be confirmed, with Hawley claiming he is slow-walking them over the apparent slowness with which President Biden supplied humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine 

“What accountability has there been in this time? Who has been relieved of duty? Who has been shown the door? What have we learned?” Hawley asked during a Senate floor speech last month. “The answer is there’s been no accountability.

At the same time, the Missouri senator has adamantly opposed the notion of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, claiming that “it is not clear that Ukraine’s accession would serve U.S. interests.” He also voted against Biden’s omnibus spending package to supply Ukraine with aid, calling it one of the “Democrats’ pet projects.”

RELATED: The Putin caucus undermines Biden at home — while Americans risk their lives in Ukrain

Missouri GOP candidate Eric Greitens’ wife submits photos and evidence backing physical abuse claims

Sheena Greitens, the estranged wife of former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, has confirmed that she has documentation of the abuse she suffered during their marriage.

In her latest court filing on Thursday, March 31, Sheena Greitens provided photos and other related evidence to support her claims accusing her ex-husband of physically abusing her and their children amid the demise of his political career.

According to St. Louis Public Radio, Sheena Greitens noted that while she has tried to resolve their differences privately, it appears the former Republican lawmaker is more concerned about his public run for the U.S. Senate. She argues that his “attacks on her character, push for records to be sealed, and demands that the case be sent to mediation show he cares more about his campaign for U.S. Senate than his sons.”

Helen Wade, the attorney representing Sheena Greitens, also highlighted that they’d requested mediation a total of eight times prior to him announcing his run for the Senate. All of those requests were reportedly denied.

The abuse claims, made in an affidavit filed March 21, stated that as he faced criminal charges and possible impeachment in 2018, Eric Greitens repeatedly threatened to commit suicide unless she showed “specific public political support” for him. In one incident of child abuse, that she swore in the affidavit occurred in November 2019, one of their sons came home from a visit his father with a swollen face, bleeding gums and loose tooth and said his father had hit him.

According to St. Louis Public Radio, Sheena Greitens noted that while she has tried to resolve their differences privately, it appears the former Republican lawmaker is more concerned about his public run for the U.S. Senate. She argues that his “attacks on her character, push for records to be sealed, and demands that the case be sent to mediation show he cares more about his campaign for U.S. Senate than his sons.”

Helen Wade, the attorney representing Sheena Greitens, also highlighted that they’d requested mediation a total of eight times prior to him announcing his run for the Senate. All of those requests were reportedly denied.

The abuse claims, made in an affidavit filed March 21, stated that as he faced criminal charges and possible impeachment in 2018, Eric Greitens repeatedly threatened to commit suicide unless she showed “specific public political support” for him. In one incident of child abuse, that she swore in the affidavit occurred in November 2019, one of their sons came home from a visit his father with a swollen face, bleeding gums and loose tooth and said his father had hit him.

Although Eric Greitens has pushed back against his estranged wife’s claims, she insists she did report the abuse. “In fact, they were reported to multiple lawyers, therapists, and our mediator, in 2018 and afterward,” Sheena Greitens said. “I will provide contemporaneous documentation of the relevant communications, as well as photographic evidence of my child’s 2019 injuries, to the court at an appropriate time.”

The former lawmaker’s attorney told the court that his client’s soon-to-be ex-wife is not being truthful. “Common sense suggests no parent would agree to share joint legal and physical custody with the fictional parent described in the filing leaked to the press before it was accepted by the circuit clerk and available to the court or the inquiring public,” Stamper wrote.

Pushing back against Stamper’s accusation, Wade noted that her client has made it clear that Eric Greitens continues to behave the way he did from 2018 to 2020.

“Eric’s behavior since 3/21 is consistent with several patterns that I have previously experienced,” Sheena Greitens said. “When his public future is at risk, he becomes erratic, unhinged, coercive and threatening. He accuses me of things that are untrue and generates conspiracy theories about me collaborating with his ‘enemies’ when I have done no such thing. He uses words like ‘nasty’ and ‘vicious’ to describe my behavior, and threatens to take my children away.”

“Bad politics”: Poll of parents shows 15-point swing to GOP after Joe Manchin kills Child Tax Credit

A new survey released Wednesday shows that Democrats are losing electoral support among recipients of the expanded child tax credit, a monthly program that lapsed at the end of December after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin opposed an extension.

Conducted by Morning Consult, the poll shows that Republicans now hold a slight lead among voters who received the expanded benefit, even though GOP lawmakers unanimously opposed enacting the program last year.

“Among parents or guardians with at least one child under 18 in the household who received the expanded child tax credit payments, 46% said they are most likely to vote for a Republican congressional candidate this year while 43% said they’re inclined to back the Democratic candidate,” Morning Consult‘s Eli Yokley wrote in a summary of the findings.

Yokley added that the “narrow GOP advantage among this group stands in contrast with Democrats’ lead of 12 percentage points in late December, before the benefit expired.” In the several months since the boosted CTC lapsed, the survey shows, Democrats’ suffered a 15-point swing to Republicans among recipients of the benefit.

“Among all voters,” Yokley noted, “the latest survey found Democrats and Republicans tied at 43% on the generic congressional ballot.”

With federal data showing that tens of millions of U.S. families received checks under the expanded CTC last year, the electoral implications of the survey could be significant.

Commentators were quick to point fingers at Manchin and other right-wing Democrats in response to the polling, which appears to validate progressives’ vocal warnings that the majority party could face electoral disaster in the 2022 midterms if they fail to reinstate the enhanced CTC.

In recent weeks, there has been no discernible momentum on Capitol Hill toward a deal to revive the benefit, despite evidence that its expiration is driving a major surge in child poverty. More than 70% of boosted CTC recipients said the benefit’s end had at least a “minor” impact on their financial security, according to the Morning Consult survey.

“This [is] beyond infuriating both substantively and politically,” MSNBC‘s Chris Hayes tweeted in response to the new poll, “and it really is the work of Joe Manchin basically single-handedly.”

Mike Casca, communications director for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., blamed right-wing Democrats more broadly, castigating their “political strategy of just passing an infrastructure bill and leaving Build Back Better on the side of the road.”

The version of the Build Back Better Act that passed the House in November would have extended the enhanced CTC for another year. Manchin, a necessary vote in the evenly divided Senate, opposed a straightforward extension of the benefit, arguing it should have some form of work requirement as well as additional means testing.

The West Virginia Democrat also reportedly deployed insidious talking points against the program behind closed doors, claiming that some parents who received the benefit would waste the money on drugs.

“People recognize that poverty is a policy choice—one that Joe Manchin is making for millions of working families,” Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y. tweeted Wednesday. “This isn’t just bad policy. It’s bad politics. If Democrats lose ground in the midterms, people like Manchin will be to blame.”

“I am enough already”: Valerie Bertinelli stopped looking at the scale — and she hasn’t turned back

Thirteen years ago this week, Valerie Bertinelli had a pioneering break the internet moment when she posed for the cover of People magazine in a skimpy green bikini at 48 years old.

The actress and author’s up-and-down relationship with the scale has been not only lifelong but also entirely public, starting with her role as teenager Barbara Cooper in the classic sitcom “One Day at a Time.”

Today, Bertinelli is more focused on fitting into her identity than a bathing suit. Her latest memoir is called “Enough Already: Learning to Love the Way I Am Today.” As she explained during a recent episode of Salon Talks, “enough already” means enough with “the self-loathing, the bad talk, being unkind to ourselves.”

“It also means I am enough already. I don’t have to be a certain weight on the scale,” she added. “I don’t have to be a certain size in my jeans. I’m enough. We all are all enough.”

Reflecting on her years in the spotlight, Bertinelli recalled learning at a “very, very young age that when I gain weight, I’m unlovable, which is a huge lie.”

“I had an elementary school teacher point at my belly and say, ‘You’re going to want to keep an eye on that.’ Before that, I wasn’t even aware of my body,” she said. “Those things now make me angry.”

“What they did to me as a young child is they gave me a core memory of how to be accepted. Don’t gain weight — that will make you unlovable. Now, I’m just trying to dig all of that crap out of my body and my heart and my mind so that I can truly live in this body that I have today and just accept myself.”

RELATED: Valerie Bertinelli on loving herself, food and Betty White

At the same time, Bertinelli admitted to buying into the diet industry — as well as lingering shame over her role in it.

“I bought into the whole diet industry. I’m actually a little ashamed of my role in it — that I would ever make someone feel less than just because I got into a bikini,” she said. “It was my job to do that. I worked out twice a day. I barely ate. It was not a way to live a life, for sure. That’s not the life that I want to live.”

The actress also acknowledged having done “too many things” to make her life “miserable” — all because she didn’t like the number on the scale. 


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


“I never liked what the number on the scale said. It doesn’t matter how small it was — when it was big, I wanted to hide away, but it was never small enough,” she recalled. “What’s the point? If that number’s never going to make me happy, stop looking at it — and I have.”

When Bertinelli finished writing the book, she indeed stopped getting on the scale — and her jeans still fit. Now, self-care looks a little bit different.

“Because I’m saying enough already . . . it doesn’t mean that I’m not going to care about putting good things into my body. I want to eat more fruits and vegetables. I don’t want to have as much alcohol. I want to have less sugar,” she said. “I’m not going to deny myself anything, but I am going to try and treat my body in a way that will get me up those stairs when I’m 80 years old.”

Read more on diet culture:

Trump’s lies are getting dumber — because he’s locked in a power battle with Mitch McConnell

If you want to see the differences and the similarities between the old school GOP leaders and the new breed, you have to look no further than the two most powerful Republicans in the land, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Former President Donald Trump, both of whom gave sit-down interviews this week.

McConnell spoke with Jonathan Swan at Axios while Trump was questioned by Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post. The two septuagenarian leaders don’t speak the same language and they don’t like each other at all but they both want the same thing: power. Their public approach to getting it couldn’t be more different but I have a suspicion that if they both end up back on top they’ll find a way to get what each of them wants.

Dawsey has been covering Trump down in Mar-a-Lago and reported on a party earlier this week in which Trump henchman David Bossie premiered his new film, “Rigged: The Zuckerberg Funded Plot to Defeat Donald Trump,” produced by his group Citizens United. (Recall that the famous court case which unleashed unlimited money into U.S. elections revolved around another Citizens United film called, “Hillary the Movie.”) Dawsey describes a festive get-together in which servers offered up bottomless glasses of Trump wine as paying guests strolled throughout the grounds hoping to catch a glimpse of Dear Leader who was “ebullient” at the prospect of the film. The party was basically a reunion of prominent Big Lie promoters from around the country, all of whom were there to feed Trump’s delusional insistence that he actually won the 2020 election. Bossie repeatedly introduced Trump as “45th and 47th president of the United States” and told the group, “Some of the people here say we shouldn’t be talking about 2020. I think it’s vital that we do. If we don’t prove what happened in 2020, how can we stop it from happening again.” Joe Biden won the election fair and square but among these people, proof is in the eye of the beholder.

All the grifters, hangers-on and grasping operatives will carry on regardless, bilking the true believers out of their money and pretending they can alter reality simply with repetition and lies. It is becoming the Trump operation’s overarching modus operandi and while it may not work on a majority of Americans, it’s fully accepted among the followers. Here’s an example of it from former congressional accomplice and current CEO of Trump Media Devin Nunes:

In reality, however, it is exactly the opposite. 

Trump’s social media platform Truth Social is a ghost town and Twitter is doing just fine. But in Trumpworld all you have to do is say what you want reality to be and it is.


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


Dawsey got Trump to sit down for an interview the day after the party and he clearly had an agenda. If I had to guess, he is a bit concerned about the January 6th Committee and feels the need to set his own narrative of his behavior that day before the public hearings begin next month. He said he has no regrets about calling for the rally on January 6th, going on and on about the “yuge” size of it as usual, claiming that the fake news refuses to acknowledge just how enormous it was, and insists that he really wanted to lead the march to the Capitol with the crowd but that the Secret Service wouldn’t let him.

“I would have done it in a minute,” Trump told Dawsey.

RELATED: Trump claims the “lunatic left” is “mutilating” children — as usual, the media looks away

First of all, Trump hasn’t walked that far in decades. He drives his golf cart on to the green so he doesn’t have to walk six feet. Second of all, he defied the Secret Service dozens of times during the pandemic, holding super spreading events all over the country and sickening dozens of agents in the process. I don’t think we’ll ever know if he said it to get the crowd to go down there and storm the place or if it just sounded good to him in the moment to say he would “lead” them, but had he really wanted to do it, he could have.

“I would have done it in a minute.”

He also claimed the insurrection was solely the fault of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who failed to provide adequate protection from Trump’s rabid mob when they trashed the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. 

“I hated seeing it,” Trump said of that day. “I hated seeing it. And I said, ‘It’s got to be taken care of,’ and I assumed they were taking care of it.”

He, of course, did not hate seeing it and we know this because of reports from many people on that day who tried and failed to get him to step up and call off the dogs. For some reason everyone, including his daughter, thought the president of the United States had some influence over that crowd and when he finally relented and put out a lame video telling everyone that he loved them because they were so special but it was time to go home, they did.

As Twitter wag, @nycsouthpaw put it, “Trump in every interview is like Col. Jessup but 5x stupider, and no prosecutor in America has the stones to subpoena him.”

Why is that?

Underneath it all Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are the same: ruthless, self-serving, power-hungry brutes.

Trump’s lie about that day is as big as his lie about the election but he believes that by just saying out loud that up is down and black is white, he will make it so. And apparently, tens of millions of people are susceptible to this monumental cascade of bullshit.

Mitch McConnell, on the other hand is an old school snake, who doesn’t outright lie, he slithers around the questions, carefully telling the press only what he wants them to know. In his interview with Swan he made it clear, without ever saying it, that he would do whatever it takes to win and would do it by any means necessary:

RELATED: McConnell can’t name one reason not to vote for Trump

I think this answer may be why people like Trump so much more than McConnell, the traditional politician. Trump’s primitive thirst for revenge against anyone who crosses him is actually much easier to understand than that evasive, non-response from McConnell. It’s not that Trump has any “moral red lines” either. In fact, the two of them are perfectly in sync on that question. But McConnell still has the sense that people might think there is something wrong with being an amoral monster so he obfuscates. Trump just comes right out and admits it.

But really it’s a distinction without a difference. Underneath it all Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are the same: ruthless, self-serving, power hungry brutes. They despise each other but it’s a hatred of those who see their own moral bankruptcy reflected in the other’s eyes. 

FBI probes “secret” docs at Mar-a-Lago — suggesting a “criminal investigation” is already underway

The FBI is investigating how classified White House materials ended up at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, according to the Washington Post and New York Times.

The Justice Department has “begun taking steps” to investigate Trump’s removal of presidential records, including classified documents that were labeled “top secret,” according to the Post. The FBI, which is leading the effort, is in the “preliminary stages” of the probe, according to the Times.

The National Archives said in February that it had reached out to the Justice Department after discovering “classified national security information” in 15 boxes with White House documents, mementos and gifts that had been improperly taken to Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ instructed the National Archives not to share details about the materials with the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the matter as well, suggesting that a “criminal investigation might be underway,” according to the Times.

“This is a BIG deal,” the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said on Twitter. The group sent a letter to the DOJ in February alleging that Trump “likely violated criminal law” with his handling of government records, including reports that he tore up official documents that had to be taped back together.

RELATED: Raskin says Trump call log gap “suspiciously tailored” as Jan. 6 panel weighs “criminal referral”

It’s unclear whether the Justice Department has begun to review the materials in the boxes or whether investigators have interviewed anyone involved in moving them. But it is keeping the materials under wraps, drawing the ire of House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who accused the department of “interfering” with her panel’s probe of the documents.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday, Maloney called on the DOJ to allow the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to fully cooperate with the House probe into Trump’s likely violations of the Presidential Records Act.

“By blocking NARA from producing the documents requested by the Committee, the Department is obstructing the Committee’s investigation,” Maloney wrote. “The Committee does not wish to interfere in any manner with any potential or ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice. However, the Committee has not received any explanation as to why the Department is preventing NARA from providing information to the Committee.”

Trump’s team previously denied that he mishandled government records.

“It is clear that a normal and routine process is being weaponized by anonymous, politically motivated government sources to peddle Fake News,” Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said in February.


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


But the investigation could put Trump under FBI scrutiny once again after the years-long Justice Department investigation into the former president’s 2016 campaign and its ties to Russian election interference efforts. The FBI also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice after he fired former FBI Director James Comey.

The FBI in these types of cases would “typically look at an array of scenarios, including whether the classified material was mishandled or inadvertently disclosed, and it could examine whether a foreign adversary might have gotten access,” according to the Times.

The report also noted that the decision to open such a sensitive investigation would have required the approval of top FBI officials, including the National Security Division.

It’s unclear what role Trump played, if any, in taking the materials from the White House to Mar-a-Lago and it is not likely that Trump is personally is the target of the probe at the moment, according to the Times, which noted that the FBI also did not target anyone individually in its probe of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server. But the FBI would be interested in learning who had access to the documents, who packed the boxes and who transported them to Florida. Assessing Trump’s role in the matter could be complicated, the report added, because while in office as president he had the power to declassify any information he wanted. Trump throughout the 2016 campaign repeatedly attacked Clinton for mishandling sensitive information.

The House Oversight probe is also investigating reports of “White House employees or contractors finding paper in a toilet in the White House, including the White House residence,” under the Trump administration, the committee said. Earlier reports suggested that Trump regularly tore up White House records, leading the administration to assemble a team tasked with taping the papers back together. A recent book by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman also reported that staffers found wads of printed paper clogging a White House residence toilet, raising suspicions that Trump had tried to flush them.

Trump also faces federal scrutiny over his role in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The House committee investigating that event is considering seeking an interview with Trump, according to NBC News. And the Justice Department in recent months has expanded its criminal investigation with subpoenas targeting Trump World “VIPs” and exploring whether administration officials or members of Congress were involved in the planning of the rally that preceded the riot or “any attempt to obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of election results.

Garland has faced increasing frustrations from Democrats over the Justice Department’s handling of Trump-related matters. The Times last week reported that President Biden has been frustrated with Garland’s unwillingness to “take decisive actions over the events of Jan. 6” and has privately told his inner circle that he believes Trump was a “threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.”

Tensions boiled over during a recent Jan. 6 committee hearing, where members roundly took turns calling for Garland to step up.

“Attorney General Garland,” said panel member Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., “do your job so we can do ours.”

Read more:

5 eggsquisite tools for making better eggs at home, according to our editors

Whether for breakfast or brunch, eggs are the best way to kickstart the day. They pair nicely with generously buttered slices of toast, thick-cut strips of sizzling bacon or sultry delights of avocado, goat cheese and roasted kale.

But this protein-packed food shouldn’t be restricted only to morning hours. Eggs deserve to be enjoyed all day long in classic lunch and dinner items like spicy fried rice or steak and roasted potatoes.

With the right kitchen tools, otherwise boring eggs can transform into a culinary masterpiece.

If our point isn’t obvious by now, it’s that eggs are not only magically delicious but also incredibly versatile. With the right kitchen tools, otherwise boring eggs can transform into a culinary masterpiece that will leave you wanting more.

Whether you’re Team Poached or Team Scrambled, the team here at Salon Food has you covered. From egg cups to electric griddles, here are 5 eggsquisite tools for making better eggs at home. Pour a cup of coffee if you haven’t already . . . because it’s time to dive in!

1. KUFUNG Silicone Spatula

When I make soft scrambled eggs, I like to use the “low and slow” method. This means I’m cooking the eggs over low heat for a longer period of time. The end result is super creamy scrambled eggs (unlike the rubbery ones you sometimes get at, like, a hotel breakfast buffet).

This technique requires a fair amount of pushing your eggs around the pan. Metal utensils are great for a lot of things, but they can scratch up your skillets. This silicone spatula is my stand-in for scrambled egg mornings. — Ashlie Stevens, deputy food editor

KUFUNG Silicone Spatula

 

KUFUNG Silicone Spatula

BPA-free nonstick rubber kitchen spatulas for cooking and mixing

100% food-grade silicone material. Great angles for scraping, flexible silicone head, metal core for extra strength, ergonomic handle.

Starting at $5.49

2. Our Place Always Pan

This is what I use to make fried and scrambled eggs at home. I thought it would be just another piece of cookware, but I honestly use it every single day. It’s light, easy to clean and beautiful (which also makes it great for serving). Currently, I’ve got the “spice” colored pan, but I find myself lusting after the new “acid” green pan to herald in spring. — AS

3. Le Creuset Stoneware Egg Cup

Even though they look a little twee, egg cups are honestly the best way to hold your soft-boiled egg in place so that you can crack a little hole in the top for dipping your toast pieces. Don’t get me wrong: I’ve definitely tried to physically hold my soft-boiled egg in one hand and my toast in the other, but the whole thing felt a little messy. — AS

Le Creuset Stoneware Egg Cup

 

Le Creuset Stoneware Egg Cup

2″ egg cup perfect for breakfast

Dense stoneware blocks moisture absorption to prevent cracking, crazing and rippling. Nearly-nonstick glazed interior easily releases foods for quick clean-up.

Starting at $10.95

4. Dash Mini Maker Electric Round Griddle

I received this griddle as a gift, but since I don’t really like pancakes, I used it to fry an individual egg instead. Of course, I have a regular pan for that sort of thing, but this made it perfectly round without a mold. Plus, I could close the lid to cook it from the top in order to make it “over easy.”

I also made a tiny omelet in it, and both were perfect sizes for my breakfast sandwiches. Bonus if you make sandwiches with the heart-shaped mini waffles from my Dash mini waffle iron! It’s perfect for families, too, with little ones who can watch the egg (or pancake) being made. — Hanh Nguyen, senior culture editor

Dash Mini Maker Electric Round Griddle

 

Dash Mini Maker Electric Round Griddle

For eggs, individual pancakes and on-the-go breakfast snacks

Make individual servings of eggs, pancakes and more without the need for multiple pots/pans with this griddle. Great for kids or on the go!

Buy for $12.99

5. Terrapin Ridge Farms Gourmet Spicy Chipotle Garnishing Sauce

This is more of a personal preference than a universal recommendation, but I love breakfast tacos and burritos slathered with hot sauce as my first meal of the day. That jolt of heat wakes me up better than any cup of coffee ever could.

I’ve got a rotating collection of hot sauces in my refrigerator, but this one is perfect for breakfast foods. I’m not eating pork these days, so the smokiness mimics bacon, the citrus note is like a nod to orange juice and there’s a subtle sweetness that cuts through the fattiness of scrambled or fried eggs. — AS

Spicy Chipotle Garnishing Sauce

 

Spicy Chipotle Garnishing Sauce

This gourmet sauce is excellent to squeeze on tacos

A well-blended balance of chipotle peppers, spices, cider vinegar and a zip of orange juice. Gluten and dairy-free. Vegan. 

Buy for $9.99

More egg-cellent recipes and stories you might like:

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

Switching to zero-emission cars and trucks could save over 100,000 lives over the next three decades

More than 100,000 lives could be saved over the next 30 years if the United States switches to zero-emission vehicles powered by a zero-emission grid, according to a new report by the American Lung Association.

Not just lives would be saved. The report also estimates that more than $1.2 trillion in public health costs could be avoided with the shift.

While many recent studies have looked at the costs of air pollution and the particular burden placed on communities of color, this report takes a different approach, and instead looks at what we would gain by meeting specific transition benchmarks.

For its analysis, the American Lung Association envisioned a future where all new passenger vehicles are zero-emission by 2035, all new heavy-duty vehicles, like trucks and buses, are zero-emission by 2040, and the electrical grid is powered by clean, renewable energy by 2035. “These are ambitious but achievable targets,” said Will Barrett, director of clean air advocacy for the American Lung Association and lead author of the report.

As of right now, 15 states have adopted zero-emission mandates for passenger vehicles and six have followed suit for trucks. President Biden has pledged to clean up the country’s electricity grid by 2035, but opposition from Republicans and key Democratic senators means that has been easier said than done.

Using the latest models available from the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and the Department of Energy, Barrett and his colleagues calculated the benefits of reducing tailpipe emissions and reducing the demand for fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry emits pollutants that harm public health and warm the climate at every step of the supply chain — from extraction, to transportation, to refining, to use.

If the U.S. were to meet the targets outlined in the report, by 2050 the on-road transportation sector would see a 92 percent decrease in smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution, a 61 percent decrease in fine particle pollution, and a 93 percent decrease in greenhouse gas pollution.

On the ground, that would mean preventing over 100,000 premature deaths, 2.8 million asthma attacks, and a variety of other health problems over the next 30 years. Barrett called these findings “stunning new information on the transition to zero-emission electricity and transportation.”

The transition would benefit environmental justice communities, in particular. According to the EPA, the 72 million Americans who live near truck freight routes and bear the brunt of pollution from the transportation sector are disproportionately people of color and those with lower incomes. Eliminating tailpipe emissions — particularly from heavy-duty vehicles — would significantly improve their air quality.

Barrett hopes that this report will show the public and policymakers just how urgent it is that we make the switch to zero-emission vehicles powered by a zero-emission grid. While the bipartisan infrastructure bill Congress passed in November was a good first step towards these goals, far more is needed, he said. The report outlines a host of actions that federal, state, and local governments can take to accelerate the transition. Barrett specifically highlighted the need for the EPA to tighten national ambient air quality standards and for states to adopt more ambitious standards to curb pollution from vehicles and power plants. 

“We just haven’t made the kinds of investments — yet — that are needed,” Barrett said. “The sooner we start, the quicker the benefits accrue, and the quicker the health of communities across America will improve.”

Lindsey Graham is a total hypocrite on Judge Jackson and child porn: Here’s why

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s overall performance during Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings could be characterized as nasty political theater, or petty payback for perceived slights endured by past Republican nominees.  But when it comes to Graham’s animated attacks against Judge Jackson’s sentencing record of child pornographers, two words best fit the senator: total hypocrite.

Angrily parroting other Republicans, Graham attacked Jackson as she outlined her concerns with the federal sentencing guidelines for child pornography possession and distribution. When Jackson explained that the guidelines could result in 50 years of confinement for 15 minutes spent on a computer, Graham shot back, “Good! Good. Absolutely, good. I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you are on the Internet trolling for images of children…”

Graham announced he would vote against Jackson’s confirmation in part because of “her flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases.” On the morning of the Senate’s historic vote on Jackson’s nomination, Graham joined other Republicans in a press conference to again complain about her sentencing record for child pornography convictions. He followed up by casting a no vote from a cloakroom instead of the Senate floor. 

RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene leads revolt against “pro-pedophile” Republicans voting for Judge Jackson

But is Graham truly concerned about perceived light child pornography sentences, or was this just manufactured outrage? It is a valid question, because his record on oversight of the military justice system tells a completely different story. Graham has tremendous influence over the military’s criminal justice system: He was an integral part of it as an Air Force uniformed lawyer with more than 30 years serving as a judge advocate, and he has also long served in Congress, including time on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

An examination of Graham’s Air Force service, which included time as prosecutor and appellate judge, demonstrates that he maintained close ties with the most senior members of the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps. That’s important because one would therefore expect Graham to be intimately aware of how the military punishes child pornography offenders, in particular those in the Air Force. One would also expect that if Graham did not like the comparatively short sentences such offenders receive in the military (which are typically much lighter than the ones handed down by Judge Jackson), he would have done something about it — for example, propose legislation to create mandatory minimums for those convicted of child pornography in the military. He did not.

The federal system has used sentencing guidelines for the last 35 years, but the military has no such guidelines. And while Congress has finally mandated using sentencing parameters in the military, they won’t go into effect for another two years. Moreover, like almost all crimes in the military, child pornography offenses have no minimum sentencing requirements and include “no punishment” as an authorized sentence for even the production of child pornography. And, contrary to the federal system, no detailed pre-sentencing report is provided to a judge in military cases. Such reports are critical for judges in determining the severity of an offense and the recidivism risk of defendants.  


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


As a result of these procedural deficiencies — ones that Graham could have worked to fix — military sentences skew extremely light. For example, a review of the Air Force’s court-martial results since January 2021 show the average airman received less than 10 months for possession of child pornography, with one offender receiving only 30 days of confinement, a far cry from the 50 years Graham claims is appropriate. Indeed, Judge Jackson would be viewed as a draconian “hammer” in the institution where Graham served for 30 years.

The military’s kid-gloves sentencing is compounded by the fact that military judges do not have the supervised release tools possessed by federal judges. For example, like all federal judges, Jackson had (and used) the authority to subject offenders to lengthy conditions after being released from prison, including sex offender treatment; restrictions on accessing the internet; monitoring of computer devices and smart phones; and no-notice searches. These measures are, of course, designed to reduce recidivism. In contrast, after a military offender has served their court-martial sentence, they are subject to no such restrictions. When a military offender is released from jail, there is nothing stopping them from going right back to searching for more child pornography. This is particularly troubling, as one expert has estimated that military veterans are four times more likely to be convicted for child pornography charges or sexual offenses against children than those who have never served. 

One need look no further than two cases involving Air Force colonels to see how much lighter the military treats child pornography than normally occurs in the civilian realm. Both colonels were caught with thousands of images of child pornography, but one was investigated and prosecuted by the Air Force, and the other by the federal justice system. The officer prosecuted by the Air Force was sentenced to only one year of confinement. The one sentenced by a federal judge received five years, followed by 15 additional years of supervised release. In other words, the federal system produced a sentence five times more severe than the military’s.

What has Lindsey Graham done to address how leniently the military sentences child pornography offenders? Less than nothing — he has fought against military justice reform, using his years of service as justification.

What has Sen. Graham done, then, to address how leniently the military sentences child pornography offenders? Has he proposed eliminating the “no punishment” sentencing option, imposing mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography offenses, authorizing the use of pre-sentencing reports, or giving military judges the same authority to place conditions on offenders after they have served their sentences? Has he either publicly or privately berated military leadership or military judges for light child pornography offenses? No. Instead, Graham has forcefully fought military justice reform, and worked to undermine his Senate colleagues who have sought such needed reform of the military justice system — often by using his years of service as a military lawyer to justify his opposition.

Graham’s indifference concerning the military’s lenient treatment of child pornography, compared to his supposed disgust regarding Judge Jackson’s sentencing record, is not only hypocritical. It is political theater at its worst.  How we should sentence child pornography offenders is a legitimate debate. But after decades of inaction on his part to reform the military sentencing process, Graham’s sudden concern about child pornography sentencing is no more than a cheap, hypocritical and destructive attempt to score political points.

Read more on the Republican efforts to sabotage Ketanji Brown Jackson:

The guy who brought us CRT panic offers a new far-right agenda: Destroy public education

Earlier this week, the man who’s been widely credited with single-handedly willing the “critical race theory” panic into existence (even if the truth is a bit more complex), laid out a new set of marching orders for the right: Defund public universities, discard academic freedom, remove credentialing requirements for K-12 teachers and generally foster so much anger against public schools that it drives a nationwide popular movement to privatize education. 

The man in question is Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Since he helped elevate CRT into a national culture war in 2020, Rufo has frequently been cast (or cast himself) as the new master strategist of the right, playing three-dimensional chess as he lays out his battle plans publicly and counts every media mention of them as a win. In the spring of 2021, he famously crowed on social media that he’d “successfully frozen” the CRT “brand” as the overarching ideology behind almost everything conservatives dislike. This January he tweeted about his new goal to “bait the Left into opposing [curriculum] ‘transparency,'” in order to trigger conservative suspicions that public schools have something to hide. 

On Tuesday, he broadcast his plans again in a speech at Hillsdale College, a small Christian school in southern Michigan that, as a three-part Salon investigative series described last month, has assumed a vastly outsized role in conservative movement politics, with its heavy Washington footprint, its dense web of connections to political and intellectual right-wing leaders, and its national network of charter schools that use taxpayer funds to teach conservative ideology. Rufo had spoken at the college before, when he delivered an early version of his anti-CRT arguments in a March 2021 speech subsequently adapted as an essay for Hillsdale’s monthly publication Imprimis, which claims a circulation of more than six million. And for the last week, Rufo has also been guest-teaching a short-term journalism class at the college. 

RELATED: Fighting back against CRT panic: Educators organize around the threat to academic freedom

Now, speaking to a school organized around the idea that the political war will be won in education, Rufo issued a new strategy he called “Laying Siege to the Institutions.” This means waging a “narrative and symbolic war” against both publicly-funded entities like K-12 schools and government agencies, as well as private corporations and the concept of academic freedom itself.

Rufo began his talk with a narrative that’s become depressingly commonplace among the right: In the mid-20th century, leftists discouraged by the failure of the socialist revolution to spread worldwide shifted their aspirations to creating a top-down revolution of the elite, organized around cultural and identity politics rather than class consciousness. These days that narrative is often shorthanded as “cultural Marxism,” which until recent years was widely considered a disreputable conspiracy theory strongly associated with antisemitism, alt-right web forums and the most marginal figures of the far right. But now, as with so much else, the idea has migrated into the conservative mainstream, as just a slightly harder-core means of expressing the right’s sense that they “lost the culture” years ago.

Although Rufo has used the term in the past, he didn’t repeat it Tuesday. Instead he offered a closely-related narrative: that leftists disillusioned after the social revolutions of the 1960s petered out had transferred their hopes to academia, hoping to spread their ideas more gradually by embarking on a “long march through the institutions.” 

In Rufo’s words, leftists who realized the proletarian revolution wasn’t coming instead dedicated themselves to “a revolution of the intelligentsia, a revolution of the elites, by seizing control not of the means of production…but through the means of culture and knowledge production.” What followed, he said, was the repackaging of the radical ideas of 1968 into ideologies that have trickled down into nearly every institution in society, albeit often through “postmodern” euphemisms like “diversity” or “equity.” Today, he argued, “every elite institution in the country that has dominance over knowledge, dominance over culture, dominance over, even, in many cases, material production, has converged on a unitary ideology.” 

The first stage for conservatives who want to fight back, Rufo said, lay in convincing the public that such a long-game infiltration had taken place, educating everyday conservatives that benign-sounding ideas like diversity and inclusion were actually codewords for radical leftist ideology, and offering a set of “moral” arguments and language in opposition. Now, he said, it was time for conservatives to move to a new stage of the fight, using the tools of popular outrage and government force to punish institutions that offend conservative sensibilities. 

It’s not an entirely new argument. On the first day of the Biden presidency, Rufo vowed to build a coalition to “wage relentless legal warfare against race theory in America’s institutions.” Last November, speaking at the highbrow National Conservatism conference, just before the CRT backlash he’d engendered helped sweep Glenn Youngkin into Virginia’s governor’s mansion, he urged conservative intellectuals to recognize that “politics is downstream from institutions,” and that they should use government power to shape entities like public universities as a means of eventually crafting a more powerful conservative movement. The same month, Rufo told New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg that, having “unlocked a new terrain in the culture war,” he was now “preparing a strategy of laying siege to the institutions” in part by promoting “school choice.”

But over the last week, Rufo said, he’d pioneered a new application of the model. That was through his new crusade against the Walt Disney Company, the latest target of conservative outrage after the company publicly opposed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “don’t say gay” bill, which prohibits discussion, or even acknowledgment, of LGBTQ people in elementary school classrooms. 


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


In a series of posts and articles, Rufo used a leaked internal video to argue that Disney wasn’t just making its employees take diversity training seminars but was inserting a covert agenda into its programming that sought to “fundamentally change the relationship between kids and sexuality in the United States.” 

When the resultant furor sparked a number of proposals for political retaliation from conservative officials, including threats to rescind the company’s tax breaks in Florida or to reject its copyright extension applications in Congress, Rufo described it as a “perfect example” of how conservatives can do battle with institutions that lie outside their direct control. 

Praising DeSantis for recognizing that “our corporations should ultimately be serving the common good, should be serving the country,” Rufo called for deploying similar government penalties against other companies that anger conservatives. 

“I think you also wield power, for example, against a company like Disney if Disney is actively undermining the families and voters of, say, Florida,” he said. “There’s a feeling right now that we can tap into…where we want to have free enterprise, we want to have free competition, but what we don’t want is to have cartel organizations, ideological and economic cartels, dictating the terms from up on high down to the average citizen.” 

But aside from this perhaps-surprising conservative willingness to use government power to regulate private companies’ speech, the primary institutions Rufo focused on were educational. 

At one point, he suggested that much of his work to heighten public outrage around schools’ handling of everything from U.S. racial history to the pandemic to gender and sexuality could serve a larger goal: “creat[ing] the conditions for fundamental structural change.”

“For example,” he said, “to get universal school choice you really need to operate from a premise of universal public school distrust.” 

“To get universal school choice,” Rufo told listeners, “you need to operate from a premise of universal public school distrust.”

That admission is remarkably similar to the diagnosis that progressive public education advocates have made. Last month, former Nashville school board member Amy Frogge told Salon that she saw “all the controversy about critical race theory” as a deliberate strategy to alienate communities from their local schools. The education privatization movement, she said, “is a billionaire’s movement,” and the only way it can “gain ground is to create controversy and distrust of the public school system. That’s what all of this is about.” 

Rufo didn’t stop with K-12 education, going on to describe public universities as a “monopoly” that has too long been handed a “blank check” by legislators even in conservative states. Conservative legislators who don’t like what’s happening at those schools, Rufo said, should use their budgetary power to enact the changes they want to see. 

“These are public universities that should reflect and transmit the values of the public, and the representatives of the public, i.e., state legislators, have ultimate power to shape or reshape those institutions,” he said. “We have to get out of this idea that somehow the public university system is totally independent entity that practices academic freedom — a total fraud, that’s just a false statement, fundamentally false — and you can’t touch it or else you’re impinging on the rights of the gender studies department to follow their dreams.” 

While many conservatives have long conceded the importance of academic freedom, he continued, lawmakers in some states were beginning to reconsider that long-cherished ideal, mulling proposals like defunding public university “diversity and inclusion” departments, which Rufo cast as a “patronage system” to support “private political activism with public dollars.” 

In Florida, DeSantis signed a bill last year requiring the state’s public universities to survey students and faculty on their political beliefs, to ensure students aren’t being “indoctrinated,” with the implication that schools where too few students or staff express conservative viewpoints might end up losing funding. In mid-February, after professors at the University of Texas passed a resolution in support of the academic freedom to teach CRT, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed to end tenure for all new hires in the state, and to strip the protection from current faculty who do teach the theory.

Rufo also suggested dealing a more indirect blow to universities by having state legislators pass laws removing requirements for public K-12 teachers to hold advanced education degrees, arguing that masters programs only serve to expose future teachers to radical left-wing ideas. Bachelors degrees should be sufficient for public school teachers, he said, and while educators could opt into advanced training, such a choice should come to be seen as a red flag, with right-thinking hiring committees knowing not to “hire the ones with the masters, because those are the crazies.” 

“We need to have the courage and the intelligence and the tenacity to say, ‘What the public giveth, the public can taketh away,” said Rufo. “So we go in there and we defund things we don’t like, we fund things we do like.” 

In terms of the latter, he suggested that conservative legislators use public funding to establish new, independently-governed “conservative centers” within flagship public universities, which could serve as “magnets” for right-wing professors, create a new track of conservative-minded classes and generally establish “a separate patronage system” for conservative thinkers and activists. 

British writer Mary Harrington suggests that Rufo sees himself leading a conservative “vanguard” movement, at “the beginnings of a new right-wing Leninism.”

In many ways, the principles Rufo laid out seem to mirror what’s happened in Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s proudly “illiberal” government — a regime that’s become a model to emulate for much of the right. In the late 2010s, as a means of consolidating conservative power and disenfranchising liberal and moderate critics, Orbán launched a campaign against Hungary’s institutions of higher education. He drove the elite Central European University, founded by George Soros, out of the country; solicited students to inform on professors who delivered “unasked-for left-wing political opinions”; and defunded and revoked accreditation for university gender studies programs. At the secondary ed level, as The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer reported, Orbán’s government cut two years off the country’s compulsory education requirements, centralized curriculum and instituted new standards for a “patriotic education,” under which students learn, for instance, that ethnic homogeneity is a Hungarian value. 

At Hillsdale, Rufo denied that he wanted to see conservatives enact their own “march through the institutions” — he couldn’t imagine that many conservatives aspiring to run district diversity and equity departments, he joked. But much of what he suggested seems strikingly similar to the supposed progressive strategy of institutional infiltration he’s waging a war against. Even his conservative admirers have noted as much. 

In November, after Rufo, speaking at the National Conservatism conference, called for using government mechanisms to “cripple the critical [left-wing] ideologies,” one of his fellow speakers, the British writer Mary Harrington, wrote that his suggestions might represent “the beginnings of a new right-wing Leninism.” 

When Rufo described his role, and that of other right-wing intellectuals at the conference, as “providing intellectual guidance, a new vocabulary of subversion, and a narrative that can direct the emotions and energy of the public against the right targets,” Harrington diagnosed that as an idea borrowed “from the Leninist idea of ‘vanguardism’: the idea that an elite whose consciousness has already attained greater revolutionary heights should lead and mobilize the masses in transforming the world for the better.” Under that model, Rufo seemed to propose that the only solution to an elite “cultural revolution” abetted by the state is an elite counterrevolution that seizes state power and wields it to fight back. 

Read more from Kathryn Joyce on the far right:

Antiwar voices call for diplomacy in Ukraine, not just “weapons, weapons, weapons”

With atrocities continuing to mount as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drags on for the sixth consecutive week with no end in sight, Kyiv’s top diplomat told reporters Thursday that he had just three items on his agenda as he arrived in Brussels to meet with NATO allies: “Weapons, weapons and weapons.”

“The more weapons we get, and the sooner they arrive in Ukraine, the more human lives will be saved,” said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. “This is my message to the allies. It’s very simple.”

But Kuleba proceeded to acknowledge a tension that foreign policy analysts and peace advocates have been grappling with since Russia launched its attack on Ukraine at the end of February, an assault that has since killed thousands of civilians and sparked a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

“As weird as it may sound,” Kuleba said, “today weapons serve the purpose of peace.”

In addition to the unprecedented economic measures they’ve collectively taken against Russia, the U.S. and other Western nations have been pouring billions of dollars worth of high-tech weaponry — from Javelin antitank missiles to armed “kamikaze” drones — into Ukraine for weeks as the country resists its neighbor’s brutal war of aggression.

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

Just Wednesday night, the Biden administration announced it has authorized another $100 million in arms and other equipment for Ukraine, bringing the total to $1.7 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its invasion.

Proponents of the massive and sustained flow of western weapons into Ukraine see the shipments as a major factor behind the country’s success thus far in beating back Russia’s attempts to overtake major cities. During a Wednesday briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki claimed U.S. arms were crucial “in the defense of Kyiv and other areas, and we want to ensure we continue to get them in the Ukrainians’ hands.”

But antiwar voices have openly questioned the notion — expressed by Kuleba and others — that continuing to rush deadly weapons into a war zone will ultimately increase the likelihood of a diplomatic resolution, which Russia and Ukraine are both pursuing even as they accuse each other of heinous crimes and provocations. Observers have also charged the U.S. with not doing nearly enough to advance the ongoing peace talks.

In an email to Common Dreams on Thursday, Medea Benjamin of CodePink was sharply critical of Kuleba’s “weapons, weapons and weapons” line, calling the diplomat’s comment “sickening.”

“More weapons equal more deaths. More weapons equal more war. Period.”

“Ukraine’s foreign minister’s agenda should not be weapons, weapons, weapons, but negotiations, negotiations, negotiations and ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire,” Benjamin wrote. “Maybe he should talk to the war-weary people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. More weapons equal more deaths. More weapons equal more war. Period.”

Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams on Thursday that it makes complete sense for Kuleba and other top officials in Ukraine — “a nation at war” — to be calling for weapons at this time.

“They’re trying to keep their people mobilized, they’re trying to keep the pressure on the international community to support them — this makes perfect sense that they’re asking for weapons,” said Bennis. “And it makes perfect sense for those of us who have seen too many U.S. and other wars escalate terribly in those situations to say, ‘We understand it, but we have to say no, because escalation is only going to kill more people and extend it longer.'”

Other outspoken antiwar progressives, such as former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, have declined to criticize weapons shipments to Ukraine, arguing that they are a justifiable response to Russian aggression.

In an interview with the online magazine UnHerd on Wednesday, Varoufakis — a co-founder of Progressive International — contended that “we have a moral duty to support [Ukraine] militarily.”

“Not me and you personally,” he added, “but I’m not going to criticize the West for sending weapons to the Ukrainian resistors.”

But Varoufakis also denounced “liberal imperialists” and corporate war profiteers who have an interest in “maintaining the conflicts” and argued that the West has “a moral duty to give” Russian President Vladimir Putin a “way out” through diplomatic negotiations, specifically by supporting Ukrainian neutrality from NATO — a long-standing Moscow demand.

“If he can be seen to have won a victory — something that he can present to his own people as a victory (‘I have ended NATO eastward expansion. I went to war to stop NATO expanding and I succeeded.’), I think that we have a moral duty to give him this way out,” Varoufakis said. “Now, I can’t guarantee that he will take it. But the West can offer him this way out, to stop the killings.”

Like Varoufakis, The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill argued in a column last month that “it is understandable and reasonable that people across the U.S. and Europe are demanding their governments send more weapons to support Ukraine in resisting the Russian invasion.”

But Scahill went on to warn that the huge weapons transfers from the U.S. and other NATO countries to Ukraine could have the effect of extending and intensifying the already-devastating conflict.


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


“Without the Western-supplied weapons Ukraine already possessed, it is very likely Russia would be in control of much larger swaths of the country,” Scahill wrote. “It is also vital that people advocating such a policy consider whether a sizable increase in U.S. and NATO weapons transfers will prolong the conflict and result in even more civilian death and destruction.”

Scahill noted that if “the aim is to end the horrors as swiftly as possible, then we require a serious analysis of the impact such large-scale weapons shipments will have on the fate of Ukrainian civilians and the prospects for an end to the invasion.”

He continued:

It may be the case that the flow of Western weapons to the Ukrainian forces will so bleed Russia that it pulls out of Ukraine, fatally damaging Putin’s grip on power and saving many lives. In that case, these shipments will be seen as a decisive factor in Ukraine’s defeat of Russia. But if it doesn’t, and the flow of weapons delays a negotiated settlement between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO, then it is hard to see the massive scope of the weapons transfers as a clear positive…

In the face of heinous atrocities against civilians and a heartbreaking refugee crisis, it is understandable that good people would demand extreme action in the name of bringing it all to a halt. The tragic reality is that escalation by the U.S. and NATO will not achieve that, certainly not without grave costs, and could lead to an even worse catastrophe for Ukrainian civilians, if not a wider global conflict. In that case, the only beneficiaries will be those who are now winning the war in Ukraine: the weapons manufacturers and arms dealers.

Days after Scahill’s column was published, Rajan Menon of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University argued in the Guardian that “amid the moral outrage and depth of animosity toward Putin, the risks of pouring arms into Ukraine should be considered carefully and dispassionately.”

“Providing more arms to Ukraine may well produce the results its proponents anticipate. It could, on the other hand … set the stage for a NATO-Russia nuclear confrontation.” 

“Providing Ukraine even more arms may well produce the results its proponents anticipate. It could, on the other hand, impel Russian commanders to subject Ukrainians to even greater pain,” Menon cautioned. “Furthermore, Russia may not stand by, allowing the west to fortify Ukraine’s army. Putin might order his generals to bomb the supply routes from Poland and Romania, the NATO countries that have the longest borders with Ukraine.”

Moscow has already threatened such a move, declaring last month that it views arms convoys flowing into Ukraine as “legitimate targets,” heightening fears of a direct conflict between Russia and NATO.

“If the tit-for-tat spills over into Poland or Romania, whether intentionally or not, the stage could be set for a NATO-Russia confrontation, with nuclear weapons lurking in the background,” Menon wrote. “Some experts are confident that arming Ukraine won’t widen the war, but if they’re wrong the consequences could prove catastrophic.”

“And what if Ukraine starts losing? Will NATO cut its losses, thereby emboldening Putin? Or will it up the ante, risking a clash with Russia?” asked Menon. “None of these scenarios may materialize. Putin may prove prudent and risk-averse. Then again, this war has shredded many assumptions that prevailed before it began.”

Despite some tenuous signs of progress in recent days, peace talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations have yet to produce a lasting ceasefire or a deal securing the withdrawal of Russian troops.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected the latest draft agreement from Kyiv as an “unacceptable” departure from previous talks but said “the Russian delegation will continue the negotiation process.”

Mykhaylo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, slammed Lavrov’s portrayal of Ukraine’s proposal as “pure propaganda.”

With the humanitarian disaster in Ukraine getting worse by the day, George Beebe and Anatol Lieven wrote for Responsible Statecraft on Thursday that “Western sanctions and military aid that are coupled to a pragmatic negotiating strategy stand a better chance of ending the bloodshed and reducing the chances of more atrocities against Ukrainians.”

“Ukraine itself is proposing terms that, if backed by a combination of U.S. and European sticks and carrots, stand some prospect of success,” the pair argued, outlining those terms:

  • A Ukrainian treaty of neutrality, with guarantees from the members of the UN Security Council plus Turkey, Israel, Canada, Germany and Poland that they would defend Ukraine from future attack;
  • Ukraine remains free to join the European Union;
  • Russian troops withdraw completely from all the territories that they have occupied since invading Ukraine;
  • Ukraine and Russia hold bilateral negotiations on the status of Crimea and Sevastopol within the next 15 years, promising to take no military action to resolve the issue;
  • The status of certain districts of Lugansk and Donetsk provinces (i.e., the ones forming part of the separatist Donbas republics before the war) to be discussed separately with Russia.

“These Ukrainian proposals are wise and sensible,” Beebe and Lieven wrote. “It would certainly be both politically and morally grotesque for Washington to block a peace agreement that the Ukrainian government itself has advocated.”

Such terms, they added, are “also fairly close to an agreement that President Putin and the Russian government could present (however fraudulently) as a Russian success — something that is essential if they are to be brought to end the war.”

Speaking to Common Dreams on Thursday, Bennis similarly argued that progressing toward a diplomatic resolution “means demanding that the U.S. make clear that whatever negotiations Ukraine is engaged in, whatever settlement they reach with Russia, will be supported.”

“We know what’s likely to be the basis of a settlement,” said Bennis. “And it will not be just, it will not be fair, because international relations are almost never fair and just. But the goal has to be to stop the killing.”

Read more on the Ukraine conflict:

McConnell can’t name one reason not to vote for Trump

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested on Thursday that there is no crime that would cancel out his “obligation” to vote for former President Donald Trump in the next general election.

During an interview with Axios, host Jonathan Swan asked McConnell about his “moral red lines.”

“Help me understand this,” Swan said. “I watched your speech last year in February on the Senate floor after the second impeachment vote for Donald Trump.”

The host reminded McConnell that he said Trump was “morally” responsible for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“How do you go from saying that to two weeks later saying you’d absolutely support Donald Trump if he’s the Republican nominee in 2024?” Swan asked.

“Well, as the Republican leader of the Senate, it should not be a front-page headline that I will support the Republican nominee for president,” McConnell insisted.

“After you said that about him, I think it’s astonishing!” Swan remarked.

“I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party,” McConnell explained.

“Is there anything they could do?” Swan wondered.

“Well, that will mean that whoever the nominee is has gone out and earned the nomination,” McConnell argued.

“You seem to hold two concurrent conflicting positions!” Swan exclaimed.

“Not at all inconsistent, I stand by everything I said,” McConnell interrupted. “Because I don’t get to pick the Republican nominee for president. They’re elected by the Republican voters all over the country.”

Swan pressed but McConnell objected.

“You want to spend some more time on this?” the Republican leader snapped.

Swan noted that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) opposes Trump “because she believes there are some things more important than party loyalty.”

“Well, maybe you ought to be talking to Liz Cheney,” McConnell replied.

“It’s not a gotcha,” Swan said. “I’m actually trying to understand. Is there any threshold for you?”

“You know, I say many things I’m sure people don’t understand,” McConnell quipped, shutting down the line of questioning.

Watch the video below from Axios.

What comes after “The Dropout” ending: What Elizabeth Holmes, Erika Cheung and others are doing now

The final episode of Hulu’s “The Dropout” is one of unraveling. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid shut down Theranos’ labs for, among other gross inadequacies, providing patients with false diagnoses and failing to report inaccurate test results. Elizabeth Holmes and her boyfriend/business partner Sunny Balwani turn on one another as the $9 billion Theranos glass house shatters.

In a particularly tellng scene, Elizabeth sits, characteristically frigid yet vulnerable in front of her mother. “If you choose to forget certain things, do you think that’s lying?” she says, slowly drawing out every word as if trying to convince herself of her own innocence.

If you choose to forget certain things, do you think that’s lying?”

“I don’t understand,” her mother says, leaving the room in tears. Elizabeth flinches as she looks in the mirror, seeing herself for perhaps the first time. She rips her hair out from the confides of its bun and frantically takes off her tight black turtleneck, suffocated by her own guise. 

It’s just one of the many moments in the conclusion to “The Dropout” that portrays the epic, nearly melodramatic decline of Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos empire. It catches its viewers up to the present day, as Holmes faces trial, meets a new boyfriend, gets pregnant and continues to run from her past. 

RELATED: What’s behind the obsession that Elizabeth Holmes intentionally lowered her voice?

But the series didn’t capture everything about the characters’ lives in real time. Here’s a rundown of the most jaw-dropping moments of “The Dropout” finale and what the real Theranos players are up to today. 

Erika Cheung (played by Camryn Mi-Young Kim)

The DropoutCamryn Mi-young Kim as Erika Cheung, Dylan Minnette as Tyler Shultz, and Shaun J. Brown as Daniel Young in “The Dropout” (Michael Desmond/Hulu)Erika Cheung, in her first post-college job at Theranos, tight on cash and petrified of what the future might hold if she exposes Theranos, makes a bold move by sending an email exposing the truth about the company to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

“I want there to be a record and I want people to remember what she did and I want it down on paper and I want to sign my name,” she says, pacing the room in agitation in front of Theranos coworker Tyler Shultz. “Do you think that’s dumb?”

“No I think it’s f**king amazing,” he replies.

Her bravery paid off. After the federal agency investigated Theranos’ labs following her tip, the agency shut down Theranos for two years. 

Today, Cheung is the co-founder of Ethics in Entrepreneurship, a “medical researcher turned technology and innovation ecosystem builder.” Her goal is to help investors and entrepreneurs better recognize issues in start-ups. In a TED talk, she warns of “moonshots,” ambitious projects that often cloud the judgment of those involved who are hyper-fixated on goals rather than reality. 


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


Tyler Shultz (Dylan Minnette) and George Schultz (Sam Waterston)

The DropoutAnne Archer and Sam Waterston as Charlotte and George Schultz in “The Dropout” (Beth Dubber/Hulu)Tyler Shultz, a fellow Theranos whistleblower and grandson of former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, takes an intrepid stance against his grandfather, a Theranos board member. After deciding to go on record with Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou about inconsistencies and flaws within Theranos’ lab “Normandy,” he comes clean to his grandfather. 

Trembling on the couch gripping a hand-written letter, Tyler reads slowly, not looking up from the page. “The only way that I believe that our relationship could be repaired at this point is if you stepped forward as the first board member of Theranos to come out against Elizabeth and her company,” the words seem lodged in his throat. “I love you.” 

In the real world, George Schultz initially disbelieved his grandson and even tried to silence him, but eventually came around and praised him: “Tyler navigated a very complex situation in ways that made me proud.” George Schultz died in 2021 at the age of 100.

Today, Tyler is the CEO of his own medical device company, called Flux Biosciences, Inc. After being followed by Theranos-hired private investigators for a year and racking up more than $400,000 worth of legal fees, the young researcher embarked on a new business venture eerily similar to the one he blew the whistle on. Flux Biosciences is designed to use a “portable machine” to help individuals figure out if anything in their blood could lead to a potential illness. It doesn’t get any weirder. 

John Carreyrou (Ebon Moss-Bachrach)

The DropoutEbon Moss-Bachrach as John Carreyrou in “The Dropout” (Beth Dubber/Hulu)

“I don’t want to be pigeonholed as the Theranos reporter.”

For John Carreyrou, the Wall Street Journal reporter who first exposed Theranos for its inconsistencies in the press, the news that the Theranos labs were shut down cannot have come sooner. In the finale, he darts into his editor’s office, copy of the damning report in hand.

“She won’t come back from this,” he laughs, tossing the report on her desk. “I just fell in love with federal bureaucracy and I don’t care who knows it!” 

In 2018, Carreyrou published a book on his investigation into Theranos, titled “Bad Blood,” followed by a podcast of the same name, and participated in “The Inventor” documentary about Holmes. In 2019, he left his two-decade-long career at The Wall Street Journal to continue writing non-fiction books. “I don’t want to be pigeonholed as the Theranos reporter for my entire career,” he told The Verge. “I’d like to do other things, and that may be, you know, writing another book, probably involves doing more journalism . . .” 

Sunny Balwani (Naveen Andrews)

The DropoutNaveen Andrews as Sunny Balwani and Amanda Seyfried as Elizabeth Holmes in “The Dropout” (Beth Dubber/Hulu)

“I am responsible for everything at Theranos.”

Sunny Balwani jumps off the sinking Theranos ship too late. As his personal and professional relationship with Elizabeth comes undone, heartbreak and betrayal ensue in “The Dropout” finale. Elizabeth convenes a spur-the-moment 7 a.m. board meeting without Sunny, informing the members of his decision to step down from the company – that he didn’t quite agree to. A disheveled Sunny races to the meeting, frantic and agitated. It’s too late. 

In a scene of intense and brutal reckoning, the two have what is perhaps their only real conversation in the entire series as their relationship ends. Elizabeth is frantically throwing her belongings in a cardboard box, rushing out the door and leaving Sunny. “This is how you treat someone who loves you,” he pleads, crouching in front of a dismissive Elizabeth.

“There’s nothing inside you . . .  You’re not real! You aren’t a person, you’re a ghost,” he yells as he paces behind her. “You’re nothing!” 

RELATED: “Super Pumped,” “Thing About Pam” and “The Dropout” make it official: It’s a**hole season!

Sunny Balwani’s trial is currently underway. He faces the same 12 counts as Holmes. Though Balwani maintains his innocence and his limited role in Theranos’ dealings, text message evidence brought forward on April 5 during his trial exposed a damning message he sent Elizabeth. “I worked six days and nights to help you..” he wrote. “I am responsible for everything at Theranos.”

Elizabeth Holmes (Amanda Seyfried)

Amanda Seyfried as Elizabeth Holmes in “The Dropout” (Beth Dubber/Hulu)By the end of the finale, Elizabeth Holmes seemed to be performing mental gymnastics to escape the truth of the damage she created at Theranos. The tension comes to a head in the final scene as her former employee Linda Tanner (played by Michaela Watkins) confronts her in the aftermath of Theranos’ dismantling.

As Linda advises Elizabeth to file for bankruptcy, an oddly unbothered Elizabeth quickly segues to showing Linda pictures of her new, young boyfriend Billy while playing with her new dog. “I’m just taking a moment to enjoy myself and have fun,” Elizabeth says. “Oh is that what we’re doing now?” Linda responds incredulously. “I mean, you’re legally barred from running a company for the next 10 years but get a dog and a boyfriend and just have fun!” 

Elizabeth sprints out, running away from Linda’s shouts of, “You hurt people!” and blasting music, detaching but not escaping from the scene. Her lips tremble, teeth chatter, standing on the sidewalk. A scream seems to claw its way from deep within her, veins protruding from every muscle in her body. She glares back at the now desolate Theranos building, still screaming.

And then . . .  just like that, the guise is back. Her Uber is here. “Are you Lizzy?” he asks. “Hi, yes I’m Lizzy,” she says, smiling sweetly.

The rest, as they say, is history. In 2021, Elizabeth had a son. A California jury found her guilty of three counts of fraud and one count of conspiring to defraud public investors. She currently lives with Evans hotel heir Billy Evans in California, out on a $500,000 bond. Her current nine bedroom Silicon Valley estate is worth $135 million. Elizabeth could spend 20 years in jail. 

More stories about scammers to check out:

Netflix’s “Return to Space” filmmakers on why people follow Elon Musk: “He always sees the problem”

After climbing El Capitan for their Oscar-winning documentary, “Free Solo,” and going into caves to “dive out” the Thai soccer team in “The Rescue,” filmmakers E. Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin go to the final frontier with “Return to Space,” their informative chronicle of SpaceX and the new era of human space flight.

The filmmakers track SpaceX and Elon Musk’s failure to launch a rocket (Falcon 1) three times before they reached liftoff. But as the film shows, their trial-and-error period resulted in SpaceX developing the science to perfect booster landings and create a “reusable rocket,” and man a successful commercial mission, Dragon Demo 2, to the International Space Station. Astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley are interviewed in the film about their experiences.

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

In addition to showcasing the Dragon Demo 2 — the best sequences  in “Return to Space” are the ones where there is zero gravity — Vasarhelyi and Chin consider how NASA has changed, ending their space shuttle program, relying on corporate partnerships, as well as ideas about life beyond earth. The filmmakers chatted with Salon about their thoughts about space travel and their new documentary.

Most kids at some point in their lives want to be an astronaut. Did you ever have such aspirations? 

Jimmy Chin: Yes. I still want to be an astronaut. 

E. Chai Vasarhelyi: My dad is a professor of Artificial Intelligence, and he was at Bell Labs in the ’80s and ’90s, and I grew up around nerds and professors. It was always part of our lives. I remember the first time one of his colleagues gave me a picture of an eclipse. It just evolves from there. I have always been interested in space, but I didn’t want to be an astronaut because you had to be a fighter pilot first, or a double Ph.D. physicist. But it is fascinating that this is an area that leads to reflection on humanity itself. I love “Spaceballs” and grew up with sci-fi and Philip K. Dick.

What can you say about the access you had with SpaceX to tell this story? You provide a real insider, behind-the-scenes view of the company. 

Vasarhelyi: We were making this during a pandemic. At one point, there was a rule that no two people can be in the same room on federal property. Imagine making a film in that context! We had great access. This is a very special space where people love what they do. For Hans [Koenigsmann, President of Mission Assurance] and Bala [aka Balachandar Ramamurthy, Director of Flight Safety] to share their world was incredibly important to them.

With SpaceX, there is always so much attention to Elon, but he has an important engineering team behind him that have been with him since the beginning, and you get to know those individuals in the film. There was this internal SpaceX thing that they were happy that Hans was getting that attention and proud to share that story. The same thing with Doug [Hurley] and Bob [Behnken]. NASA just worked with us in a special way to get access and footage that is normally never seen, such as their last phone call to their kids before they board the Dragon.

Chin: It’s a classic documentary example of doing anything and everything you could to get as much access as possible. It’s a similar challenge in documentary work because you want to provide an entire picture.


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


Can you talk about assembling your film and the points you wanted to make and the footage you gathered? This isn’t a “suspense” film in the way “Free Solo” and “The Rescue” were, even though the outcomes of those films (and this one) are known. The strange weather that “scrubs” the launch was arguably the tensest sequence.

“Our relationship to space has changed.”

Vasarhelyi: In terms of footage, we are at mercy of others. We weren’t in space to film material, but we did do two interviews with people in space, which was wild. The narrative was about understanding a moment. It sounds Pollyanna, but if you were able to document and be a fly on the wall for the writing of the Declaration of Independence, our relationship to race and equality would be really different. We would have gotten to a progressive place faster because we would understand the nuances and the grays, and the ethical struggles our founding fathers were negotiating, and business interests. It was kind of that idea — this is the beginning of a return to space which is a reality for my kids. We live on space technology with GPS, and defense, etc. So how would you tell a story that our kids can understand that there were humans involved with human considerations and raising questions that are inevitable now? That was the intention. The narrative is about documenting this Dragon Demo 2, and the people involved in it. Because it is extraordinary — it is the first private flight to space of Americans. That marks how fundamentally our relationship to space has changed.

Chin: We love these stories about humans achieving the impossible and human ingenuity and potential. This story was very emblematic of that — the risks involved and when the stakes are that high, people have to ask themselves the hard questions of why they do what they do. We are interested in characters who make those decisions — who are they, and what are they like? There are a lot of layers to this film. There are the astronauts, and the engineers, who are really responsible for the safety and success of these missions. There is Elon. Having a human face to what’s happening currently in space travel is important in hearing what the intentions are and why these people do what they do.  

Return to SpaceDoug Hurley and Bob Behnken in “Return to Space” (Netflix)

I appreciate how you gave voice to Doug and Bob, the astronauts, as well as many of the SpaceX team as well as Elon Musk. What observations do you have about the personalities featured in the film?  

Vasarhelyi: There was a joke around our office that we could call this film, “Dads in Space.” It’s such a different portrait than Neil Armstrong. Both Doug and Bob are married to fierce female astronauts. Both have kids. It’s a totally different face of an astronaut’s life. Yet, at the same time, Doug is Top Gun, and one of the best test pilots on earth, and that’s how he ended up as an astronaut, and Bob is a double Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and physics. He’s a genius.

The character is not dissimilar in terms of precision and drive, what’s different is this idea of duty, part of an institution they feel great duty towards. SpaceX and NASA intentionally picked them to be the test pilots for Dragon Demo 2 because they had the institutional knowledge. Doug flew the last Shuttle, and they remember the loss of Challenger. They experienced it firsthand. Those are the minds that contributed actively to design of the space capsule. That is what I found very interesting.

I am always impressed with how your films show management and organizational details of a single or massive operation. Can you talk about that theme in your films?

“As controversial as Elon might be, he has a very clear vision.”

Chin: The risks are calculated. In my mind, amidst all the management and logistics, which need to be managed very carefully for a mission to succeed, there still needs to be a buy-in to the mission and that buy-in needs to be with the leadership and someone who has a vision of what they want. And all that trickles down; it’s the same in business, space travel, filmmaking, and certainly, expeditions. I think there is that element. They all bought into this idea of space travel and this mission and why it’s important. Some of those things are personal, but as controversial as Elon might be, he has a very clear vision, and that allows people to bring their best. 

Vasarhelyi: That’s Elon’s genius, his lateral thinking. He has brought disruption to all these industries — PayPal, and Tesla, and the energy industry. When people talked about him as a boss, they said he always sees the problem — that’s a very interesting type of leadership.

Chin: It keeps you thinking, because you are always trying to anticipate the problem that he sees, which is usually probably fundamental, and they are often hidden in the obvious. That’s what great leaders do and see. That’s why we trust them to lead or captain the ship.

Vasarhelyi: Management was the problem with the U.S. space program for many, many years. That was the issue.

Chin: That disruption that Elon has brought with him comes from that ethos which is so much around the mentality of a startup which is: Fail early and fast. That’s an accelerated development process that traditional institutions have not implemented. 

Your film shows how the space race has changed over recent years, with NASA collaborating with Russia and private developers are looking for a foothold in developing launches. What are your thoughts about this trend? Is space travel coming down to, as the film suggests, money and ego with Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Elon Musk’s SpaceX?

Vasarhelyi: Dragon Demo 2 and SpaceX is a win for NASA. NASA and SpaceX worked incredibly closely together. They were true collaborators. They each talk about how they couldn’t have done it without the other. The narrative around billionaire space travel is Paul Allen, Richard Branson, Bezos and Elon. Blue Origin and the rest of the companies are quite far away from what SpaceX has achieved. Not that they won’t get there, but it’s a totally different deal. SpaceX has hundreds of flights under their belt. This is just the first time they put two humans on it.

Space is so intertwined with our current lives – being on Zoom, using GPS – it’s here. The privatization has allowed for more efficiencies and a reduction in costs. And in terms of safety — the Shuttle was stopped because it was just too unsafe and too expensive. It is inevitable that the government will catch up. But NASA’s budget is controlled by Congress so it’s a totally political situation. But a lot of it has changed now with the disruption of SpaceX, and the private sector will be investing in this technology. But how are we going to legislate it? And what are the values that will go into this new dimension of humanity? I hope the film raises some of these questions.

“Return to Space” premieres April 7 on Netflix. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

 More stories to read: 

Public records show California cities funneled COVID relief funds into police coffer

A review of public records has revealed new information as to how a number of California cities put their American Rescue Plan Act (Arpa) and Cares Act stimulus funds to use.

Arpa was initiated by the Biden administration during peak COVID to help with virus related health and safety, as well as to fund housing initiatives, healthcare workers’ salaries, and boost the economic health of small businesses. But some of the largest, most affluent cities in California shared their funds with the police force instead.

Related: As big corporations strike a pose for racial justice, they keep on funding the police

According to a a report by The Guardian that breaks down the city by city findings of the public records review Los Angeles gave 50% of its Arpa funds to the LAPD, Fresno spent roughly 40% of its Cares funds (launched by Trump in 2020) on police, Long Beach spent the majority of its Arpa funds, $135.8 million, on police, Oakland spent 13.5% of its Cares funds on police and Sacramento spent 2.5% on police.


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


Each of the cities highlighted in the report had different explanations for why the funds were used in the way they ended up being used. A representative for Long Beach is quoted by The Guardian as saying that police were “heavily involved in the City’s COVID-19 response” helping to open emergency centers, providing security, and aiding in the smooth and orderly operation of testing and vaccination sites.

Oakland’s controller, Stephen Walsh, said the decision to use Cares funds on police was an “accounting strategy.” And a spokesperson for the Los Angeles controller said Arpa funds that went towards the LAPD were “consistent with the intent of the funds.”

“It was called the ‘American Rescue Plan,’ but you’re telling me that what needed to be rescued was the police department?” said Stephen “Cue” Jn-Marie, a pastor and activist at Skid Row in LA in a quote used by The Guardian. “The city’s knee-jerk reaction is always to use law enforcement to respond to everything … and the police forces keep getting larger.”

Read more:

WTF happened to “Defund the police”? Author Alex Vitale on Ted Cruz and his “McCarthy moment” 

Miami police used traffic stops to push “Trump 2024” merchandise  

Seattle cops planted fake reports of Proud Boys on police radio to scare BLM protesters