Federal judge puts Florida on 10-year probation after ruling voting law disenfranchises Black voters

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that parts of Florida’s new voting restrictions unconstitutionally disenfranchised Black voters and banned the state from making certain voting changes without approval from the court for the next decade.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled that portions of the law restricting the use of ballot drop-boxes, assistance for voters, and third-party voter registration drives violated the Voting Rights Act and constitutional protections because they were passed “with the intent to discriminate against Black voters.”

Walker also ruled that the state must get court approval for the next 10 years before it enacts any other changes related to these rules. The ruling effectively put Florida back under pre-clearance requirements that were imposed on states with a history of discrimination under the Voting Rights Act before the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the preclearance rules in its Shelby County v. Holder decision.

Walker in a 288-page ruling wrote that the requirement was necessary because Florida has “repeatedly, recently, and persistently acted to deny Black Floridians access to the franchise.”

Florida was one of the numerous Republican-led states that passed new voting restrictions amid former President Donald Trump’s campaign to stoke lies about the election, which were often aimed at areas of states he lost that had large Black populations. Walker in his ruling wrote that racism was a “motivating factor” behind Florida’s new voting law, SB 90.

“At some point, when the Florida Legislature passes law after law disproportionately burdening Black voters, this court can no longer accept that the effect is incidental,” Walker wrote. “Based on the indisputable pattern set out above, this court finds that, in the past 20 years, Florida has repeatedly sought to make voting tougher for Black voters because of their propensity to favor Democratic candidates. In summation, Florida has a horrendous history of racial discrimination in voting.”

The preclearance requirement is one of the most aggressive measures federal courts have taken in response to voting restrictions. The “bail-in” provision in Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act allows judges to impose federal oversight of states or localities that have a history of racial discrimination, Travis Crum, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told The New York Times. Prior to Thursday’s ruling, federal courts had only imposed such requirements against New Mexico and Arkansas in cases that were decided decades earlier. Five Florida counties were also placed under preclearance in 1975, according to the Orlando Sentinel. Democrats had pressed federal courts to use the provision over voter ID laws and gerrymanders in North Carolina and Texas but were denied by judges.

Walker’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Florida and the NAACP.

The plaintiffs “allege that SB 90 runs roughshod over the right to vote, unnecessarily making voting harder for all eligible Floridians, unduly burdening disabled voters, and intentionally targeting minority voters—all to improve the electoral prospects of the party in power,” Walker wrote. After poring over thousands of pages of evidence and hearing testimony from dozens of witnesses, he wrote, “this Court finds that, for the most part, Plaintiffs are right.”

Florida’s sweeping restriction law has many similarities to other voting restrictions passed in states like Georgia and Texas in the wake of Trump’s election loss.

“All things being equal, that if the Florida law is intentional discrimination, the Georgia law should be intentional discrimination,” Jonathan Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the Times. “But there’s no guarantee that our judge in Georgia or the judges in the Texas cases are going to look at it the same way.”

There is also no guarantee that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which leaned liberal before Trump packed the bench with conservative judges, will uphold the decision, much less the Trump-packed Supreme Court.

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

Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signed the bill into law, expressed confidence that the ruling would be struck down on appeal and accused Walker of “performative partisanship.”

“There’s an old saying in law,” DeSantis told the Times. “If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, you pound the table. Well, this is the judicial equivalent of pounding the table.”

Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson called the ruling “highly unprofessional, inaccurate and unbecoming of an officer of the court.”

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said the ruling was a “huge deal” and the preclearance requirement a “very strong remedy.” But he agreed that the ruling may be short-lived.

“The district court’s analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court,” he wrote in a blog post.

Other legal experts warned that the judge’s ruling could backfire given the Supreme Court’s willingness to gut voting protections. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an election law expert at Harvard Law School, warned that the Supreme Court could use the case to further weaken the Voting Rights Act.

“From a realistic perspective, it’s unlikely that the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree with the district court that there was racially discriminatory intent in Florida,” he told the Times. “There’s a lurking fear that the same court that decided Shelby County might decide that bail-in is unconstitutional.”

Walker, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2012, in his ruling cited recent Supreme Court decisions to highlight that “the right to vote, and the VRA particularly, are under siege.”

“Federal courts must not lose sight of the spirit that spurred the VRA’s passage,” Walker wrote, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., as saying that “to deny a person the right to exercise his political freedom at the polls is no less a dastardly act as to deny a Christian the right to petition God in prayer.”

“Federal courts would not countenance a law denying Christians their sacred right to prayer,” Walker wrote, “and they should not countenance a law denying Floridians their sacred right to vote.”

Read more:

Midwestern lawmakers are trying to replace Russian oil with ethanol

As gas prices continue to soar following a ban on Russian oil imports, a bipartisan group of Midwestern lawmakers hopes the U.S. can replace the flow with something else: ethanol.

Last week, representatives from Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois introduced the Home Front Energy Independence Act to encourage production of the mainly corn-based fuel, which is mixed with gasoline and sold alongside conventional gas at pumps across the country. The bill would make E15, a blend that contains 15 percent ethanol, available year-round. (The Environmental Protection Agency currently restricts retailers from selling during the summer to allay concerns about its contributions to smog.) It would also establish an E15 tax credit of at least five cents per gallon for blenders and retailers, extend other soon-to-expire tax credits for biofuels, and provide funding for biofuel infrastructure such as fuel tanks and pumps, which need upgrades to handle E15.

The bill mirrors legislation introduced in the Senate in early March, led by Senators Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, and Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat. Both pieces of legislation have sought to complement a ban on Russian, oil, gas, and coal that President Joe Biden announced on March 8.

“With the cost of this war hitting Americans at the gas pump, it’s time to bolster our fuel supply with home-grown biofuels,” Representative Cheri Bustos, an Illinois Democrat, said in a press release. “Not only would this cut gas prices for consumers, but it would also reduce emissions and support our family farmers.”

The White House has signaled that it’s open to expanded E15 sales, and the bill’s sponsors have argued that the U.S. already has enough excess ethanol capacity to make up for Russian oil imports. But some energy experts contend the country would actually have to expand ethanol production significantly to meet the shortfall, meaning the promised price relief could be elusive. Doubts about the environmental benefits of switching to ethanol are substantial, too: Growing, processing, and burning corn to produce ethanol may exacerbate climate change even more than the fossil fuels it could replace.

Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, Democrats and Republicans alike have decried America’s reliance on Russian oil, which forms about 8 percent of U.S. oil imports. But while some Democrats in Congress saw Biden’s ban as an opportunity to transition to a clean energy economy, many Republicans and the fossil fuel industry have seized on the moment to criticize renewable energy policies and call for increased oil production.

The ethanol bill takes a third path, but it’s not clear yet how much support it has in Congress outside of major corn-producing states, especially given that it combines previous pieces of legislation that were never passed. Much of the explicit support it’s received has been from the Renewable Fuels Association, or RFA, a trade group representing the ethanol industry.

“This commonsense legislation would bring immediate economic relief to American families who are experiencing unprecedented pain at the pump, while simultaneously reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and tailpipe pollutants linked to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses,” RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper said in a statement on the group’s website. “Not only would the bill eliminate dependence on Russian oil imports, but it would also ensure that those imports are replaced by more affordable renewable fuels produced right here in America’s heartland.”

The RFA, which has separately urged Biden to use his emergency authorization powers to allow E15 to be sold year-round, stated that the U.S. already has enough ethanol to replace every lost barrel of Russian oil. But Chad Hart, an Iowa State University professor who specializes in agricultural economics, told the Iowa Capital Dispatch that ethanol production may need to increase by more than 30 percent to meet demand.

That expansion could worsen the climate crisis. Refining ethanol produces carbon dioxide, as does burning it — but because it’s made up of plants that pull carbon dioxide out of the air while they’re growing, it has long been considered greener than fossil fuels. Previous studies have found that the average carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol production and consumption are about 20 percent lower than those of gasoline, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture contends that they’re about 40 percent lower.

Other research has disputed this assertion. In February, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, found that ethanol incentives such as the Renewable Fuel Standard — which requires that 36 billion gallons of gasoline are replaced with ethanol each year — encouraged the expansion of corn production, converting carbon-rich forests and grassland into monocrop cornfields that made the fuel least 24 percent more carbon-intensive than gasoline. And that’s not counting the increased use of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers used to grow corn in the U.S., which emit the equivalent of 29.4 million tons of carbon dioxide each year and pollute nearby waterways.

The focus on using farmland to produce ethanol is especially misguided as the invasion of Ukraine threatens global food supplies, according to Silvia Secchi, a sustainability researcher at the University of Iowa. Ukraine is a major producer of wheat and corn, and food prices have soared since the invasion. Given this, Secchi said the U.S. should instead convert more of its corn fields to wheat, particularly to feed vulnerable areas such as the Middle East and Africa.

“It is absolutely ridiculous to be redirecting more of the US corn crop to ethanol while we actually need to do all we can to shore up world food supplies,” Secchi wrote in an email to Grist. “The US farm lobby and its advocates really do not seem to care about the real problems we face but instead want to keep producing a subsidized crop and an obsolete fuel.”

Joe Biden defends democracy abroad — but what about right here at home?

I voted for Joe Biden in 2020. He was the only viable option to defeat Donald Trump and his neofascist regime and movement. I will certainly vote for Joe Biden in 2024 if he chooses to seek the presidency again.

Is Joe Biden perfect? Of course not. Is Biden the “progressive” leader that so many members of the Democratic Party’s base and others wanted? No — and he never was going to be. As a person gets older, they become more their true authentic self. Biden is a man of “the system.” He will not abandon it.

My hope is that Biden can find moments when he surprises himself, and the American people, by being more progressive, more of a change-maker, than he thought he could be. He will have to be pushed to become such a leader. It is not a natural role for him.

But ultimately, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and the point of politics is to get things done. Biden has accomplished a great deal in terms of defeating the coronavirus, rebuilding the American economy, and salvaging a country that was brought to the precipice of ruin by Donald Trump and his regime. Biden has also begun to restore America’s global leadership role.

But my admiration for Biden is colored with mixed emotions, including great sadness. He presents so many frustrating moments when he comes close to being the leader that American democracy needs in this moment of multiple crises. But he cannot or does not take the next step. Some of this is outside his control, such as the Republican opposition, evidently intent on destroying democracy and obstructing his agenda.

But I sometimes still see a president who could be a great champion. Biden’s visit to Poland last week was one such moment. In his Warsaw speech, he stood up to Vladimir Putin, condemned the war in Ukraine, and offered continued support for the Ukrainian people and their struggle against the Russian invaders.

Putin is more than the autocratic leader of Russia. He has become the symbolic leader of the global right, which wants to destroy multiracial democracy and opposes pluralism, cosmopolitanism and a more inclusive and diverse future across North America, Europe and other parts of the world. These are of course the values and goals of the Republican-fascist movement in America, and Biden’s speech in Warsaw must also be understood in that context.

Writing at the Daily Beast, David Rothkopf summarized the power and potential of that speech, comparing it to Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech, given in Missouri in March of 1946.

With his remarks, Biden acknowledged that, solely as a consequence of the ruthless aggression of Vladimir Putin, Europe was once again divided. More broadly, he defined the struggle of the moment as “a new great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between rules-based order and one governed by brute force.”

Biden’s remarks to the massive outdoor crowd were a call to action not just to stop Putin but, as American listeners surely noted, to recognize the threats to democracy that exist within our own country. He not only praised the courage of the people of Ukraine but made it clear that they were fighting on behalf of all of us who value democracy worldwide. He enumerated the ways that the U.S. and our allies would seek to aid Ukraine but he also made it clear that our commitment extended beyond the current war. “We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come,” he said.

Biden’s next words were: “It will not be easy. There will be costs. But it’s a price we have to pay. Because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere.” Rothkopf argues that Biden’s “extemporaneous reference to Putin” in his controversial closing — “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” — was a “moment of clarity from the plain-spoken president” which made clear that “Biden’s passion was deeply felt and real”:

It was the truth at a time when it is essential to be honest about Putin’s barbarism and the threat he poses not just to the world, but to the people of his own country who will be denied full access to the community of nations so long as he remains in office.

Thus, my feelings of great frustration when I think of Joe Biden. He understands the connections between the fight against fascism and other forms of authoritarianism abroad and the battle against the Republican-fascist movement and white supremacy here at home. In that light, his failure to fully defend American democracy is a choice.

Biden understands the connections between the fight against authoritarianism abroad and the battle at home. His failure to defend American democracy is a choice.

In his role as president, Biden is the chief executive, leading law enforcement officer, secular priest, national cheerleader and, of course, commander in chief. An American president commands a bully pulpit of unequal power, and has powers concentrated in one person and office that are unique among Western democracies. Biden is not using the full range of his powers to defend democracy against the neofascists who are attacking it from within. He has spoken with great sincerity about the depth of America’s current crisis, but he has not responded with urgent action.

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

Every day week we learn more about Donald Trump’s coup cabal, their many obvious crimes and how close they actually came to nullifying the 2020 presidential election. The coup of 2021 continues and has never stopped.

It appears likely that Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was among the Trump coup plotters, and that her husband has used his power to shield her from accountability. In a better world, Clarence Thomas would be removed from the Supreme Court for his obvious ethical violations. Since that will not happen, Biden and the Democratic leadership in Congress should use Thomas’ corruption and betrayal of the rule of law and the Constitution as an urgent reason to expand the Supreme Court. It is not likely that will happen either.

Donald Trump has once again publicly asked Vladimir Putin to interfere in domestic American politics, this time by “releasing” (or inventing) supposed information that will implicate Biden and his family in a scandal. Trump and his allies will then use this “information” as part of a scheme to somehow remove Biden from the presidency.

More than seven hours of entries are missing from the White House presidential call logs on Jan. 6. 2021. In all likelihood, they were deliberately deleted. In the hours during which Trump’s attack force overran the Capitol, we are supposed to believe that Trump ceased all communication with his allies, advisers and others in his inner circle. This is inconceivable: As others have concluded, Trump and his cabal were likely using disposable “burner phones” to coordinate their next moves in the coup attempt.

The House committee that is investigating Trump’s coup plot and related events lacks the power to properly enforce its subpoenas or other demands. Many high-profile members of Trump’s inner circle, including Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows and Peter Navarro, have refused to cooperate, making a mockery of both congressional oversight and the rule of law. Despite occasional rumblings to the contrary, to this point Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice have proceeded as though they are more afraid of looking “political” and “partisan” by enforcing the law than of the implications of allowing Trump and his coup plotters to remain free to continue their assault on democracy.

On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge in California ruled that John Eastman, the law professor who attempted to craft a legal rationale for rejecting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, must release his emails to the House select committee. In his ruling, the judge found that it was “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. … If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”

Merrick Garland seems more afraid of looking “partisan” by enforcing the law than of allowing Trump and his accomplices to remain free and continue their assault on democracy.

In America, no one is supposed to be above the law. Throughout his life, Donald Trump has openly flouted that rule. Joe Biden clearly believes in the enduring power of the country’s governing institutions, in consensus politics, the Constitution and the rule of law. He also believes in national unity, a shared political culture and the inherent goodness of the American people — including those who support Trump and the Republicans. In practical terms that means that Biden, like many other leading Democrats, is unable or unwilling to face the reality of America’s democracy crisis and what is demanded to fix it. This “normalcy bias” and the inertia it creates may very well be fatal to our nation’s democratic experiment.

Barbara Walter, author of “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them,” expounded on this in a recent interview with Salon:

The American people as a whole have not witnessed the horrible things that human beings can do to each other because they have not been the target of such violence — except, of course, for African-Americans and other people of color who do see the approaching violence and disaster. Many white Americans do not want to see it. They do not want to hear the metaphorical train that is coming at them because they have not been targets of such violence as a group.

White Americans as a group tend not to believe the warnings by Black and brown people and others who see what is happening. Because they haven’t had the direct experience, the hard evidence, of such things being true. I also believe that’s because white Americans have a vested interest in the system. They really want to believe that the system is OK, and if they just keep their heads down and just weather this storm, everything’s going to be OK.

In a series of tweets, political commentator and author Jared Yates Sexton wrote that new evidence emerges almost daily to show that Jan. 6, 2021, “was not only an attempted coup but that the efforts were widespread. And every day it becomes more obvious how much our media and pundits either failed or simply weren’t willing to care about the overthrow of an election”:

Top to bottom, our media and political class are so insulated and compromised by their economic and social statuses that they are either incapable of recognizing the attack on democracy or else complicit. These last few years have been disastrously instructive.

Never forget for a second how many people spent years profiting off Trump while assuring everyone there was no way he or the GOP would ever attack democracy. And then, when they did, they pretended it didn’t happen, that it wasn’t serious.

David Bowie’s music has been my constant companion during these last six or seven years of trying to make sense of watching America’s democracy collapse in real time and seeing fascist monsters reborn in the 21st century. I have no grand theory or profound observations about semiotics and music to explain why this is. Bowie’s music just feels right to me for this interregnum period amid all the doom and trouble that menace America.

When I think of Joe Biden, that man who could be champion, and the feelings of frustration mixed with sadness I so often experience while observing his presidency, I imagine him as Major Tom in Bowie’s song “Space Oddity.” The president and the song are not a perfect fit, to be sure. But art does not work that way: These are questions of impressions, emotions and pathos.

I hear these lyrics (too often):

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?

In America’s democracy crisis, Joe Biden is that brave astronaut. Something has gone wrong with his spaceship, and his journey is heading toward a tragic conclusion. Ground control is trying to keep him calm. But they cannot save him.

But while Major Tom knows he is doomed, Joe Biden still has time to be America’s champion. It’s not too late, Joe, but you are running out of time. You are not powerless to shape the outcome of history — and you must act now to save America’s future.

Read more from Salon on Joe Biden’s dilemma:

Why Trump is suing Hillary Clinton: Weaponizing the law is his favorite tactic

Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on March 24 in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida charging Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and various other people with attempting to rig the 2016 election by tying his campaign to Russian meddling.

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

This comes straight out of the Trump playbook of suing and countersuing, and references a long list of grievances that Trump has been repeatedly airing since he was elected in 2016, not to mention his continued false claims that his 2020 defeat was the product of widespread fraud and conspiracy.

Ordinary people who get caught up in lengthy legal battles, on whatever side of the conflict, generally find the experience to be costly to their pocketbooks, reputations and mental wellness. As someone who has been involved in more than 4,000 legal battles since 1973, Trump is clearly an exception to the rule.

He loves litigation as much as his cans of Diet Coke or boxes of fast food burgers or 36 holes of golf twice weekly. As a real estate tycoon, entrepreneur, entertainer and politician, Trump boasts: “I’ve taken advantage of the laws. And frankly, so has everybody else in my position.”

Trump’s modus operandi, whether in politics or litigation, has always been about “the pot calling the kettle black” — or perhaps, in psychological terms, about projection. Here we have a situation where the actual racketeer and conspirator who has escaped two impeachments, the latter for having unsuccessfully conspired to steal the 2020 election, is predictably alleging racketeering, conspiracy and victimization by his opponents.

For Trump, litigation as a weapon has always been about attracting attention, exercising economic pressure, wearing down opponents and letting everyone know not to mess with the Donald. It’s rarely about the facts or the law.

As litigator in chief, Donald Trump has been in a league of his own. In some 60 percent of 3,500 lawsuits, Trump has been the suing plaintiff rather than the sued defendant. His win-loss record is undeniably impressive: He has won 451 times and lost only 38.

As a defendant, Trump has persuaded judges to dismiss some 500 plaintiffs’ cases against him. Hundreds of other cases have ended with unclear legal resolutions, according to available public records.

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

Trump has sued and been sued by personal assistants, celebrities, mental patients, prisoners, unions, rival businesspeople and his own family members.

Since the 1970s, he has been sued for race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, fraud, breaches of trust, money laundering, defamation, stiffing creditors and defaulting on loans.

In turn, plaintiff Trump has sued people for fraud, breach of trust, breach of contract, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, for government favoritism, and for misappropriation or adulteration of the Trump name.

Once again, it seems that Trump’s weaponization of the law is paying off. It now appears almost certain that neither the district attorney in Manhattan nor the U.S. attorney general will ever criminally charge Trump for his crimes of racketeering or insurrection.

Roy Cohn, who was the first of Trump’s personal attorneys and “fixers” to be disbarred or suspended for lawless conduct — followed by Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani — taught Trump the art of the linguistic lie as a way of moving through life, business, politics and the law.

Trump’s primer on the law included Cohn’s three rules of litigation: Never settle, never surrender; counterattack immediately; no matter the outcome, always claim victory. Over the course of his litigious life, Trump was better at adhering to the latter two rules than the first, because the social reality of legal facts often dictates settling.

Cohn also taught Trump other related lessons, including but not limited to focusing on short-term victories, employing any unscrupulous means necessary to achieve them, doing end-runs around the judicial system, fixing disputed outcomes and the value of always defending yourself by going on the offensive.

As Cohn’s apprentice, Trump would eventually take the art of his the lie to an even higher (or lower) level than Cohn himself or Trump’s father, Fred Trump Sr., who was also a serial fabricator of the truth, could possibly have imagined.

Read more from Salon on the previous president:

The Republican takeover of Wisconsin: GOP officials defy the courts and the voters

A circuit judge on Thursday found the Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Republican, in contempt of court for refusing to turn over documents relating to the state’s recount of the 2020 presidential election.

“Robin Vos had delegated the search for contractors’ records to an employee who did nothing more than send one vague email to one contractor,” wrote Dane County Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn. “Putting aside for the moment the impropriety of making a contractor responsible for a records request … Robin Vos did not tell [sic] that contractor which records to produce, did not ask any of the other contractors to produce records, and did not even review the records ultimately received. Still worse, the Assembly did nothing at all.”

Bailey-Rihn has ordered Vos to release the materials within fourteen days or pay a daily fine of $1,000 any time after that, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Bailey-Rihn established that, if the documents aren’t provided, Vos must provide an explanation.

Wednesday’s ruling stems from an inquiry Vos launched back in May off the back of Donald Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. According to The Washington Post, Vos’ sham audit, which has a taxpayer-funded budget of $700,000, has enlisted the help of retired police officers and an attorney. Thus far, Vos has also subpoenaed scores of election officials across the state in metropolitan areas like Green Bay, Racine and Milwaukee.

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

In October, nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight filed a lawsuit against Vos and the Wisconsin State Assembly demanding that the judge release records detailing the investigation – a request that Bailey-Rihn has now affirmed.

“Speaker Vos and the Assembly have had ample opportunity to comply with the court’s order and produce records,” Bailey-Rihn wrote.

Still, Bailey-Rihn’s ruling only deals with one of three suits filed by American Oversight.

Vos, for his part, has suggested that Bailey-Rihn’s ruling is part of a politically-motivated smear campaign.

“It’s a liberal judge in Dane County trying to make us look bad. I don’t know about you, but when you have deleted emails, how do you get deleted emails back if they’re from Gmail?” he said, according to Madison.com. “We already have an expert saying they can’t be done. You have a judge who’s focused on making a name for herself, and that’s all she’s doing.”

Thus far, no substantive evidence has emerged to justify the Vos’ recount, for which he is being paid $11,000 a month. President Biden defeated Trump by a margin of 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, a result that a conservative law firm confirmed in December after a ten-month review of the election.

The ruling against the GOP speaker comes amid another outrage over the Republican takeover of the state’s Natural Resources Board, which, like Vos’ sham audit, is benefiting from a highly partisan State Assembly willing to defy the norms of good government.

On Friday, the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board called on Fred Prehn to resign from the Natural Resources Board over his refusal to step down eleven months after his term expired. Prehn will theoretically be able to continue serving until his replacement is confirmed by the State Assembly, whose Republican caucus is indefinitely delaying the transition.

“Prehn seems to think he can serve for life, like an emperor,” the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board wrote. “If that’s true, then good government in Wisconsin is further eroded – along with the public’s ability to hold government officials accountable.”

Why the anti-abortion activists aren’t pro-life

Abortion bans are not pro-life. They’re pro-poverty and pro-inequality.

I’ll tell you what we can do about it in a moment. But first, let me explain how these bans worsen inequalities.

You’ve probably heard of the two abortion cases making their way through the courts. But it’s not just Texas and Mississippi’s new bans. For years, Republican state lawmakers – almost entirely white men – have been chipping away at reproductive freedom: enacting laws that lead to clinic closures, force people to travel hundreds of miles for abortions, and create near-insurmountable barriers for low-income people, especially people of color.

Make no mistake: bans like those in Texas and Mississippi won’t stop abortions. Wealthy people will always have access, but millions of low-income people will be forced to give birth – with dire consequences for both parent and child.

Pregnant people in Texas now have to travel an average of 247 miles to get an abortion. Who but the wealthy can afford this? Only one third of the lowest paid workers receive paid sick days, while 95% of the highest paid do. Taking just one unpaid day off from a low-wage job can mean sacrificing groceries, electricity, or gas.

These restrictions worsen inequality, and have lifelong effects.

One study found that being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term makes it nearly 4 times more likely that parent and child will live below the poverty line. They’re also less likely to have full-time work, and more likely to have public assistance four years later. Decades of research confirm that abortion access improves education, employment, and earnings — and the differences are especially large for Black people.

It’s not just economics. Restricting abortion puts people’s health at risk. Researchers found that abortion legalization in the 1970s reduced deaths among Black mothers by 30 to 40 percent.

The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is poised to gut or even overturn Roe v. Wade. If they do, 21 states already have laws that will go into effect to severely restrict or outright ban all abortions immediately – threatening the livelihoods and health of millions of low-income Americans.

Congress must codify Roe v. Wade into federal law — now — by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act. It’s already been passed in the House but is being blocked in the Senate by – you guessed it – a Republican filibuster.

Let’s be clear: there is nothing “pro-life” about forced pregnancy and forced birth. The freedom to choose when, how, and with whom you start a family should not be dictated by your income or where you live. Congress must act to protect reproductive now, freedom before it’s too late.

Jared Kushner just testified about Jan. 6 — and what he said about Ivanka Trump may be critical

Former senior White House aide Jared Kushner testified on Thursday before the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Politico reported Kushner “did not play a visible role in the former president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, though he was a top adviser during much of Trump’s presidency. According to a recent book by ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Kushner was involved in multiple conversations about how to delicately explain to Trump that he had lost the election and interacted with other senior administration officials who were exasperated by Trump’s refusal to concede. Kushner had reportedly steered clear of Trump in the chaotic final weeks of his presidency and was out of town until the afternoon on Jan. 6.”

Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), who sits on the select committee, was asked about Kushner’s testimony by MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace.

“He was able to voluntarily provide information to us to verify, substantiate, provide his own take on this different reporting, so it was really valuable,” Luria said.

On CNN, law professor and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman offered his analysis.

Litman noted Kushner showed up in the text messages sent between Ginni Thomas and Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“But the most important, I think, is Ivanka,” Litman said. “They can ask him things about her and we know that she figures centrally, she’s the person that people tried to prevail on repeatedly to have Trump call of the dogs. Just his testifying, I think, makes it more likely — or puts more pressure on her to testify. She’s in voluntary negotiations now.”

“The most important, I think, is Ivanka. They can ask him things about her.”@harrylitman joins @CNNnewsroom to explain the significance of Jared Kushner’s appearance in front of the Jan. 6 committee. pic.twitter.com/FPSlkkPeL4

— CNN (@CNN) March 31, 2022

An unprecedented Colorado wildfire is burning despite the presence of snow on the ground

To those who live in wildfire-prone areas, the prospect of wildfires, though certainly not welcome, are expected. An odd canter emerges from an otherwise seasonally pleasant rhythm. Yet it now appears destabilized. What semblance of security snow cover once provided evaporated this past weekend as Colorado’s second major fire threatened roughly 8,000 residential buildings. And perhaps most shockingly, the wildfire roared through a snowy landscape.

Beneath the iconic slabs of red sandstone — sentinels marking the boundary of the Great Plains — known as the Flatirons, the NCAR Fire ignited last Saturday in Boulder. Skirting the southern edge of the city, the wildfire tore through 190 acres of still-dormant grass on the snow-speckled foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Unusually warm weather leading into the weekend led to a great deal of moisture in the soil from snow melt. Where there was no snow cover, flames prevailed.

A 27-year veteran of wildfire management in Colorado, Boulder Wildland Division Chief Brian Oliver told reporters “anytime there’s not snow, there’s fire.”

“Fire season’s year-round now,” Oliver continued. “There’s really no season. If there’s not active precipitation or snow on the ground, as you can see, it’s March, there’s no fire season, per se, and we just had a 200-acre fire.”

Acting as an incident command trainee, Oliver managed containment efforts with several other commanders.

There is no hard and fast rule dictating that fires occur strictly in the four-month period from June to September known as “fire season.” However, wildfire danger levels have historically been quite low outside of that period. A culmination of risk factors — an ignition source and readily available dry fuel — rarely align.

Though fires are not unheard of in March, they have by no means been the norm. That may not be the case as climate change continues to accelerate drought and alter regional atmospheric conditions. As Boulder County now experiences warmer winters, less snow-pack, and earlier spring runoff, according to the University of Colorado, Boulder, the fire season there is likely to double.

Oliver’s statement represents a broader shift as federal agencies, including the United States Department of Agriculture, officially recognize that wildfire prone areas have succumbed to longer periods in which fire is prevalent. Experts at NOAA analyzing meteorological records found that, on average, Colorado got 2º F hotter over the last 30 years. Within that time period, the 10 largest fires in recorded history of the state occurred after 2002.

That is, the Marshall Fire fits into a relatively recent trend of large wildfires outside of the typical fire season as does the still-smoldering NCAR Fire. In fact, they were not alone. Several smaller blazes ignited further north in the last few days, according to data the Fire, Weather & Avalanche Center compiles continuously. Thousands of acres burn across Texas and Florida.

“More and larger co-occurring fires are already altering vegetation composition and structure, snowpack, and water supply to our communities,” Iglesias explained.

“For many USDA Forest Service employees, fire season is something they remember from the start of their careers, when they quickly learned there were five seasons: winter, spring, summer, fall and fire season,” reads a statement on their website. “However, wildfire is year-round for much of the United States and the Forest Service is shifting to the concept of a fire year.”

The prevalence of wildfires in Boulder is a bellwether indicative of a shift toward year-round wildfires. Dr. Janice Coen, an expert in wildland fire modeling, emphasized, however, that examining a single wildfire, a single fire season or even a decades-long trend, however, as an example of the human impact on climate conflates correlation with cause. Foresters and fire ecologists, experts from whom wildfire management specialists like Oliver draw information about wildfires, employ methods of observation and trend forecasting Coen described as speculative.

Coincidentally, Coen is a research scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research’s (NCAR), for which the NCAR Fire was named as a result of the proximity of one of its labs to the burn area.

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

“If we are in one of these periods where the snow cover is covering the ground for less of the year, that’s increasing that component and it increases the probability that a large rapidly growing fire can take place,” she added.

Still reeling from the astonishingly rapid spread of Marshall Fire, city officials issued evacuation orders that displaced over 19,000 people, including employees at the NCAR Mesa Lab. At a media briefing on the scene, Oliver reported minimal losses and zero fatalities as of Monday. The NCAR Fire stopped forward progress within 100 yards of residential properties.

Halted spread and the prospect of rain prompted authorities to optimistically lift evacuation orders.

Just three months ago, communities nearby in Louisville, Superior, and surrounding areas were not so lucky. Only debris and foundations remained of over 1,000 homes. Officials presume two individuals still missing are deceased. In the aftermath, charred human remains were found in the rubble. Still more buildings were damaged, and police perimeters continue to guard neighborhoods from looting.

Calling it a “big community win” Oliver applauded the interagency operation at the NCAR fire. It could have been much worse. With an estimated $1 billion in insurance claims alone, in terms of property loss, the Marshall Fire that overshadowed the first days of 2022 dwarfs the NCAR Fire as Colorado’s most destructive fire on record.

Since the Dec. 31 Marshall Fire, almost 15,000 fires and over 500,000 acres have been burned across the nation. Parsing out the exact reason why remains more difficult. While it is clear that humans have created conditions ripe for larger wildfires, not all scientists agree about the relative influence of human-driven fuel loading and droughts on the actual wildfires.

Coen added that drought is not even a necessary precondition for these grass fires like NCAR and Marshall. What is significant is not the moisture in the soil. Oliver added that grass is still dormant until later in the spring, so it doesn’t take up any of the moisture from the soil. Without snow cover, it can dry out rapidly. With the Marshall Fire, the alignment of factors aligned horrifically.

“The winds were blowing strongly, so the grass dried quickly, and we had a fortuitous ignition,” she said. “When you have this underlying susceptibility — in this case the grasses could come into that condition very quickly on top of which there’s a weather event, which last one to five days, typically, and on top of that, you have a fortuitous ignition. So it’s when three things happen at the same time, rather than necessarily things getting drier and drier and drier.”

Comparatively, the Marshall Fire dwarfed the NCAR Fire, tearing through over 6,000 acres of residential areas in Boulder County. Wind gusts topping out at over 100-mph whipped up fire whirls — tornado-like columns of flame — that leapt across neighborhoods. Firefighting efforts were not enough to stop the flames then, but wind was on the side of firefighters this time. Coen indicated that the prevalence of such strong winds coming down from the mountains is becoming increasingly common in Colorado.

The frequency of these weather episodes of one to five days that can simultaneously dry grasses and spread large fires open the tinder box so to speak, but the match is an increasing encroachment of development into these fire prone areas. Lightning rarely overlaps with dry spells. A vast majority of fires are actually started by people directly.

“Development introduces ignitions (e.g., cigarette butts, powerlines) and flammable material to fire-prone areas, thus increasing the probability of fire itself.”

“Many of the homes burned in Superior, CO definitely weren’t there when I moved here almost 30 years ago — and our electricity structures and our cars and everything else we bring with us,” Coen described.

From 1945 to 2015, according to Dr. Virginia Iglesias, a researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Earth Lab, human encroachment on fire prone areas was 10 times higher than it was nationally and densification of already developed land was three times higher.

“The consequences of these trends are twofold,” Iglesias explained. “First, accelerated development in hazardous areas implies that the number of homes that could be affected by fires is increasing rapidly. Second, development introduces ignitions (eg, cigarette butts, powerlines) and flammable material to fire-prone areas, thus increasing the probability of fire itself.”

“Decades of fire suppression in several regions have resulted in fuel build-up conducive to more intense fires,” Iglesias said. “In the West, aridification has doubled the extent of fire prone ecosystems. Up to two thirds of this increase in aridity have been attributed to anthropogenic warming.”

In a March 16 paper published in Nature, Iglesias and other scientists found that fires in the United States have quadrupled in size while tripling in frequency and range in the last two decades. Their analysis showed that changes in climate, fuel and ignitions projected for arid regions of the continental United States — the West, Southwest, and Great Plains — are already underway.

“We documented a shift to more and larger fires, and found that fires today affect areas that didn’t burn in the past,” asserted Inglesias. “Concurrent ignition, fuel, and low moisture are prerequisites for burning. Other studies have shown that, although natural variability possibly played a role in altering fire patterns, anthropogenic impact largely explains the changes in fire.”

According to Coen, large fires tend to occur when there is an underlying susceptibility, but drought is not the only factor. There are several components: Was it a day when the fuels were dry enough? Was there weather to spread the fire? Did we have an ignition at the location to take advantage of that?

“If the seasons are extending when the ground is susceptible, that increases our fire risk. If there are more people bringing ignitions, that increases our risk. It’s just that it’s not just one of them. We have to look at them together.”

These are constantly shifting and so much complexity underlies various natural cycles determining wildfire prevalence as Coen highlighted, but what matters is that the trend is there. A need for adaptation to these wildfires is clear.

“More and larger co-occurring fires are already altering vegetation composition and structure, snowpack, and water supply to our communities,” Iglesias explained. “This trend is challenging fire-suppression efforts and threatening the lives, health, and homes of millions of Americans.”

Read more on wildfires and climate:

The joy of HBO Max’s Julia Child series, a deliciously affectionate celebration of an icon

It was the Queen of Sheba’s cameo that got me, unexpectedly appearing more than midway through HBO Max’s “Julia” premiere. In this telling, Julia Child (Sarah Lancashire) has an uphill climb to win over dismissive male producers at WGBH, Boston’s public television station, eggheads who pooh-pooh the intellectual value of a show that demystifies the art of French cooking.

They lacked the vision to see that Child was on to something that would transform the way Americans think about food. The scene in question shows her determination to get them on her page: Julia gaily waltzes into the offices of WGBH, cake plate in hand and ready to negotiate with a side of sugar. Once inside, she unveils her small masterpiece, explaining to her greatest fan and future producer Alice Naman (Brittany Radford) that its simplicity is one of the reasons she adores it. That’s when my eyes welled up.

The recipe’s simplicity also is why I could make that cake in grade school, having copied down the ingredients from a recording of “The French Chef,” the very show she’s pitching. In the same way Lancashire’s Julia arms herself with an extra helping of chocolaty persuasion, I made my share of Reine de Sabas for school occasions and church functions, for gifts to neighbors and friends, as general a token of, as Julia might have put it, bonhomie.

Julia (Seacia Pavao / HBO Max)Julia Child’s legacy is constructed on a granite-solid foundation of nostalgia unmatched by most

I was programmed to embrace her from early childhood

because of the place she holds in our memory, whether collective or individual. Reruns of “The French Chef” aired after my local public TV station’s children’s programming block ended, making it very likely that I was programmed to embrace her from early childhood.

Women who held a certain image of her from way back then may see her in another light now. There is no way I would have fully appreciated the sundry social, gender and political subtexts “Julia” explores even a decade ago, for the simple reason of being closer to the age she was when her popularity ascended.

Times have changed since Child’s era, but only by increments, as the show demonstrates. Alice, Julia and her best friend Avis (Bebe Neuwirth) and other women are constantly navigating the fragile male egos in their orbit, whether in the form of WGBH’s sexist elitists or Julia’s own husband Paul, played by David Hyde Pierce. And one of the main ways Julia succeeds is by acknowledging their misogyny and turning it back on them.

They try to write her off because she isn’t conventionally telegenic, but that’s disproven when a guest appearance on a dull as dust literary show results in the station getting more positive letters than ever. She pitches a TV pilot anyway; they continue to reject it out of snobbery. But she is insistent.

“One of the advantages of looking like me is that you learn at a young age not to take no for an answer,” she coos. Still, station producer Russ Morash (Fran Kranz) isn’t convinced. “No offense, but it this what we really think public television should be doing?” he asks the men in the room, ignoring Alice and Julia.

In response one of them eye-humps the Queen of Sheba. “Cut me a slice.”

Foodies raised in the era of Rachael Ray and Martha Stewart, likely appreciate Child through documentaries, culinary competitions like “The Julia Child Challenge,” and the odd “Saturday Night Live” repeat featuring Dan Aykroyd’s famous impersonation.

Through “Julia,” showrunner Chris Keyser digs into the humanity underneath the ideal, giving us another ambitious woman that is in some respects the forerunner of Deborah Vance, Jean Smart’s unsinkable comedian at the heart of “Hacks.” Lancashire’s Julia is a stately woman who curses and bawdily describes chicken parts, and she knows she can get away with that because she has no aspirations to be a sex symbol.

And “Julia” lives up to the popular image of Child as a bubbly, matronly professor of joie de vivre while also reminding us that she became an icon through her own effort (and financial investment, as the writers depict), and despite the obstacles placed in her path. She’s also revealed to have few hang-ups, some of which are instilled in her psyche by men like her father (James Cromwell), who grudgingly puts up with his daughter’s demonstrative self-reliance as he looks down on Paul.

This is another facet of the show’s effort to grapple with the way successful women must constantly battle sexism and patriarchal pushback. Yet another surfaces in the form of Child’s discomfort with homosexuality despite her devoted friendship with James Beard (Christian Clemenson). Then again, a wild day out they share has the dual role of pointing out Child’s privilege as a wealthy white woman arriving on the national stage in time of societal tumult. “America can’t love a fat old fairy like me,” Beard tells Julia, adding with genuine affection, “You, on the other hand, make people very happy, including me.”

Lancashire, primarily known to American viewers from “Last Tango in Halifax” and “Happy Valley,” presents Julia as a combination of savory and sweet, with a dash of bitter melancholy. She is unafraid to bare Julia’s calluses and cracks, making her more human and whole in the process.

Like any story sauced with nostalgia, “Julia” folds in passages that are expressly engineered to achieve maximum heartstring-tugging throughout its first season. Some lurk within fictional recreations of scenes based upon Julia Child’s life and legend. Other tearjerker moments are products of artistic license, as one is apt to liberally employ in a show like this.

Mainly this plays out within the prevailing mythology surrounding Julia’s marriage. The common story is that her husband Paul supported her unconditionally in her career. Maybe that was entirely true, which “Julia” acknowledges, in its way, by consistently showing how loving they are to one another. But it also makes a multicourse meal out of Paul’s petulance at Julia’s successes, giving Pierce an excuse to pull shades of Niles Crane out of deep storage, setting him into full French farce mode.

Julia (Seacia Pavao / HBO Max)Still, Paul’s conditional support is one of the ways “Julia” subtly critiques the pursuit of fame, writing love letters to it in some scenes and quietly resenting it in a mixed bag in others. “It’s lovely,” Julia says of her sudden success, “until I really think about it. And then it’s less lovely.”

Julia Child was never enough in some way for a lot of people, everywhere

Where the show is most poignant is in the ways it reminds worshipful stans that in her time Julia Child was never enough in some way for a lot of people, everywhere. Even when “The French Chef” becomes a breakout hit and brings revenue in to WGBH, Russ resents being associated with the show.

When someone cuts her down to her face, the shock, hurt and embarrassment blazing across Lancashire’s expression is absolutely devastating. This happens enough times that when an episode ends with a tear-inducing surprise courtesy of another comforting legend, you might feel your stomach untwist.

“Julia” isn’t without its flaws, and if you’ve passed your saturation threshold with all things Julia Child this show may feel far less essential than others. Episodes emphasize a brightness and zest to overpower the shades of blue written into Lancashire’s character, an approach that also sanitizes the battles women like Bradford’s Alice Naman had to fight.

That character is based in part on WGBH producer Ruth Lockwood, who was responsible for bringing a number of series like “The French Chef” to the air; she’s also depicted by a Black woman who is confident in her abilities and survives through forbearance and a high tolerance for frustration. While “Julia” doesn’t hesitate to depict the misogyny Alice faces, it balks at directly engaging with the prevalent racism in 1960s Boston. Instead we’re meant to get what’s implied when she’s ignored in stores or meets other Black people at all diners where everyone else looks like them, which is accurate to the era yet avoidant in terms of truly showing that part of its reality.

One defense of that, I suppose, is that viciousness would sink the souffle – and “Julia” is nothing if not a spirited balance of substance and airiness devoted to deflating arrogance and exclusion. Child’s critics might scoff at this, pointing out all the groundbreaking chefs who came before and after her only to exist her shadow. (For a while every up-and-coming chef was the “Julia Child” of their culinary specialty.)

Want great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.

She taught Americans how to taste life

And yet, “Julia” is fulfilling for the same reason that Julia Child was and continues to be. As her husband Paul puts it, she taught Americans how to taste life. By showing us how to cook well, Child lent nobility to our daily lives and a renewed appreciation of the necessary task of making dinner. “The French Chef” exposed Americans to the joy of being in her company for half an hour every week. “Julia” delectably continues that tradition.

“Julia” debuts with three episodes Thursday, March 31 on HBO Max, and will release episodes weekly. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories like this:

A nurse’s fatal mistake ends in a guilty verdict. Now, the nursing community is terrified

Nurses across the United States are up in arms over the trial of a former nurse named RaDonda Vaught, whom a jury found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and impaired adult abuse after she made a fatal error in giving a drug to a patient in 2017.

Yet numerous nurses and nursing associations fear that the guilty verdict could set a dangerous precedent for an already overworked and under-resourced workforce, as it sets a precedent that could result in prosecution of other nurses who diligently report their mistakes.

Vaught now faces up to eight years in prison; she was first acquitted for reckless homicide.

Attention towards Vaught’s case from the nursing world was perhaps heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has severely strained the healthcare system and brought attention to labor conditions in hospitals. On multiple social media platforms, nurses posted stories under the hashtag #IamRadondaVaught, sharing their fear that even by doing their due diligence at work they could suffer Vaught’s fate.

The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) shared a representative sentiment.

“Vaught immediately reported her error to her supervisors and took responsibility for her actions,” AACN said. “This criminal prosecution and verdict will negatively impact the timely and honest reporting of errors; in addition, this case has further demoralized an already exhausted and overworked nursing workforce in the face of existing nurse staffing shortages.”

Vaught was tasked to retrieve a sedative called Versed from a computerized medication cabinet called an AccuDose machine, according to court documents. The sedative was meant to calm Murphey’s anxiety before being scanned in a diagnostic machine.

“We are deeply distressed by this verdict and the harmful ramifications of criminalizing the honest reporting of mistakes,” the American Nurses Association (ANA) and the Tennessee Nurses Association (TNA) said in a joint statement. “The nursing profession is already extremely short-staffed, strained and facing immense pressure – an unfortunate multi-year trend that was further exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic; this ruling will have a long-lasting negative impact on the profession.”

The nuances of Vaught’s case hint at issues the healthcare industry has been facing for quite some time — and while there is some nuance in the details of her case specifically, these are the undisputed facts: In 2019, Vaught was charged and arrested with reckless homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult in connection with the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in late December 2017. The arrest came after Vaught faced allegations that she didn’t properly monitor Murphey after Murphey was injected with the wrong drug.

Murphey was initially admitted to the hospital for bleeding in her brain. While Murphey appeared to be recovering, and was being prepared for discharge, Vaught was tasked to retrieve a sedative called Versed from a computerized medication cabinet called an AccuDose machine, according to court documents. The sedative was meant to calm Murphey’s anxiety before being scanned in a diagnostic machine similar to a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine.

According to court documents, Vaught went to the AccuDose machine to get the medicine but couldn’t find Versed in Murphey’s chart. Vaught turned to another computer, the Medication Administration Record (MAR), and found there was an order for Versed in Murphey’s chart. Since she couldn’t find Versed in the AccuDose machine, Vaught typed in “VE,” selected the first medication on the list — Vecuronium Bromide — and overrode the system — which, according to the documents, is a common practice among nurses trying to navigate a machine that often fails. The paralyzing medication, Vecuronium Bromide, left Murphey brain dead. Vaught allegedly admitted to the error.

As outlined by the Tennessean, the details of what happened next get murkier. At first, Murphey’s death was reported as “natural” and not a medical error. It wasn’t until October 2018 that an anonymous tipster alerted state and federal health officials that Murphey’s death was the cause of a medical error. Later on, Vaught’s criminal defense attorney, Peter Strianse, insisted that Vanderbilt shares blame for the death.

“I think when this case is tried, and the facts come out, it’s a mistake and it’s not all of her fault either,” Strianse said. “There are some real systemic problems with the way they dispense medicine through that automatic dispensing system.”

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

Following the verdict, many nurses have argued on social media that Vecuronium Bromide shouldn’t be a drug that can be overrode or loosely stored in a computerized pharmacy. In other words, much of the blame should be on the institution’s machine, which casually dispensed a deadly drug.

The prosecutors, on the other hand, argue that Vaught neglected reading important information about the medicine — for example, how she allegedly didn’t notice the drug was supposed to be a liquid but was instead a powder. She also allegedly didn’t notice any warnings on the medication bottle, such as “WARNING: PARALYZING AGENT.” According to the court documents, Vaught admitted to being a bit distracted.

In the joint American Nurses Association and Tennessee Nurses Association statement, the organizations who together represent 4.3 million registered nurses said bluntly, “health care delivery is highly complex,” and “it is inevitable that mistakes will happen, and systems will fail.”

“It is completely unrealistic to think otherwise,” the statement continued. “The criminalization of medical errors is unnerving, and this verdict sets into motion a dangerous precedent.”

At the heart of Vaught’s verdict is a big question with an unclear answer: in this and other similar cases, is the healthcare system at fault, or the individual worker — especially when the worker admits to the mistake? And even when a worker is at fault, is treating them like a criminal a fair and just response? Notably, the Tennessee Board of Nursing only revoked Vaught’s nursing license in 2021.

The Massachusetts Nursing Association called the verdict “chilling,” and expressed fear that nurses “may be reluctant to report a mistake for fear of unwarranted prosecution, or worse still, who may not stay in a profession under a punitive system with so much risk.”

In a statement, the Massachusetts Nursing Association called the verdict “chilling,” and expressed fear that nurses “may be reluctant to report a mistake for fear of unwarranted prosecution, or worse still, who may not stay in a profession under a punitive system with so much risk.”

“This unprecedented effort to criminally punish a nurse for a medication error goes against every accepted tenet for a just and effective means of responding to, and the appropriate process for the mitigation of, preventable medical errors, particularly for those, as this case does, that involve complex systems of care,” the statement read. “This verdict by an overzealous and ignorant DA has shocked nurses from coast to coast, who are posting memes that say ‘I am RaDonda Vaught,’ as so many know that given the systems they are working in — dysfunctional, profit-focused systems — that every day place them at the spear point of a similar tragic outcome.”

In an email statement to Salon, Connie Barden, the chief clinical officer of AACN, said it is “critical to create and sustain healthcare environments where individuals are accountable for their own behaviors, and vigilant in identifying a system’s flaws.”

“We look for risk, not fault,” Barden continued. “The threat of criminal prosecution jeopardizes the transparency and openness we need.”

Vaught’s sentencing has been set for May 13, 2022. Meanwhile, a petition has been circulating on Change.org demanding clemency for Vaught; the petition had 162,664 signatures as of March 31. The comments on the petition capture the outrage many nurses feel.

UPDATED: This story was updated with quotes from Connie Barden of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses at 7:26pm Pacific Time

Read more about healthcare workers:

Celebrities react — and curiously don’t — to Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” law

“Saturday Night Live” comedian Kate McKinnon summed up Hollywood’s indignation at Florida’s controversial new “Don’t Say Gay” law on “Weekend Update.”

“If the 90’s were right and gay means bad, then this is the gayest law I have ever seen!” she said, pointing to the camera with a defiant head shake on an SNL episode earlier this month. “If you can’t say it, you might as well sing it — gay, gay, gay!” The audience promptly joined in on a rhythmic chant of “gay” to the tune of Deep Purple’s “Smoke on the Water.”

McKinnon’s comedic response was the beginning of a wave of other celebrity reactions to the Florida law, formerly referred to as the Parental Rights in Education bill. The legislation, which Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law this week, outlaws any reference to sexual orientation in classrooms from kindergarten to third grade. Schools are also obligated to contact parents if a student comes out to a school administrator. School districts must also submit materials for review of “age-appropriate” materials at every grade level. Parents have the option to sue a school district if they believe the policy is violated.

“Queer identity is beautiful & natural. Say it to yourself until you feel safe enough to say it out loud,” Lin-Manuel Miranda tweeted in reaction. “Then say it again. And again. Say Gay all day. It needs to be heard and it bears repeating.”

Ariana Grande echoed the backlash, calling the law “really disgusting” in an Instagram story.

Oscar Isaac, star of the upcoming Disney+ series Moon Knight, gave a particularly theatrical response during a press junket for the series. “Gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay!” he sang. “Yeah, it’s an absolutely ridiculous law. It’s insanity…it’s astounding that it even exists in this country.”

Shawn Mendes encouraged civic participation to combat the legislation in early March. “Florida call your senators! #LetFreeFloridaSayGay” he tweeted along with a message from Florida Equality’s account.

Some Hollywood voices, on the other hand, have been notably absent from the conversation.

Katy Perry, a former Hillary Clinton surrogate and current “American Idol” judge, has not commented on the bill. In a former interview with Out Magazine, the singer said she “wouldn’t have survived” without her LBTQ+ fan community.

And Taylor Swift, who formerly used her 2019 single “You Need to Calm Down” to raise money in support for LGBTQ+ organizations, has not publicly commented on the Florida law.

Miley Cyrus, typically a visible supporter of the LGBTQ+ community, has not mentioned “Don’t Say Gay” either. In 2014, Cyrus founded the Happy Hippie Foundation in support of vulnerable homeless and LGBTQ+ youth and previously donated $500,000 in AIDS research.

For his part, Ron DeSantis remains unphased by the Hollywood backlash. “I don’t care what Hollywood says. I don’t care what big corporations say,” he said during a press conference ahead of signing the law. “Here I stand. I am not backing down.”

Disney star Raven-Symone led the cast of Raven’s Home in a walkout on March 22 over the law. “In [today’s] world it is imperative that we take stands, show support, and move forward not backwards,” she captioned an Instagram post documenting the walkout. “Every family every person and every child deserves to be recognized no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Education that reflects the truth and the world we live in is something we must fight for.”

The “Don’t Say Gay” law takes effect July 1.

Razzies took back Bruce Willis’ diss after his aphasia diagnosis. Maybe they should quit altogether

The Razzies have had a change of heart.

In the wake of Bruce Willis’ diagnosis of the cognitive brain disease aphasia, the Golden Raspberry Awards have decided to rescind their award for the actor, reports IndieWire. The actor was nominated in the specially tailored category, “Worst Performance by Bruce Willis in a 2021 Movie” and “won” for the film “Cosmic Sin” this past Saturday, a day before the Oscars. The category was a satirical critique of the eight films the actor had released in 2021.

A mere four days after Willis’ recognition, his daughter, actor Rumer Willis posted on Instagram about her father’s condition and his decision to step away from acting. “As a result of this and with much consideration Bruce is stepping away from the career that has meant so much to him,” Willis wrote in the family’s announcement. “We are moving through this as a strong family unit, and wanted to bring his fans in because we know how much he means to you, as you do to him.”

In response, on March 30, Razzies co-founders John J. B. Wilson and Mo Murphy announced that they would rescind Willis’ award in acknowledgment of the impact of Willis’ disease on his on-screen performances and his cognitive and speech capabilities.

“The Razzies are truly sorry for #BruceWillis diagnosed condition,” the account tweeted. “Perhaps this explains why he wanted to go out with a bang in 2021. Our best wishes to Bruce and family.”

https://twitter.com/RazzieAwards/status/1509219110579712002

The tweet didn’t go over well — and prompted renewed conversations about ending the Razzies permanently. One Twitter user responded, “Y’all should fire whatever PR firm or media consultant put this statement out for you because it’s abhorrent. This is your best? You paid someone . . . for this? Jesus.”

And screenwriter and journalist Garry Whitta responded with a resounding, “Seriously, go f**k yourselves.”

The Razzies are meant to be a humorous take-down of Hollywood’s cinematic failures and include nominations for the “worst actor” performances in each category. Or at least that’s their intention, but the execution has become increasingly controversial.

This is not the first time that the Razzies have had to reassess their ruling. The awards has also taken back their nomination of Shelley Duvall’s performance in “The Shining” in light of discovering how director Stanely Kubrick treated her on set. In a February interview with Vulture, Murphy said, “Knowing the backstory and the way that Stanley Kubrick kind of pulverized her, I would take that back.”

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

What initially began in the ’80s as good-natured poking fun at the films and performances that don’t usually get recognized, now just seems rather mean-spirited. The collective way that we engage with media has changed, and this celebration of the worst no longer entertains. Even in 2016 Salon had written how the Razzies no longer feel fun. Perhaps it’s time the Razzies figure out how to update its formula . . . or just retire altogether.

Meanwhile, Willis has received an outpouring of support from Hollywood in response to the announcement. “All my love and respect to my big brother Bruce Willis,” Director M. Night Shyamalan tweeted. “I know his wonderful family is surrounding him with support and strength. He will always be that hero on that poster on my wall as a kid.”

And John Travolta posted throwback pictures of the two on Instagram in support of Willis. “Years later he said to me, ‘John, I just want you to know that when something good happens to you I feel like it’s happening to me.’ That’s how generous a soul he is. I love you Bruce,” the actor wrote.

More stories to read:

“You Won’t Be Alone” is a sensual and gory shapeshifting film that pushes back at society

“You Won’t Be Alone,” the auspicious feature directorial debut by Goran Stolevski, is a tender folk horror film. More bloody than scary, and at times quite sexy, it often plays like a silent movie, with characters expressing their emotions as they wander through a magnificent rural landscape. (The film is subtitled, and the language is said to be authentic to the period). Stolevski employs a voiceover and tinkling piano score to create a mood more that is precious, but also dangerous. Yes, the sun-dappled farmland is gorgeous but there is a danger lurking at every turn.

This unusual film is set in Macedonian mountain village in the 19th century where a mother is confronted with a horrible situation. Old Maid Maria (Anamaria Marinca of “4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days”) is a Wolf-Eateress whose skin looks like the arteries are on the outside. She wants the blood of newborn Nevena and agrees to take the child when she turns 16, but not without first sampling her. Sent to live in a cave for protection, Nevena (Sara Klimos) emerges as a teen, following Maria out in the world. Old Maid Maria teaches Nevena how to live, however, Nevena is a disappointment to Maria, and the teen rebels, hoping to break the prophecy. As is soon revealed, these “witches” can shapeshift into animals and other beings.

“You Won’t Be Alone” takes its time telling this story, the origins of which are revealed late in the film. Stolevski immerses viewers in this fabulist world, and his intimate camerawork both follows the characters closely but also admires the wondrous scenery. While the story meanders, Stolevski does have a point: there are discussions of gender roles, such as how women should behave with (and without) men and thoughts about motherhood. There are also many scenes of entrails and bloodletting as Maria or other characters open their chests and remove their insides.

When Nevena shapeshifts to Bosilka (Noomi Rapace) she comes to understand her powers, seducing a man and luring him for sex where she transforms him. There is a clear reference to vampirism here, with blood-drinking, sharpened fingernails (instead of fangs) and the idea of passing on a curse.

When Nevena becomes Boris (Carloto Cotta), she enjoys the privilege of being a man. Cotta’s childlike expressions (which he perfected in “Diamantino”) convey Nevena’s adaptation. Moreover, the sexual scenes with Boris are quite erotic — he has strong urges — but his behavior forces the villagers to exorcise his demons, creating an allegory about sin.

As “You Won’t Be Alone” continues, the film plays up the conventions of marriage as the recounting of Old Maid Maria’s tale concerns her efforts to find a husband. There is a horrific episode that reinforces ideas of conformity, followed by a rather moving (and mostly wordless) love sequence between Biliana (Alice Englert) and Yovan (Félix Maritaud). These scenes are sensual but fleeting — the witch will always have her way.

Alice Englert in “You Won’t Be Alone” (Branko Starcevic / Focus Features)

Which makes Stolevski’s film compelling but not necessarily suspenseful. While there is a strong sense of dread throughout, the motivation for all the violence, when revealed, seems underwhelming. Bad things do happen in “You Won’t Be Alone,” but the film deliberately lacks heightened energy. Instead the director relies on emotional connection which can be slippery given how impressionistic it is. The supernatural elements are quite atmospheric, with flesh being ripped, and yet, the horror feels muted. Stolevski’s film may be too gory for the arthouse crowd and too arty for horror film fans. For some viewers, the parts will seem greater than the whole.

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

Likewise, while the filmmaker raises important points about patriarchy and society, he does not investigate them fully. This is good for letting viewers draw their own conclusions, but his approach may prompt some viewers to tune out. The sense of time and place is vivid, but the lack of a strong plot can be frustrating.

The visuals are certainly captivating, with images of Nevena in the cave, or men working in the fields. The copious nudity is also welcome for adding a warm, sensual element in what may be seen a harsh, unforgiving environment. But scenes where Boris helps a young boy tasked with splitting logs does not advance the plot or the film’s point much. Stolevski could have tightened his film with some shrewd editing; the unhurried pace is fine, but his film feels overlong.

“You Won’t Be Alone” is certainly worthwhile for transporting viewers, and it invites multiple readings. (One sequence feels like an homage to “Frankenstein.” Other cinematic references abound.) Stolevski delivers on his promise — as evidenced by his fantastic shorts, especially “You Deserve Everything” and “Would You Look at Her” which won a prize at Sundance the year it screened — to be a filmmaker to watch. His film takes considerable risks but it does reward adventurous viewers.

“You Won’t Be Alone” is in theaters April 1. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories to read:

Maple bacon bark is your new salty-sweet addiction

It seems ridiculous that bacon now seems like a thing that used to be popular. Remember several years back, when there were bacon-flavored lip balms and bacon-lined crew socks everywhere? At the time, it seemed as though every declaration of devotion revolved around the words “I love you more than bacon.”

Where did all of that energy go? I still believe in bacon — it’s a classic — and I appreciate it even more now that it’s returned to its stately role as a well-placed culinary workhorse versus “that ingredient that’s in every damn item on the menu.”

If you’re similarly feeling that enough time has passed since the Great Bacon Boom, there’s no better way to rekindle the love than with bacon bark — an outrageously salty-sweet snack. In the comments of a recipe blog, I recently stumbled upon a dish of crunchy bacon piled with maple syrup and brown sugar that was described as “a heart attack on a plate.” I could not have been more intrigued.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to “The Bite,” Salon Food’s newsletter.

You can make bacon bark using puff pastry, if you want to create a more refined hors d’oeuvre that makes your guests go bonkers. In my opinion, saltines sufficiently hit all the right notes of nostalgia.

While bacon bark makes a fine party food (and it travels well!) or snack, I would also have zero hesitation about eating some with eggs early in the morning and calling it breakfast nirvana. Would you like to join me?

***

Recipe: Maple Bacon Bark
Inspired by Sparkles to Sprinkles

Yields

24 servings

Prep Time

20 minutes

Cook Time

25 minutes

Ingredients

1 pound bacon
24 saltine crackers
1/2 cup maple syrup
1/2 cup brown sugar, packed

Directions

Using your favorite method, cook the bacon. (See Chef’s Note)
Preheat the oven to 325 degrees.
Line a large sheet pan with parchment paper. Grease with oil, or better yet, leftover bacon fat.
Line the crackers in rows, 4 x 6, to create a sheet.
Pour half of the maple syrup evenly over the crackers, then half of the brown sugar.
Evenly crumble the bacon over the mixture.
Top with the rest of the syrup, then the sugar.
Bake roughly 25 minutes, or until the mixture is bubbly and browned.
Cool thoroughly, then break into pieces to serve.

Cook’s Notes

Ina Garten’s method for roasting bacon in the oven on a sheet pan will change your life.

More sheet pan recipes we love:

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.

What you eat has a water footprint — here’s why it matters

What takes more water to produce, a hamburger or an almond milk latte? Where in food production does the water get used? Did you know that we eat far more water than we drink?

This week, Water Footprint Calculator, a sister site of FoodPrint, launched a new searchable database that shows the water footprint of over 100 foods. We brought in the two senior policy and research analysts, Robin Madel and Kai Olson-Sawyer, to explain what water footprints are, answer some of the above questions, and explain why a gallery like this can be a useful tool for consumers and educators.

What is a water footprint?

It takes water — a lot of it — to produce food, to make energy and to manufacture consumer products. This is what’s known as virtual water and it is a part of just about every facet of our lives.

A water footprint is a way to measure how much water it takes — both from a tap and virtual — to make a product or conduct a service. Anything can have a water footprint — an individual product, a process, a company, even individuals can have a personal water footprint.

Our personal water footprint includes our tap water use — what’s known as our direct water use – and the virtual water used to make all the food we eat, the electricity and gasoline we use to run our homes and vehicles, and all the consumer products we buy to furnish our homes and run our lives. Of all of these many water uses, agriculture generally consumes the largest amount of water, and when we measure our personal water footprint, our diet is usually the biggest part.

Why should people be curious about the water imprint of their food?

The water footprint of food is interesting to look at because producing food requires a lot of water, but it’s hard to “see” it without looking at how food is made.

Most of our food starts as a crop, many of which are rain-fed and many of which are irrigated (there are very few crops grown without any water). The crops are then either fed to animals in large quantities, processed into other food products or packaged as whole food products for our direct consumption.

Every stage of moving those crops from the field to our plates involves water, and in the United States, most of the water used to grow and manufacture our food is not returned to the water source from which it was drawn.

Because of this, we “eat” far more water than we drink. Typically, we consume more water through the food we eat than we do through the use of any other good, service or activity, from showering to turning on the light. This is important because, globally, water use is increasing at a rate faster than population growth. This is due primarily to increasing virtual water use as more people consume more water-intensive foods and other goods.

In addition, many areas around the world that are agriculturally productive often experience regular, sometimes severe droughts that threaten water sources. Strained water resources create concern and conflict, especially in the arid parts of the world – including in the United States.

Are foods grown in areas experiencing drought a problem? Do they have a larger water footprint?

Just three states — California, Arizona and Florida — together produce more than three-quarters of the country’s produce. Arizona and California are both two states that are hard hit by the current “mega-drought” gripping the southwest. These states grow a significant amount of the produce we eat in the country, with California topping the list; however, a “wet” state like Florida is no stranger to widespread and severe droughts, which occur about once a decade.

The drought in the Southwest is affecting the ability of water managers for the Colorado River Basin to provide all the water needed to cities and farms. The river supplies water for hay, cotton, fruit orchards and farms that produce most of the country’s vegetables during the winter. The cuts are affecting farmers’ ability to provide for the country.

Arizona, in particular, is feeling the first round of cuts (which could be much more severe if the drought continues and the river levels go lower). The water cuts are particularly affecting Pinal County, which ranks first in the state for cotton, barley and livestock production. About a third of the farms have been fallowed due to lack of irrigation water.

Some headlines have suggested that lettuce from Arizona would be threatened because of the cuts, but, interestingly, this isn’t the case. At least in this initial round of cuts, winter lettuce farmers in Arizona have been spared. That’s because most of the lettuce is grown in Yuma County, where farmers have more senior water rights and will continue to irrigate as needed, which raises questions of who else might lose out.

Water rights in the West are a complicated issue, and questions regarding what is ethically right versus what is legally right can muddy the issue of what should be done with the river water. What is clear, though, is that the drought is causing river water levels to drop, and we, as a country, have some tough choices ahead of us.

Similarly, in California, the drought is taking a huge toll on crops like almonds. The state grows over 80% of the world’s almonds, and they are the state’s top agricultural export, but many almond farmers are having to make tough choices about how many trees they can keep without adequate water supplies.

Almond production in the state skyrocketed over the last 25 years, as the once reliable irrigation system in the San Joaquin Valley made growing the thirsty almonds incredibly profitable. The drought has drained the reservoirs that supply water to the irrigation system, leaving farmers without water. Many are choosing to pull out their trees or switch to higher value crops, to be grown with their limited water resources.

Of course, when we’re eating almonds from the San Joaquin Valley in California or lettuce from Yuma, Arizona, we might not think about how much water it took to grow those crops because we can’t see or feel all the water that’s been shipped to us through those items.

Water footprints give us a way to account for that virtual water and to consider more sustainable choices when we shop at the grocery store and fill our carts with food.

What food has the biggest water footprint? What makes it so large?

Dairy, and especially meat, tend to have some of the biggest water footprints of any food because of the feed an animal eats. Whether chickens, hogs or beef cattle, they all eat large quantities of food. So all the rain and irrigation water that goes into growing that animal feed — including grain and forage, like grass — is tallied up given what the animal eats over its lifetime.

The longer the lifespan and the bigger the animal, the more food that animal eats and the larger the meat’s water footprint. That’s why beef, being so big and living so long, has one of the largest water footprints of any food at 1,850 gallons of water per pound.

You see the difference when compared to some plant-based foods. For instance, the water footprint of tofu is 303 gallons of water per pound while potatoes have a water footprint of 35 gallons per pound. (Note that all of these water footprints are based on global averages.)

The more meat and dairy production can rely on rainfall (green water footprint) to grow forage and other feed crops, as opposed to irrigation, the better it often is for local water resources. This can be an advantage for many pasture-raised meat and dairy products that may still have a large water footprint, yet the animals don’t receive irrigated feed. In pasture-raised systems, animals are normally more spread out and don’t have as many problems with concentrated waste, which becomes hard to manage and pollutes water (grey water footprint).

What are some foods with smaller footprints? What makes them smaller?

Foods that tend to have smaller water footprints are plant-based foods like fruits, vegetables, grains, beans and lentils. When it comes to a freshwater resource, it tends to be more efficient to eat plant products rather than animal products. That makes sense when you consider you’re directly eating the plants as food, rather than providing far more plants than you’d eat to animals as feed to get meat at the end of the process. In essence, farmers are growing crops to feed you, or growing significantly more crops to feed hogs or cattle to eventually produce pork or beef.

While most plant-based foods have smaller water footprints, not all do. One example that’s gotten a fair amount of attention due to the drought in California are tree nuts, such as almonds and pistachios. They have large water footprints because the trees need water all year long. People are more likely to question whether it’s as worthwhile to grow almonds and pistachios in dry places like California where water is scarce during drought, and where huge volumes of groundwater are getting pumped to irrigate the orchards.

A final point to mention is that whole foods tend to have smaller water footprints than more processed foods. The more processed the food, the bigger the water footprint. The water footprint increases for a processed food as more ingredients, more energy, more packaging and so on are added to the final product. Take potato chips, which have a water footprint of 125 gallons per pound, while potatoes – a primary whole food ingredient – have a water footprint of 35 gallons per pound. But in addition to potatoes, potato chips need plenty of oil and salt to make it tasty, as well as energy to run the equipment and heat the oil. As you can see, processing increases the inputs and enlarges the amount of water consumed.

Joe Rogan’s favorite Covid drug doesn’t seem to help at all, study concludes

A new study confirmed that taking ivermectin — an anti-parasite drug that paradoxically became a favored COVID-19 treatment by many conspiracy theorists and right-wing figures — does not reduce one’s risk of COVID-19 hospitalization.

The inexpensive prescription drug, which is also sold as a horse dewormer at farm and feed stores, has sickened hundreds of Americans who took too much of the drug in an attempt to cure or ward off COVID-19. Ivermectin became well-known thanks in part to Joe Rogan, the comedian-turned-podcaster who has become a prominent champion of the anti-vaccine movement, who announced after contracting COVID-19 that he was taking ivermectin and other drugs to try to combat it. Rogan has been one of the most outspoken ivermectin boosters in digital media, particularly on his show “The Joe Rogan Experience,” which has an estimated 11 million listeners.

The authors of the study noted that their research, due to its sheer size and scope, has further reduced the credibility of the existing studies touted by supporters of ivermectin.

The experiment itself was simple: Wait and see if the patients given ivermectin were either admitted to hospitals less frequently or recovered more quickly during their stays.

According to the study, which was published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group of more than 1,300 COVID-19 patients in Brazil were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. Half of them were given ivermectin, an off-label anti-parasite drug, and half of them were given a placebo. The experiment itself was simple: Wait and see if the patients given ivermectin were either admitted to hospitals less frequently or recovered more quickly during their stays. (A separate cohort of more than 2,000 patients received an unrelated COVID-19 intervention.)

The final result: Ivermectin had no effect whatsoever on patients’ clinical outcomes.

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

While the researchers do not mention Rogan by name, they indirectly allude to him and other pseudo-science influencers as they describe ivermectin’s ongoing popularity. In Rogan’s case, the key moment occurred when he hosted biologist Bret Weinstein on his show in June. During that episode, Weinstein touted a study which claimed that ivermectin was 86 percent effective against COVID-19 infections. Rogan described this as a “crazy number” and Weinstein interjected that “that number is high enough to be, independently, the end of Covid if we decide to make it so.” The study they cited was a meta-analysis, meaning that it did not involve original research but merely reviewed other studies, and was notably compromised. In the case of the paper discussed by Weinstein, the studies that it had reviewed all involved smaller groups of patients and lower-quality data. One of its central studies, which had been conducted in Egypt, was later withdrawn over serious problems with the data. There were links between the organizations behind pro-ivermectin studies and pro-ivermectin interest groups.

Despite the scrutiny over the study Weinstein referenced on Rogan’s podcast, Rogan has continued to promote ivermectin.

“More than 60 randomized trials of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 have been registered, and findings have been reported for as many as 31 clinical trials,” the authors of the most recent study explain. “The results have been discordant, and various review groups interpret the evidence differently — some advocating for benefits of ivermectin, and others reticent to conclude a benefit. However, most trials have been small, and several have been withdrawn from publication owing to concerns about credibility.”

In the conclusion, the authors were explicit in stating that their work significantly reduces the credibility of the research cited by the pro-ivermectin camp.

“Although the number of included trials involving outpatients varies among the meta-analyses, the overall number of events that occurred in our trial is larger than the number of all the combined events in these meta-analyses,” the authors conclude. “The results of this trial will, therefore, reduce the effect size of the meta-analyses that have indicated any benefits.”

One of the underlying issues in the debate over COVID-19 treatments is delineating between different types of scientific studies. While supporters of ivermectin will cite studies that include smaller amounts of patients or otherwise have compromised data, the scientific community relies on studies with larger cohorts of patients and more robust controls.

“As more and more higher quality forms of evidence, usually large randomized trials, have been completed, they did not find compelling enough findings,” Edward Mills of McMaster, who has also conducted large ivermectin clinical trials, told Salon in February. “It’s important to note that NIH and Oxford continue to do large randomized trials, as there remains some uncertainty.”

The study’s authors were explicit in stating that their work significantly reduces the credibility of the research cited by the pro-ivermectin camp.

Despite the lack of reliable clinical evidence, Rogan used ivermectin himself in what he described as a “kitchen sink” approach after his own COVID-19 diagnosis. As he explained in a video, “We immediately threw the kitchen sink at it. Monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak, prednisone.”

In addition to touting ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, Rogan has touted other COVID-19 misinformation on his show, with a particular focus on vaccines. In January YouTube removed clips of a podcast episode in which Rogan interviewed infectious disease scientist-turned-anti-vaccine provocateur Dr. Robert Malone. He claimed that large-scale vaccinations were a symptom of “mass formation psychosis,” a gibberish term that does not appear anywhere on PubMed, a database of medical scholarship maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health.

For more on Joe Rogan and ivermectin:

How I learned to break the rules of hosting a Dawat

Though the word dawat is meant to be celebratory, it also inspires a fear that many Pakistanis aren’t willing to admit. In Urdu and Hindi, dawat directly translates to “feast.” In my mind, it’s hosting in the fussiest way possible.

There are Pakistani hosts, mostly women, who have dawat down to a science. They prepare elaborate dinners for groups of 12 or more. Given the number of dishes on the table, which can range from six to 10, you might think they would be simple. They are not. Each recipe requires care and precision. The timing of pulao or biryani needs to be exact so that each grain of rice remains whole and perfect; cutlets, whether they be silky meat patties like shami kebabs, or fried potatoes like aloo tikki, need to be uniform in shape, texture, and taste. A four-ingredient chutney needs to have just the right balance of flavors — not too spicy, not too sour.

I come from a family of decidedly casual women who don’t stress too much over these details. But even while the dawat at my home was not as elaborate as I’d find at others, my mother still adhered to the basic Pakistani rules for hosting a dinner. Firstly, addressing the key meal categories. That’s a mixed rice dish; a type of meat curry; something fried, like shami kebabs; roti or naan; a type of vegetable or lentil; a chutney or relish; and, of course, dessert. Second to the number and category of dishes is ensuring this spread is balanced in terms of texture, like serving something with gravy to complement a dish that is dry — if there is a vegetarian pulao, you would ideally serve korma, a richly spiced meat curry, to accompany it. And finally, always serve tea (black or green, depending on guests’ preference) to round out the meal. Within these bounds, my mother developed an eclectic menu that allowed her guests the luxury of picking and choosing how their plate looked.

When I moved to the U.S., I brought with me my parents’ instinct for hosting. The only way I knew how to make friends was to say, “Come over for dinner!” This may have implied that I was a confident cook — absolutely not. But what I lacked in finesse, I made up for in enthusiasm. Luckily, my friends were kind and forgiving. I never felt pressure to uphold any rules for hosting (other than to make people feel welcome, and ensure there was an adequate supply of alcohol — never mind the quality).

After my husband and I moved overseas, first to Mexico and then to Southeast Asia, and found ourselves participating in more intergenerational friendships, the stakes felt higher. I was suddenly confronted with the question, What does an adult dinner party look like? It was then I was drawn back to the traditional “rules” of hosting a Pakistani dawat. My first few attempts to host a dinner in the “Pakistani way” led to several mini breakdowns. No matter how early we started prepping, something would go awry: The rice got mushy; the chicken tasted rubbery; the dessert fell apart. Ultimately, my husband suggested we get takeout next time. Even on the rare occasion that we executed the food to perfection, the guests wouldn’t ask for seconds. Or maybe the conversation felt stunted, and there was no post-dessert lingering (my favorite part of the evening).

The stress of hosting made me step back and reassess. While there was certainly wisdom linked to traditional dawat rules, what was missing was a sense of flow, a warmth that paved the way for a slow-paced meal set in the midst of good people and great conversation.

From there, I began to work backward. I’d bring the right mix of people to ensure group chemistry, and serve a menu that was laid-back enough to put everyone, including myself, at ease. I thought more carefully about group dynamics and dietary preferences. This allowed me to focus on creating a cohesive menu — to think about the complementarity of each dish — rather than stressing over whether I’m checking off all the meal categories for every individual guest. I gave up on homemade dessert, and began to serve chopped fruit and a cheese plate. Picking cues from my mother and food inspirations like Diana Henry and Samin Nosrat, I also tempered the richness of the menus, creating more space for varied textures and brighter flavors. When having vegetarians over, I prepare borani banjan, an Afghan dish of fried eggplant served over a tomato onion base drizzled with sour yogurt, served with nutty saffron rice and potatoes. And if I find myself overthinking the menu, I will pick up some bubbly and a couple of quiches, and invite people over for brunch instead.

Still, there are times I will go back to the Pakistani dawat rules — with some tweaks. There’s a rice dish, likely prawn biryani dressed in heaps of cilantro with a cooling cucumber raita; and roast chicken thighs prepared in a tangy yogurt marinade, or smoky broiled beef kebabs. I’ll round out the meal with a leafy green salad and curried greens, preferably bitter melon or okra. Instead of tea and dessert, there will be an ample supply of red wines, chopped fruit, and good cheese. Now, there are many more nights of leisurely meals accompanied by boisterous laughter (and light roasting), which I have come to realize are the only true markers of a great dawat.

D.C.’s house of horror: Multiple fetuses found at home of anti-abortion activist indicted by DOJ

Five fetuses were found by authorities on Wednesday in the Washington, D.C. home of an anti-abortion activist.

The discovery was made after someone tipped off the D.C. police from a home in the 400 block of 6th Street SE, according to a department spokesperson. All five fetuses have since been collected by the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

The shocking development comes just a day after nine anti-abortion activists were indicted by the Justice Department for invading a Washington D.C. abortion clinic in October of 2020. According to a department press release, the demonstrators “forcefully entered the clinic” and blocked two doors to the facility by using furniture, chains and ropes.

The department’s two-count indictment charges “Lauren Handy, 28, of Alexandria, Virginia; Jonathan Darnel, 40, of Arlington, Virginia, Jay Smith, 32, of Freeport, New York; Paulette Harlow, 73, of Kingston, Massachusetts; Jean Marshall, 72, of Kingston, Massachusetts; John Hinshaw, 67, of Levittown, New York; Heather Idoni, 61, of Linden, Michigan; William Goodman, 52, of the Bronx, New York; and Joan Bell, 74, of Montague, New Jersey.”

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

All of them, who allegedly violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, “face up to a maximum of 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $350,000,” according to the press release.

The raid appears to have been carried out at the residence of Handy, who told a CBS affiliate outlet that a D.C. police raid would “happen sooner or later.” She declined to comment on the nature of the evidence taken from her home, but did note that “people would freak out when they heard.”

When I asked anti-abortion activist Lauren Handy what homicide detectives pulled out of her house Wednesday, she only said, “people will freak out when they hear.” @DCPoliceDept now says it found 5 fetuses. @wusa9 pic.twitter.com/9Uvm7JY9dQ

— Nathan Baca (@NathanBacaTV) March 31, 2022

Handy is reportedly part of several anti-abortion groups, including some, like Red Rose Rescue, who have taken violent action against clinics and providers.

The criminal indictment and raid come amid stunning wins in the legal realm for the anti-abortion movement. There has been a sweeping Republican-led effort to roll back abortion rights throughout the country. According to Elizabeth Nash, who tracks abortion restrictions for the Guttmacher Institute, at least 225 abortion restrictions have made their way through state legislatures in 2022 alone. In particular, these kinds of measures recently have been signed into law in states like Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, and Idaho.

“The goalposts have shifted from restrictions to bans, with the real potential for some of these bans to go into effect,” Nash told VICE. “Right now, what we’re seeing is a lot of momentum around abortion bans because the expectation is that federal abortion rights will be overturned or substantially damaged.

What to do with an overload of radishes

I think by now we all know the formula: Radishes + salt = appetizer elegance. Radishes + butter + baguette = snack time nirvana. Radishes + rustic farm table + screen-printed textiles = a food photographer’s dream.

But what if you’re on your 100th radish bunch of the summer and these peppery gems need to play a greater role? More than something to tide us over between meals, more than just a garnish? What if a bundle of radishes on its own must be tonight’s vegetable?

CSA subscribers, prolific gardeners, and enthusiastic market-goers alike know this issue all too well. Sure, radishes and butter and salt are made for each other, but come mid-summer, even the most striking ombre roots begin to lose their luster.

When this happens, it might be time to reconsider the formula. While we usually eat radishes raw, they can be cooked, and when they are, they transform. When roasted in the oven at high heat, radishes, like many root vegetables, caramelize and take on those concentrated, wintry flavors.

Roasted radishes are delicious, but this time of year, a nice option is to pan-braise, which mellows the radish’s spice and changes its texture, making it tender and moist, almost beet-like. This Deborah Madison recipe, though perhaps more hands-on than other radish recipes, still takes only minutes to prepare and keeps the flavors simple: shallots, butter, water, herbs. The beauty of this preparation, too, is that the greens steam with the radishes at the very end, making the dish more substantial — a side that will comfortably feed four.

If the onslaught of radishes is already getting to you, it might be time to give your mandoline a rest. Your skillet can’t wait to enter the equation.

How to store and prep radishes

As soon as you get home, remove any elastic bands or ties and trim the greens from the radishes, using scissors or a sharp knife. Store the greens and radishes in bags or in tea towels, wrapped loosely in the refrigerator. Soak both the greens and radishes in a large bowl of cold water before serving — both tend to be dirty. Dry radishes well before serving; the greens can be somewhat damp before steaming or sautéing. Greens that have yellowed should be discarded; greens that look tired can be revived in a bowl of cold water — after 20 to 30 minutes, the greens should perk up; if they don’t, they’re probably beyond repair.

How to cook your radishes

Radishes are most often served raw, halved and sprinkled with salt, shaved into salads, layered over butter-smeared baguettes, or shredded into slaws. They also can be marinated with olive oil and lemon and mint for a refreshing salad, and they can be pickled with a classic vinegar-sugar-salt mix. Finely diced radishes mixed with red onion, jalapeño, cilantro, and lime make a peppery and crunchy salsa, a nice addition to any taco. Radishes can also be roasted with olive oil, salt, and pepper at 450ºF for 15 to 20 minutes or until caramelized and tender. Additionally, they can be sautéed and puréed with any number of vegetables (parsnips, potatoes, turnips, etc.) for a light vegetable side dish. This purée, too, can be thinned into a soup with chicken or vegetable stock. The greens: Discard any yellowy greens before cooking. Greens can be quickly steamed or sautéed and dressed with olive oil or butter, a squeeze of lemon or splash of vinegar, minced shallots, and any number of herbs.

Our favorite radish recipes

Roasted Radishes with Garlic and Caraway

Obviously we’re not going to get very far without talking about our favorite roasted radish recipe. This one enhances their earthy flavor with garlic and caraway seeds; the longer the roast, the sweeter and milder the radishes taste. Even radish skeptics will fall in love.

Pretty Radish and Broccoli Slaw

Think beyond the usual cabbage to make a spring-forward slaw that’s perfect alongside burgers, grilled meat, or your Easter ham. This recipe makes use of the broccoli stalks that you might have otherwise been likely to toss, plus dried cherries, chopped pistachios, and watermelon radishes. If this slaw doesn’t sing spring’s praises, I don’t know what does.

Radish and Butter Tartine

The absolute chicest tartine for spring, this one is made very simply by buttering a slice of toasted bread (use your favorite loaf and the best butter you can get your hands on), then topping it with super thinly sliced radishes and a generous sprinkle of flaky sea salt. Breakfast, lunch, and springtime snacking, perfected.

Radish Top Aioli

When you really want to celebrate the simplicity of radishes, while taking advantage of every last bit of them, whip up this aioli. Chopped radish leaves are blended in alongside the usual eggs, lemon juice, Dijon mustard, garlic, and oil. It’s the ultimate dipping sauce for, what else, radishes!

Radish Salad with Curry-Orange Dressing

Not to toot our own horn, but we think that the idea of reducing orange juice until it’s thick and syrupy is a brilliant way to make an absolutely delicious salad dressing, especially once that’s served with radishes, feta cheese, and mint.

Cacio e Pepe Pizza with Roasted Radishes

Move aside, pepperoni. We’re dressing up this simple cheese and pepper pizza with spring’s shining star: radishes. Our readers voted this their favorite recipe that uses radishes and turnips. Enough said.

Madison Cawthorn’s cocaine-and-orgies brouhaha blows up the GOP’s QAnon plan

It would be funny if it weren’t so deeply evil. Republicans can dish it out but really can’t take it.

During last week’s confirmation hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the Supreme Court, the nation bore witness to a grotesque display of Senate Republicans openly pandering to QAnon, a large and growing cult of Donald Trump fanatics who claim that Democrats are blood-drinking pedophiles who worship Satan. In the process, they subjected Jackson to a vicious smear campaign implying that she has some special fondness for child molesters. (This, needless to say, is absolutely false.) Even for those who had no doubt that the GOP is a party of shameless liars and bullies, their behavior at Jackson’s confirmation hearing was gross to the point of shocking.

But, like all bullies, Republicans proved themselves to be incredibly thin-skinned this week.

On Sunday, one of their bigger lunkheads in Congress, Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, told a podcast host that his GOP colleagues were big fans of orgies and blow. The podcast is hosted by “Warrior Poet Society,” which is exactly what you’re imagining: An unintentionally campy website rife with forbidden erotic yearning sublimated into gun worship. So of course they started talking about coke-fueled orgies and how much they totally don’t want to go to them. Cawthorn, in his full QAnon-style “can you believe this” voice, raved about how high profile Republicans have invited him to “a sexual get together at one of our homes” and that he’s seen them snort cocaine.

Republican members of Congress, apparently unaware of the dangers of the Streisand effect, failed to heed the “ignore it” advice when known crazy liars say wild stuff about you on conspiracy theory-oriented websites. Instead, they got defensive, which just draws attention to allegations and also makes people wonder what you’re hiding. Multiple Republicans in Congress whined to the press. It got so bad that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy brought Cawthorn into his office for a dressing-down, which is definitely not the treatment that members get for regularly dropping hints that their Democratic colleagues are blood-drinking Satanic pedophiles. The next day, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis endorsed Cawthorn’s primary opponent.

The hypocrisy, of course, is off the charts. But it also highlights a larger problem that is facing the GOP in the Donald Trump era. (And no, it’s not the post-Trump, as he’s already running for president again and likely to get the Republican nomination in 2024.) The party is increasingly dependent on QAnon and other conspiracy theory communities for funding, voter drives, and general energy. But, as this Cawthorn debacle shows, that community’s addiction to titillating tales of political debauchery needs constant feeding. And as is typical with addiction, it’s hard to keep the impacts under control.

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

This past month has really demonstrated how much Republican hopes for 2022 elections depend on QAnon and similar fantasy-driven right-wing cul-de-sacs that have grown up online.

It’s not just the Jackson hearing and the hours of Senate Republicans crawling each other to get clips of pedophilia insinuations onto Fox News. Much of the astroturfed “school board” strategy the GOP is stirring up is aimed directly at the crowd that loves chattering all day long about their fantasies of Satanic blood-drinking pedophiles. The result is an avalanche of anti-trans and anti-gay bills aimed at public schools, with Florida’s “don’t say gay” bill getting the most attention. Lest there be any doubt that these bills are designed to pander to bug-eyed conspiracy theorists, Republicans have been openly claiming that these bills are meant to stop pedophiles from “grooming” children in schools.

Now the accusation of pedophilia has spread rapidly and is being heavily applied to any person who defends LGBTQ rights. And not just online, either, where “ok groomer” has become the favored phrase right-wing trolls fling at supporters of LGBTQ rights. On Fox News, QAnon-level wild conspiracy theories are being leveled at the Disney corporation after the company’s CEO agreed publicly that the “don’t say gay” bill is bad news. Numerous talking heads on the network accused the corporation of “sexualizing children.” Popular GOP podcaster Ben Shapiro claimed the company is “endorsing the indoctrination of small children into radical sexualized worldviews” and a columnist at the conservative site Townhall flatly claimed Disney “promotes child exploitation and supports groomers.”

Clearly, Republicans see “people who enjoy implausible fantasies about adults sexually assaulting children” as an important constituency that needs lots and lots of attention! Which, sadly, makes a lot of sense. New polling from PRRI shows that 22% of Americans subscribe to at least some QAnon beliefs. More critically, the research shows that the conspiracy theory is a good recruitment tool for the GOP, as it’s attracting people who were previously apolitical or even had liberal opinions. It converts those folks to the idea that Donald Trump — and ergo, the larger GOP — is somehow going to save humanity from the blood-drinking Satanic pedophiles.

So that recruitment strategy is seriously threatened if the conspiracy theories like Cawthorn’s start implicating Republicans.

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

Certainly, Cawthorn’s accusations sound downright quaint next to all these lurid QAnon fantasies of Satantism and sexual violence towards children. Of course, as anyone who has read about the parties at Steve Bannon’s D.C. townhouse can imagine, a big difference is that what Cawthorn said is far likelier to have a grain of truth to it. That notorious dirty trickster Roger Stone has involved himself as a validator of Cawthorn’s claims also suggests that this situation may involve some intra-party power plays, and isn’t just a matter of one of the dumber party members getting a little out of hand while trying to titillate the right-wing audience.

But whatever is going on behind closed doors, the public Republican reaction to Cawthorn’s storytelling speaks volumes about the party’s relationship to QAnon and the use of ghastly and lewd conspiracy theories as political weapons.

Republican leaders want to harness the power of conspiracy theory to excite their base and recruit new followers. Their hubris leads them, however, to falsely assume that they can keep a firm hand on how these stories spread and who gets implicated. Trump is already using facile accusations of “RINO” and “woke” to punish Republicans for perceived infractions like expressing skepticism of his election-stealing schemes. It’s probably just a matter of time before this “groomer” jab starts getting used by the far right to control Republicans who veer from the party line on anything from the Big Lie to the love for Vladimir Putin. McCarthy no doubt gets this, as he’s a regular punching bag for Trump. And that, I suspect, is why he’s clearly terrified of Cawthorn opening that particular Q-shaped door.

John Bolton confirms Trump used the term “burner phones” in the White House

National Security Adviser John Bolton spoke to CNN on Thursday morning to give further information about his claim that Donald Trump was lying when he said he didn’t know what a “burner phone” was.

Bolton reiterated a Tuesday comment that he heard the ex-president use the words “burner phones a number of times… It was a term he kind of liked. He would say, ‘they have these burner phones.’ The former president’s acquaintance with the truth is often very casual. This is a good example of it.”

He went on to say that he wasn’t sure if Trump used one specifically because he so frequently “didn’t come down to the Oval Office until late in the morning.” Bolton said Trump would make his calls from the residence.

“I certainly spoke to him up there many times on regular phones, on the secure phones or regular landline,” said Bolton. “What else he was doing up there, I certainly don’t know.

He went even further, saying that if there were no call logs between those hours then it was a “deliberate” move because he knows people who spoke to Trump during that time. Previous reports from Rolling Stone said that Jan. 6 rally organizer Kylie Kremer directed Trump aides to use burner phones, including Lara Trump, Eric Trump, campaign aide Katrina Pierson, and chief of staff Mark Meadows. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen told Raw Story this week that he knows at least one person who was tasked with buying three burner phones from CVS prior to Jan. 6 to use in the efforts that day. Eric Trump threatened to sue after that report.

“Well, I think it’s very hard to believe that anybody redid the log to purge information from it,” said Bolton. “These are routinely made, that is not subject to high-level scrutiny. So, if there was interference with it, it would be great extraordinary. I think it means the former president made a deliberate effort not to use Oval Office phones or government phones during that period. I don’t know how else to explain it. We know from what others said, he did have phone conversations with them that day that are not outside the gap period.”

CNN’s Brianna Keilar asked to confirm that Bolton believed Trump was intentionally not using the Oval Office phone or Residence phone the way he frequently did.

“I don’t know what other explanation would make any sense, frankly,” said Bolton. When asked why, he said, frankly, “because he didn’t want a record of the calls. And what he was saying in those calls is anybody’s guess. Some people say they have received calls, they have described what the subject of the conversation was. So we know he was making calls. What other calls he made. At this point, we don’t know.”

See the conversation below:

Alex Jones’ troubles pile up as Sandy Hook families reject his settlement offer: report

InfoWars host Alex Jones recently put in a settlement offer in hopes of resolving the lawsuit he is facing from the relatives of those who died as a result of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

According to HuffPost, Jones offered $120,000 per plaintiff to resolve the lawsuit which accuses him of defamation due to his repeated circulation of conspiracy theories suggesting the deadly shooting never occurred. However, the victims’ families swiftly declined that offer.

According to legal representatives for the families, the offer was a “transparent and desperate attempt by Alex Jones to escape a public reckoning under oath with his deceitful, profit-driven campaign against the plaintiffs and the memory of their loved ones lost at Sandy Hook.”

The court filings shared online also include a statement of apology from the conspiracy-driven host. “Mr. Jones extends his heartfelt apology for any distress his remarks caused,” the filing said.

The latest development comes months after a Connecticut judge ruled that Jones could be held liable for damages. There are plans for a trial date to be set for a judge to determine the amount of those damages. Jones’ move was presumably an attempt to avoid trial.

Jones is also facing calls for his arrest after failing to appear for two different depositions. The plaintiffs argue “they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy promoted on his show.”

“The plaintiffs subjected themselves to hours and hours of painful questioning by Mr. Jones’s lawyers — and Mr. Jones plays sick when it is his turn to tell the truth under oath,” wrote Alinor Sterling, a lawyer representing one of the families.

In addition to the case in Connecticut, Jones has also been found liable in similar lawsuits that have been filed in Texas by relatives of the school shooting victims.

Rick Scott describes a GOP Civil War in the Senate, compares himself to Ulysses S. Grant

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., on Thursday compared himself to the union general and former President Ulysses S. Grant in defense of his much-reviled “11-point plan to rescue America,” calling himself an “outsider” who will do whatever it takes to push his agenda forward.

“I think of myself more like Grant taking Vicksburg, and I think as a result of that, I’m always going to be perceived as an outsider,” Scott told the Associated Press. “I’m going to keep doing what I believe in whether everybody agrees with me or not.”

Despite receiving considerable pushback from his GOP colleagues, Scott has continued to advocate for a right-wing agenda that clarifies what Republicans stand for. His plan includes provisions like completing Trump’s now-abandoned border wall; limiting federal workers to twelve years of service; providing foreign aid to “countries that are willing to defend themselves, like Israel”; requiring that all children to say the Pledge of Allegiance and stand for the National Anthem; and ending the practice of racial and ethic disclosures on government forms.

“Hopefully, by doing this, we’ll have more of a conversation about what Republicans are going to get done. Because when we get the majority, I want to get something done,” Scott said in a February interview with Politico. “There’s things that people would rather not talk about. I’m willing to say exactly what I’m going to do. I think it’s fair to the voter.”

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

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., by contrast, has insisted that the GOP refrain from spelling out a concrete agenda ahead of this year’s midterms, instead opting to pick apart any action items the Democrats have and will put forward. McConnell made this clear during a private function with Republican donors and lawmakers back in December, according to Axios.

Most notably, the Senate minority leader has criticized the sweeping tax hikes laid out in Scott’s plan, claiming that they would impact a large swath of the GOP’s voting block. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people and sunsets social security and Medicare within five years,” McConnell has explained.

According to the non-partisan Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy (Itep) Scott’s plan “would increase taxes by more than $1,000 on average for the poorest 40% of Americans.”

Still, Scott has seen praise from a small contingent of Beltway Republicans who stand in support of a more forthright messaging strategy.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., who recently suggested the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize same-sex marriage, defended Scott’s platform in an interview with the Associated Press, arguing that Republican voters need to know what they’re voting for – not just against.

Republicans should “stake a little ground out that gives independents who elect swing-state senators and the president something other than the party of ‘No,'” Braun said.

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, also gave Scott plaudits, saying that the GOP’s current debate about taxes is “not an honest conversation.”

“It’s about the establishment self-appointed ruling elites – I mean that generally – inside and outside the Capitol telling a great member of the Senate who’s working on behalf of his constituents that he just needs to stop talking about this because it’s not the plan they’ve decided,” Roberts told the Associated Press.

Jan. 6 DOJ probe expands to Trump “VIPs” — and maybe members of Congress: report

The Justice Department has expanded its criminal investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot amid Democratic criticism that Attorney General Merrick Garland hasn’t been aggressive enough in pursuing prosecutions of those who planned or participated in the attempted insurrection.

A federal grand jury in Washington has issued subpoenas to Trump World officials who assisted with “planning, funding, and executing” then-President Trump’s rally at the Ellipse before the riot, according to the Washington Post. One of the subpoenas sought information about people “classified as VIP attendees” at the rally, according to The New York Times. At least one person involved in the logistics of the Ellipse rally has also been asked to appear before the grand jury.

The subpoena also sought information about Trump supporters’ fake elector scheme, in which Trump allies assembled so-called alternate slates of electors who planned to cast Electoral College votes for Trump in states actually won by President Joe Biden, according to the Times.

The subpoena also requested information about other members of the Trump administration, or members of Congress, who may have been involved in the “planning or execution of any rally or any attempt to obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of election results.

Rally organizer Ali Alexander previously alleged that Reps. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., helped plan the march to the Capitol. Two people involved in planning pro-Trump rallies ahead of the attack last year told Rolling Stone that they had “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of the events that included Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and the three lawmakers named by Alexander. The planners, who have already testified before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, also said that Gosar even floated the prospect of “blanket pardons” and that former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows was “100% made aware of what was going on.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said the latest subpoenas were “really important.”

They could “reveal if members of Congress were in on the plot, and objected to ballots intending to extend the process out purposefully to allow time for the assault on the Capitol to disrupt the ballot count,” he tweeted. “I hope that’s not true, but it needs to be settled.”

The reports come after Democrats investigating the Jan. 6 attack roundly criticized Garland and the DOJ for not doing enough to pressure Trump’s inner circle to cooperate with their probe. Multiple committee members on Monday criticized the DOJ for not charging Meadows after the House voted to hold him in contempt for refusing to cooperate.

“Attorney General Garland, do your job so that we can do ours,” Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., said Monday as the panel voted to hold former Trump aides Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro in contempt.

The latest subpoenas show that the DOJ has quietly expanded its probe, which has already led to charges against more than 770 people, beyond those who stormed the Capitol and committed violence. But that could be a complicated task, since investigators have to distinguish between constitutionally protected First Amendment rights and actions that may be criminal.

Ahead of the one-year anniversary of the attack, Garland vowed that the Justice Department would “follow the facts” of the case.

“We follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money,” he said. “But most important, we follow the facts — not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.”

But the subpoenas mark a shift in strategy from the early days of the probe. Several federal prosecutors wanted to use subpoenas and search warrants to investigate rally organizers but Trump-appointed investigation chief Michael Sherwin and other FBI and DOJ officials resisted the idea, concerned that such moves could violate First Amendment rights, according to the Post.

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

Prosecutors have since asked witnesses about who paid for their lodging and travel to Washington, according to the Post. Several groups, including Alexander’s “Stop the Steal” and Amy Kremer’s Women for America First, organized large caravans ahead of the Jan. 6 rally. Both have denied any wrongdoing.

The House Jan. 6 committee has already sent subpoenas to Alexander, Kremer and her daughter Kylie, former Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson, former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s niece Maggie, and others involved in the rally planning.

The committee has also subpoenaed a number of Trump administration officials and allies involved with his failed effort to overturn his election loss, including attorney John Eastman, who wrote memos plotting to block the certification of the election in Congress. A federal judge this week ordered Eastman to turn over more than 100 emails to the panel, writing that the actions taken by Eastman and Trump were effectively a “coup in search of a legal theory.”

“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” wrote Judge David Carter of the Central District of California, adding that Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in his effort to block Biden’s win.

While the committee has had trouble getting witnesses to cooperate, legal experts say the DOJ is unlikely to face similar resistance.

“Unlike Congress, DOJ has the authority to enforce its own subpoenas,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance. “One solution is sending out the US Marshals with handcuffs to bring in recalcitrant witnesses who miss their date, which means witnesses usually don’t.”

Read more: