Opinion
A vile attack lurks in the past of Trump's latest darling
Friends,
The Justice Department has just launched a criminal investigation of Cassidy Hutchinson. Remember her?
Hutchinson was the young, courageous former White House aide whose testimony before Congress implicated Trump in the violence that erupted at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Not surprisingly, her testimony enraged Trump. So, the Justice Department is now accusing Hutchinson of having lied to Congress, which is a criminal offense.
It’s just the latest example of Trump’s vindictive and perverse use of the Justice Department to go after people he perceives to be his enemies.
Who’s been assigned to carry out this vicious investigation? Not anyone in the criminal division, which you might expect would have expertise in pursuing a criminal case. No, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, has assigned the case to the Civil Rights Division, which in normal times focuses on civil rights abuses like police misconduct and racial discrimination.
Blanche has given the case directly to Harmeet Dhillon, who runs the Civil Rights Division. Dhillon, an unblinking Trump loyalist, has emerged as an effective advocate for Trump’s agenda.
She’s also reputedly on the shortlist to be Trump’s next attorney general.
So, what do we know about Harmeet Dhillon?
Although she’s taken on the investigation of Cassidy Hutchinson, in January Dhillon refused to investigate the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
Dhillon’s decision not to investigate Good’s killing marked a sharp departure from past Civil Rights Division chiefs, who have always moved quickly to probe shootings of civilians by law enforcement officials.
Four senior DOJ civil rights officials resigned over Dhillon’s refusal to investigate.
Dhillon also refused to assign civil rights attorneys to investigate the subsequent Minneapolis shooting death by two federal agents of Alex Pretti. Instead, she tapped a lawyer who handles civil investigations involving workplace discrimination.
Yet a few weeks after Good’s killing, Dhillon took on the investigation of a group of people (including journalist Don Lemon) who had protested Good’s shooting by disrupting a service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The protesters had targeted the church because a pastor there, David Easterwood, was identified as the local ICE field office director.
Dhillon characterized the disruption as a “desecration of a house of worship” and therefore a violation of federal civil rights laws. By April, nearly 40 people faced federal charges in this case of conspiracy against the right of religious worship.
Dhillon has also been the force behind condemning universities for allowing what she deems “antisemitic” protests — and withholding research funding unless they agree to explicit measures supposedly to prevent antisemitism.
Last summer, the The New Yorker published an extensive piece on Dartmouth College titled “How Dartmouth Became the Ivy League’s Switzerland,” claiming that Dartmouth President Sian Beilock had successfully avoided Dhillon’s ire — and the federal funding cuts that have threatened Harvard and Columbia — by adopting a “neutral” position on Trump’s attempt to take greater control of higher education.
Dhillon calls Dartmouth “one of the good guys” in higher education. (Rather than neutral Switzerland during World War II, a more accurate analogy for Dartmouth’s response to Trump under Beilock would be Britain under Neville Chamberlain, who appeased Hitler.)
I was a Dartmouth trustee in the 1980s when its president, James O. Freedman, who was Jewish, endured the antisemitic barbs of an ascendant right-wing student group headed by Dhillon, then a Dartmouth student. (Other members included Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D’Souza.)
In 1988, Dhillon, as editor of The Dartmouth Review, published a column depicting Freedman as Adolf Hitler under the headline “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Freedmann” — a play on a Nazi slogan, “One Empire, One People, One Leader,” but substituting and misspelling Freedman’s name for “Fuhrer.”
Using the analogy of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, the column satirically described how “Der Freedmann” and his associates rid the campus of conservatives. The column referred to the “‘Final Solution’ of the Conservative Problem” and to “survivors” of the Dartmouth “holocaust” and described Dartmouth conservatives being “deported in cattle cars in the night.”
A drawing on the cover of the following issue of Dhillon’s Dartmouth Review also depicted Freedman, who had been critical of The Review, as Hitler.
I saw how much Dhillon’s publication hurt Freedman. As a Jew, he not only felt personally attacked but also worried about the effects of Dhillon’s publication on Jewish students at Dartmouth.
Granted, this was 1988. Dhillon’s history of publishing such antisemitic crap doesn’t necessarily cast her recent crusade against campus antisemitism as hypocritical. It’s possible that her undergraduate escapade into antisemitism caused her such remorse that she subsequently experienced a conversion of sorts and became committed to ridding universities of similar acts of bigotry.
But nothing in her history after Dartmouth or her official biography suggests such a conversion. The most probable explanation for her turnaround is simple ambition.
Dhillon grabbed the opportunity to become assistant attorney general in charge of civil rights and agreed to use the charge of antisemitism as a weapon to carry out the Trump regime’s war on prestigious universities — not because they’re hotbeds of antisemitism, but because the authoritarian right considers them hotbeds of leftist ideology.
JD Vance said in a 2021 speech titled “The Universities are the enemy,” that “we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” He never mentioned antisemitism.
Dhillon admits that her overall vision is not just slowing down civil rights in America but “turning the train around and driving in the opposite direction,” as she told the conservative Federalist Society after her appointment as head of the division.
She has eliminated federal oversight of police departments accused of discrimination, once the centerpiece of the Civil Rights Division’s work.
She has directed universities to end all types of affirmative action, once defended by the Civil Rights Division.
She is now suing states to acquire voter databases in an effort to disenfranchise minority voters. The Civil Rights Division once existed to protect their voting rights.
Harmeet Dhillon is no advocate for civil rights. She’s a legal hack for Trump’s cruel agenda of attacking Americans trying to stop ICE and Border Patrol agents from doing their worst, of seeking to destroy academic freedom in American universities in favor of Trump’s narrow view of what should be allowed, of undermining equal opportunity for people of color, and of prosecuting anyone — like Cassidy Hutchinson — with the courage and integrity to stand up against Trump’s despotism.
Harmeet Dhillon is the last person who should be running the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. She should never become attorney general — which means Trump will probably nominate her.
- Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
These red-state Republicans must break their silence — our lives depend on it
It’s not every day you wake up and send the following email to the five Republican men representing Kansas in Washington, D.C.:
“Good morning! I was wondering if the congressman had any comment on the president’s words yesterday threatening the eradication of Iran’s civilization.”
Nevertheless, that’s how I began Wednesday, reaching out to Sens. Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall, along with U.S. Reps. Tracey Mann, Derek Schmidt and Ron Estes. I had lost a sizable chunk of Tuesday afternoon in queasy apprehension after President Donald Trump posted the following rant to his Truth Social account.

You don’t have to study Trump’s words very hard or very long to recognize that he’s threatening nuclear attacks against Iran, the country against which he launched a war of choice in February. How else would “a whole civilization die tonight”?
The president announced a ceasefire later the same day. My stomach quieted down. But amid the tension, I wondered why our Kansas Republican delegation stayed so silent. A quick study of social media accounts from Moran, Marshall, Mann, Schmidt and Estes uncovered not a single acknowledgment of Trump’s message.
My email notes to press representatives of the men also went unanswered.
Perhaps they had assumed the nukes would fly and none of us would be here today. Bad for them, perhaps, but good for everyone else in the civilized world.
One member of the D.C. contingent popped up Wednesday nonetheless, with Schmidt addressing a Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce forum.
“I hope we’re near the end of this operation — with a successful outcome,” he said. “At the end of the day, the real risk was a nuclear-armed Iran that had the ability to deliver payload outside of its borders.”
You know who else has the ability to deliver payloads of nuclear weapons far outside its borders? The United States.
Let’s not beat around the bush.
A U.S. president threatening the use of nuclear weapons against an adversary risks the end of the world.
In the aftermath of Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and accompanying nuclear saber-rattling, I read a great deal about nuclear weapons and their potential effect if deployed. Suffice it to say, there’s no safe or consequence-free way to use a nuke. No, not even a smaller “tactical” nuclear weapon. The deployment of any such device in warfare inevitably leads to global conflagration.
Perhaps Trump would never actually press the button. Do you know that for sure?
It doesn’t matter if you’re a supporter or critic of his unpredictable bellicosity. The man thrives on keeping Americans — and people around the world — off guard. With nukes in the picture, how could you possibly accept him as a party leader, military commander or moral exemplar?
For a few hours Tuesday, much of the world’s population held its collective breath in fear of incineration by nuclear fire.
“Never has the matter ceased troubling me,” wrote Kansas legend and President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
He was deeply troubled by the development and deployment of the atomic bomb.
He added, in a message that now seems addressed to Kansas’ congressional contingent: “It seems to be an historical fact that when a people become strong, prosperous, and on the whole contented with their lot, it becomes very difficult to reach them with an idea that requires them to think of unpleasant possibilities or to undertake the work and effort required to eliminate such possibilities.”
Some members of our delegation would likely say that Trump’s threats helped create a supposed ceasefire. That is, his rhetoric forced Iran into a deal. That interpretation only works if you believe language serves as a tool for manipulation, not a vessel containing information.
I don’t care if Trump was doing what he always does. I don’t care if he stakes out a maximalist position for negotiating purposes. No sane person, Republican or Democrat, would accept such behavior from any other political leader.
Even if Trump didn’t intend to invoke nuclear weapons, he has repeatedly called on the U.S. military to commit war crimes. His repeated calls to destroy Iran’s civilian infrastructure signify nothing less.
People will do what they do. Republicans will believe what they believe. Moran, Marshall, Mann, Schmidt and Estes will take the path of least resistance to preserve their position in the party. I understand. What are a few war crimes between friends, anyway?
But there will be no people to do what they do, no Republicans to believe what they believe, and no positions in the party to preserve when the bombs fall. When you live in a world where the president has the singular, individual ability to wipe all life from the face of the earth, why wouldn’t you step up and say something?
Or perhaps they’ve all decided to follow the advice of leading geopolitical strategist Randy Newman: “Let’s drop the big one and see what happens.”
(“The Midnight Special”)
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Trump masked these obscenities with a mind-blowing threat. It could massively backfire
Well, 8 PM Tuesday came and went, to paraphrase TS Eliot, “Not with a bang but a whimper.” In the latest episode of Trump’s reality show presidency, he decided he’ll give Iran “another two weeks” (we’ll get to that in a minute) to open the Strait of Hormuz because something something Pakistan something.
Some are suggesting it was a predictable TACO — “Trump Always Chickens Out” — while others, including at least one retired general who was on MSNOW, say sources tell them that the commanders at CENTCOM simply and bluntly refused to carry out his and Whiskey Pete’s orders to commit massive war crimes.
In either case, it shouldn’t surprise us that Trump has backed down. Throughout his entire life, this nepo-baby has only been good at two things beyond inheriting and squandering his father’s money.
The first has been manipulating the press to get publicity for himself, a skill he fine-tuned in the 1980s (as I detail in The Last American President: A Broken Man, a Corrupt Party, and a World on the Brink) and has been on display throughout this Iran debacle (and the entire past decade).
He started with the New York tabloids and talk shows, then graduated to a national stage when he began accusing Barack Obama of having been born in Kenya. Now he does it daily from the White House and his tacky golf motel in Florida.
You could argue that he came by this skill honestly, driven by his being raised by a psychopathic father and a distant, sickly mother. He never felt loved, and never learned how to love, turning all his efforts into getting attention — which he translated into approval and love — from others. His deep sense of being unloved and unworthy underlies and drives much of his own psychopathy.
And his literal hate for anybody — particularly women — who doesn’t completely defer to him shows up almost daily in press conferences and on his helicopter and plane trips when he slaps down mostly-women reporters with epithets like “piggy” and “you’re stupid” for having had the temerity to ask him a non-flattering question or one that may reveal his criminality or ignorance.
His other, second skill was learned: NBC spent literally millions of dollars teaching Trump how to be a reality show host, which is the other role he’s playing now.
There can be little doubt that this cruel narcissist got pleasure and a deep satisfaction from telling people less powerful than him, “You’re fired,” but it was NBC’s producers and media consultants who taught him how to raise expectations, heighten tension, drag out a tease, and the importance of always rebooting the show at least every two weeks, lest the public forget the storyline and move on.
His perverse delight in turning others’ lives upside-down by firing them, first experienced in real time on The Apprentice set, now translates into the callous way he jettisons anybody in his orbit he doesn’t consider appropriately obsequious; Pam Bondi is just the most recent in a long list of people he went out of his way to humiliate.
His Cabinet meetings similarly reflect his lessons learned doing TV for NBC when he’d gather people around a table in the boardroom TV set the network had to create because his actual offices in New York were so shabby. He’d go around the table giving each contestant an opportunity to not only make a case for their business idea, but also to slather him with praise and adoration.
Above all, both of these trainings taught him the importance of dominating the news cycle with the tease, which is what we’ve been seeing this past week in particular.
When he was just a pathetic, always-failing hustler in the Big City, he’d wake up every morning asking himself what he could do or say that’d get him on Page One or Page Six of The New York Post; now his question is how to dominate every night’s coverage of the evening news. Or every news show, all day, if possible.
Threatening genocide certainly pulled that one off:
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
That insane message should have immediately provoked articles of impeachment from any and every congressional Republican with even a fragment of loyalty to our Constitution, the rule of law, and humanity itself. Instead, we got a very revealing, deafening silence.
The problem with suggesting genocide — and the reason why no other American president has been stupid and reckless enough to try this in our entire history — is that America making such a threat establishes for every despot in the world that mass killing is now okay again. International law and the Geneva Conventions don’t mean a thing; when you’re a star, they let you do it.
Putin’s bloody, vicious attack on Ukraine is now justified; if America can threaten it, why are you criticizing Russia? And when Xi decides to take Taiwan, who will dare stand up to him when he threatens nuclear annihilation? Not to mention the dozens of tinpot dictators who now feel similarly liberated.
And the bonus for Trump is that nobody’s talking about his allegedly raping 13-year-olds, his sons getting into the defense contractor gravy train, his bitcoin and selling-pardon grifts, his destroying the White House’s East Wing, his hanging his picture all over DC like he’s Saddam, his inflation, the price of gas, his hanging Putin’s picture in the White House along with our past presidents, or any of the other daily obscenities and indignities his regime visits upon us.
Trump thinks he’s living inside a reality show, one of the few things he knows how to do well. Sociopaths and psychopaths, after all, don’t see other humans as real people like them with actual hopes, dreams, and feelings. They think they’re the only “real” person in the world, and only their emotions matter. Everybody else is simply a prop on the set, here to facilitate their whims.
His limited mental capacity and inability to feel empathy prevent him from understanding the consequences of the things he’s done, from his illegal tariffs to his war-crime bombing of little boats in the Caribbean, to his joining accused war criminal Netanyahu in attacking a country that represented no threat whatsoever to America (and was on the verge of giving him a better deal than they had Obama).
He’ll never understand; he’s simply not capable of it. Any more than he could understand the damage he did to the women he assaulted or the girls who claim he raped them, the small-business contractors he stiffed, the customers he conned with his multiple grifts — from his fake university to the worthless merchandise he hawks to his crypto scams — or the victims of the MAGA cult he fashioned around himself to bleed dry financially and then discard when the votes and dollars were in.
But America and the world will pay the price, and it won’t be paid easily or quickly. It’ll take at least a generation for this nation to heal from the damage Trump, his billionaire buddies, and his GOP toadies have done.
We got a two-week reprieve. We must use it to impeach this man and remove him from office, as over 85 lawmakers have already publicly called for.Artemis stumbles onto Trump's hidden stash of Epstein files
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
However you spin it, Trump — this was a loss of devastating proportions
Donald Trump spent the last 40 days bombing Iran, threatening to wipe out “a whole civilization,” and turning the world’s most critical oil chokepoint into a war zone - going from the world’s worst tyrant to its biggest idiot.
What he got in return was a two-week pause, brokered not by American military strength or his bravado, but by Pakistan, built on Iran’s 10-point proposal, which Tehran’s Supreme National Security Council is already calling a victory. Iran isn’t wrong. Trump has just screwed everything up, ushering in a foreboding future.
He blew it all up, and will blow it all up again.
Iran’s leaders are openly touting this ceasefire as a triumph, declaring that “nearly all the objectives of the war have been achieved.” And that’s an accurate read of the terms. Iran’s 10-point proposal demands the lifting of all sanctions and UN resolutions, the release of Iranian assets held overseas, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from regional bases, reparations for damages, and Iran’s explicit right to continue nuclear enrichment. And Trump agreed to a ceasefire based on this?
Does anyone - anyone - believe Donald Trump is going to pay Iran reparations for the bombs he dropped? That he’ll pull U.S. forces from the region? That he’ll sanction Iran’s right to enrich uranium? This agreement isn’t a deal. It’s a wish list for Tehran and a jab at Trump’s infamous bulbous gut of acidic instinct.
Oh, and let’s not forget the single most consequential blunder of this entire catastrophe: the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which one-fifth of the world’s oil typically passes, now comes under Iranian military management, with passage permitted only under coordination with Iran’s armed forces. Seriously?
Gallingly, that wasn’t the arrangement before Trump launched this abjectly nonsensical war of choice on February 28. Iran now controls the most strategically vital waterway on the planet in a way it never did before.
That’s not a win by anyone’s measure. In fact, it might be Trump’s biggest mess yet.
Meanwhile, while Trump was huffing and puffing on Truth Social, who stepped in to shield Iran’s position on the world stage? Russia and China, naturally. A UN Security Council resolution aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz failed after both countries vetoed it. China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong said adopting such a draft while the U.S. was “threatening the survival of a civilization” would have sent the wrong message.
There it is. Beijing and Moscow used Trump’s own genocide rhetoric against him, blocked
international action, and elevated their status as Iran’s indispensable protectors - all while Trump was busy posting threats in ALL CAPS.
Russia and China know full well the fool Trump is. They didn’t just veto a resolution. They swept in under Trump’s bloated, ego-driven rotting bulging gut and established themselves as the reliable partners in the region.
The obtuseness of Trump to think they’d sit on the sidelines is shocking.
The Gulf states that hosted U.S. forces and absorbed Iranian missile strikes throughout this conflict are watching all of this with horror and fury. Iran targeted hotels, airports, residential buildings and other civilian infrastructure in more than 10 countries.
The UAE, Dubai, Bahrain, America’s regional partners, the allies who were supposed to benefit from a demonstration of U.S. power, watched their territory get smashed while Trump looked on and did nothing.
Frankly, he only cares about taking their money for his family business ventures and could give a damn if they’re bombed to smithereens.
Will these countries ever fully trust the U.S. again? About anything? That question now hangs over every diplomatic relationship in the region. To them, the United States looks like a bunch of backwater hillbillies who don't know their ass from their elbow.
Then there’s Israel. Warmonger Benjamin Netanyahu’s office immediately said the ceasefire doesn’t include Lebanon, contradicting the Pakistani prime minister’s statement that it covered “Lebanon and elsewhere.” Israel has no interest in stopping. Netanyahu wanted this war badly, pushed Trump into it, and now intends to keep bombing Hezbollah regardless of what any ceasefire document says.
The contradictions embedded in this so-called deal are glaring. It is held together by toothpicks, tape, and a desperate Trump hunting for an off-ramp.
The bombing campaign that was supposed to liberate the Iranian people from a repressive theocracy has instead made that government stronger. Iranian nationalism is surging. The religious fundamentalists who run Tehran have successfully reframed 40 days of destruction as a national victory.
The population isn’t revolting against its leaders the way Trump promised at the start of the war. It’s rallying around them. This war achieved the precise opposite of its stated objectives.
And now Trump wants us to believe he’s going to negotiate a permanent settlement with JD and neophyte Jared possibly leading the way. OMG! Two fools cut from the same clown-cloth as their foolish boss. Iran is angrier than it has ever been, more resolved than ever to enrich uranium, and emboldened by the knowledge that it survived everything the United States could throw at it.
Remember this - extremist regimes have long memories and longer patience. The architects of September 11 spent years in the planning. Iran does not forget. Iran does not forgive. The idea that this pause holds because Trump is going to bluster his way to a permanent peace deal is a sick joke.
The biggest question Trump has never answered - besides why the war started - is how it ends. If the regime holds, and it has held, and a negotiated deal falls short, and it will with Trump in charge, what comes next? So far, the only answer has been to extend the deadline again.
TACO Trump’s specialty!
Think about this. If British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had launched a war against Iran, threatened daily to annihilate its civilization, then claimed a two-week ceasefire as victory, the world would call him a tyrant.
The American people elected Trump — twice, mind you — and the world is drawing exactly that conclusion about us. We are no longer the arsenal of democracy. We are the arsenal of chaos and tyranny.
And this ceasefire will not survive contact with the man who made it, because Trump has never succeeded at anything. Ever. He’s a perennial loser. And the future of the world is in his hands right now, and he will find a way to mes this up for sure.
Iran has shown the world how to defeat Trump
Friends,
Last night, 90 minutes before Trump said he’d cause the death of a “whole civilization” if Iran didn’t open the Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian official said the shipping channel would be reopened for two weeks if the United States stopped bombing Iran. The U.S. has now stopped bombing Iran.
So we’re back to the status quo before Trump began his war. Only now, Iran can credibly threaten to close the strait if it doesn’t get what it wants from Trump — thereby causing havoc to the U.S. (and world) economies. Trump’s only remaining bargaining leverage is the threat of committing war crimes.
In other words, last night’s showdown was a clear victory for Iran and a clear defeat for Trump (although he’ll frame it as a victory).
The Iran fiasco is only the latest in a host of examples revealing how to defeat Trump.
In addition to Iran, similar strategies have been used by China, Russia, Canada, Mexico, and Greenland. Inside the United States, the people of Minneapolis have used them, as have Harvard University, comedian Jimmy Kimmel, writer E. Jean Carroll, and the law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale.
What’s the strategy that connects them all?
All refused to cave to Trump, despite his superior military or economic power. Instead, they’ve engaged in a kind of jujitsu in which they use Trump’s power against him, while allowing Trump to save face by claiming he’s won. Consider:
Iran knew it was no match for the superior might of the U.S. (and Israel). So it used cheap drones and missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz and incapacitate other Gulf oil installations, thereby driving up the prices of oil and gas at the pump in the U.S., which has put growing political pressure on Trump, months before a midterm election. Hence, Trump has been forced stop his war.
China knew what to do when Trump imposed a giant tariff on Chinese exports to the U.S.: It put restrictions on seven types of heavy rare earth metals and magnets, crucial to U.S. defense and tech industries. Beijing continues to use these rare earth restrictions as tactical levers in ongoing negotiations over trade, rather than demand complete surrender by Trump on his trade policies.
Russia has leveraged its vast deposits of oil and natural gas with U.S. allies. It has also demonstrated its power to intrude into U.S. elections (the Mueller Report detailed a “sweeping and systematic” campaign by Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, primarily favoring Trump).
Canada and Mexico have won every tariff showdown with Trump by leveraging America’s substantial economic dependence on them for components and raw materials, but without crowing about their victories.
Greenland has leveraged public opinion globally and in the United States — overwhelmingly against an American invasion or occupation — to curb Trump’s ambitions there.
The citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul have leveraged their asymmetric power against Trump’s ICE and Border Patrol agents by carefully organizing themselves into a force of nonviolent resistance to protect immigrants there. Their strategy showed itself to be especially effective, tragically, after Trump’s agents murdered Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the public outcry forced the agents to leave the Twin Cities.
Harvard University’s strategy for resisting Trump’s interference in Harvard’s academic freedom has been to leverage its influence with the federal courts in Boston and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to get rulings that stopped Trump (although he’s still trying).
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel turned a political crisis into a ratings victory by using the public backlash against his suspension from ABC/Disney (after ABC/Disney initially caved to Trump’s demands that he be taken off the air). Since ABC/Disney reinstated him, Kimmel has continued to target Trump, and secured his contract through 2027.
Writer E. Jean Carroll defeated Donald Trump in two civil cases by leveraging New York’s Adult Survivors Act to prove that Trump sexually abused and defamed her, ultimately securing over $88 million in damages from him — verdicts that have been upheld by federal appeals courts. Carroll’s lawyers used a civil lawsuit, requiring a lower burden of proof (”preponderance of evidence”) than criminal cases. They presented the jury with Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other Trump accusers. The real jujitsu was that Trump’s continued public statements about Carroll, which the court deemed defamatory, led to her second lawsuit. His depositions, where he called her a “whack job,” were played for the jury.
The law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale refused to follow Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms that had represented causes or clients that Trump opposed. The orders threatened to revoke the firms’ security clearances, access to federal buildings and officials, and government contracts tied to firm clients. But the firms didn’t back down. They leveraged constitutional arguments with the federal courts — arguing that the orders infringed on their First Amendment rights to advocate whatever causes they wished, violated the Constitution’s separation of powers because the orders would prevent the judiciary from considering challenges to executive authority, and violated their clients’ rights under the Constitution to be represented.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the firms and blocked these orders with permanent injunctions. The Justice Department ultimately dropped its fight against these firms in March 2026 after federal appellate judges also found Trump’s orders unconstitutional.
What’s happened to the countries and organizations that have caved to Trump?
All have strengthened Trump’s leverage over them. Europe seems incapacitated, fearing Trump will leave NATO (despite a U.S. law prohibiting it) but unable to decide where to draw the line with him.
ABC continues to lose viewers and while being subject to Trump’s whims. CBS was purchased by Trump allies Larry Ellison and his son, David, and is hemorrhaging talent.
Columbia University has been wracked by dissent from both students and faculty. The Trump regime continues to make demands of it.
The National Museum of American History has lost credibility and talent.
The law firms that caved in to Trump’s executive orders have seen lawyers exit who felt the deals betrayed the firms’ values and principles. Microsoft dropped Simpson Thacher to work with Jenner & Block — a firm that fought Trump — due to Microsoft’s concerns over Simpson’s commitment to the rule of law. Students at elite law schools have also reportedly begun to shun firms that struck deals with the Trump regime.
Bottom line: There’s now a clear blueprint for how to defeat Trump, available to any country, organization, or person on which he seeks to impose his will: Reject his demands and then use your own asymmetric power — a form of jujitsu — to turn Trump’s power against him.
Which is what Iran did last night.
- Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
Doctors said her brother died after a surgery. Then a miracle happened.
After reading the message in our long-running WhatsApp family chat, I dropped my iPhone in the bed, covered my face and sobbed: “Dear family, there is very sad news. Our dear brother, Guillermo, has died.”
It was 10:45 p.m. in London, where I recently moved from Houston, and six hours earlier back home in Quito, Ecuador.
All the hope and happiness I had experienced only a few hours ago, when my 63-year-old brother Guillermo Ordóñez urgently flew from Quito to the coastal city of Guayaquil to receive a long-awaited liver transplant, was instantly crushed that February evening earlier this year.
It was the type of message every immigrant dreads when you are thousands of miles away from family. No matter how much success we have in a different country, every expatriate knows there is no way to escape this: being unable to hug loved ones back home during life's darkest moments.
This dread is all too real for so many in the Houston region, where 1 in 4 people are immigrants.
In the face of death, I was wracked with grief. I begged for it to just be a dream. There must be a way out of the horror; some way to reverse time. I just wanted to hug my beloved oldest brother again.
I was accustomed to seeing Guillermo at least once, sometimes twice a year, when I would fly from Houston to Ecuador. It was always a big deal to return and join everyone for holidays. And as the youngest of eight children who are now parents or even grandparents, our gatherings were always large.
I broke our family’s tradition by being the first to immigrate to the United States. I was a competitive track and field athlete in my youth and went on to become a sports journalist. I later won a fellowship to work in the U.S. where I earned a master’s degree and went on to writing about business before joining the corporate ranks, where I am now based in London for a U.S. energy company.
Guillermo became a father figure after we lost our dad many years ago. As a public health doctor, he led a nonprofit that creates homes for street children in the poorest, most dangerous shanty towns across Ecuador. He is guided by the philosophy that unconditional love provides hope to even the most abandoned and neglected youth.
He dedicated his life to helping those who had the least. He lived with them.
Guillermo set an example of selflessness and giving to others, but he has flaws as we all do. His health had its ups and downs over the years but liver problems had finally caught up with him and the vital organ simply could not go on much longer.
After almost five hours of surgery, doctors transplanted the liver of a young man who died a few hours earlier in a car accident to Guillermo’s exhausted body.
When they pumped blood through the new organ, which was so much stronger and flexible than my brother’s hard-like-a-rock damaged liver, blood flowed without obstacles. It overwhelmed his heart. It halted his beat.
After crying for about half an hour, I found the strength to grab my iPhone. I scrolled through the chat, usually lengthy with the reactions of eight siblings and dozens of nephews and nieces, and now raw with so much grief splayed open.
As I progressed, what I soon found, instead, was what many would call a miracle.
“He is still alive,” a follow-up message exclaimed. “But the doctors said we shouldn’t have a lot of hope because he was clinically dead for a long time.”
The main surgeons, Cristian Arias, 41, and Carlos Bermello, 41, and two assistant surgeons would not let their patient go so easily. Not without a heroic, physical fight.
When Guillermo’s heart stopped, the four doctors took turns compressing his heart for about 30 minutes to resuscitate him. But there was no heartbeat.
Dr. Arias then grabbed a scalpel and enlarged the incision they were using for the transplant by 4 inches, to use his full fist to grab my brother’s heart in his own hand and pump it. He and Dr. Bermello took turns massaging his heart for 15 more minutes. They finally stopped because too much time had passed. Guillermo’s heart didn’t respond.
Exhausted, the doctors walked to the waiting room and asked to talk to our family. Dr. Arias told my sister-in-law, Rocio, that the surgery had been going well, but that Guillermo’s heart didn’t respond, and there was nothing else they could do. “We are very sorry, but he has passed away,” Dr. Arias told her.
Rocio wailed with pain. Other family members at her side began making calls and sending messages. Arrangements were being made to return Guillermo’s body to Quito, where he was born and spent his entire life.
At the same time, the anesthesiologist who was disconnecting my brother from the respirator and the nurses preparing his body, which still had the open incision, saw that the heart monitor had begun beeping again. At first, they thought the machine was malfunctioning, but soon realized his heart was beating again by itself.
They called Dr. Arias. He and his team rushed back into action. They closed him up and again fought to keep him alive. They finished the surgery in an hour.
I was stunned when I learned he was still alive. My emotions were swirling as I wondered how it is possible he is alive when I was just told he was dead?
As the news of his resurrection spread among family and friends, there was joy, but also uncertainty.
What shape would he be in after being technically dead, including the last 15 minutes when he stopped receiving the heart massage?
Thinking of the worst-case scenario, I could not imagine a man so full of life, a leader of our family, and the selfless guardian of so many others reduced to a vegetative state.
Guillermo was moved to intensive care. When his wife was allowed to visit him for a few minutes the next day, she reported he was opening his eyes, identifying her with a thumbs up. Then, when his daughter visited in a few days, and he was not intubated anymore, he quietly proclaimed with a raspy voice: “I’m OK.”

Though doctors initially said Guillermo Ordóñez had died after surgery, he miraculously survived and is now recovering. (Photo courtesy of Isabel Ordóñez)
He left intensive care after two weeks, weighing 125 pounds, 40 pounds less than his normal weight, and unable to stand due to his weakened muscles. He stayed in the hospital until early September, going through numerous ups and downs, including scares about transplant rejections.
But he was finally released from the hospital and allowed to return to Quito in September. His brain and body are intact. He can walk, talk, drive, tell jokes. More importantly, he can share his story. He is starting on the unfinished projects of his life, like writing a book about the power of love to change the lives of children in the most dire circumstances. He values every moment.
When I visited Guillermo at the hospital in June, I found him with an enormous appreciation for the outpouring of love and support of friends, family and even strangers, many who donated to help with living expenses. But he was particularly thankful to God for his second chance at life. For decades he was an atheist, but in the last few years had slowly become a person of a strong faith. What happened that night of Feb. 7, only strengthened his faith.
He told me that at some point during the surgery he saw himself out of his body and observed the team working on him. He then saw a bright image with a shiny hood, like a scarf or hoodie pulled over one’s head. He saw a light projecting moving images of many people, including our father who died 30 years ago. He felt warm, he said. Then, the bright figure started walking away. He began following him, but then the image turned and asked him to stop and go back. After that, he only remembers nightmares and deliriousness from being in intensive care. He became fully conscious weeks later.
“I’m happy and immensely grateful I’m alive,” Guillermo said. “But I’m no longer afraid of dying. I felt peaceful and happy when I was dying that night.”
What happened that night also touched Dr. Arias.
“I have done more than 50 surgeries of these in my more than 20 years of practice, and I have never seen anything like this. I’m not a strong believer, but this is what people call a miracle,” Dr. Arias said.
“Your brother is able to describe things that were happening in the operating room that are physically impossible to know when you are under general anesthesia,” Dr. Arias said.
For me, it also changed many of my beliefs, many at the very practical level, including the assumption that the best medical care is always in the developed world.
After living for 15 years in Houston, I would have expected this miracle only to happen in the Texas Medical Center but not in the operating room of a public hospital tucked away in my tiny underdog Andean country, where tragedy and tough times fueled by difficulty are a part of daily life.
I also would not have expected our family’s heroes to be Dr. Arias and Dr. Bermello, two doctors operating in a severely underfunded government hospital, whose entire medical education was done in Ecuador, with specialization in Argentina and Spain, respectively.
Dr. Arias and Dr. Bermello’s professional lives are likely as demanding as any surgeon in Houston, but their lifestyle is different. They have a middle-class income, working for a government-funded hospital, and they don’t need much more to love their jobs and to fight for their patients.
I have also been amazed that the hospital and transplant costs were zero to my brother, that the liver became available in less than six months because he was qualified to receive the transplant thanks to a law in Ecuador that makes it a default for people to be organ donors. In other words, everyone is a potential donor unless they opt out.
“I will forever be grateful to the anonymous young organ donor and the medical professionals who saved my life,” Guillermo said while tearing up.
What happened Feb. 7 made me wonder what gives us the power of life and what takes it away? What are life’s biggest mysteries and how much we really know about life and death?
The surging love I felt when I was able to hug Guillermo during my visit in June while I listened to his story, that is all I need to know for now.
Contact Isabel Ordóñez at isabelord@yahoo.es.
This article first appeared on Houston Landing and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
This is the most dangerous crisis facing America right now — and it's not Iran
Trump is tearing America apart with his threats against Iran and comment that domestically, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.” He’s also succeeded in intentionally pitting Americans of different races, religions, and across the rural/urban divide against each other.
“There was a time when Americans expected political leadership to involve sobriety, judgment, and at least a passing acquaintance with reality. That time now feels like one of those lost civilizations historians whisper about, somewhere between Atlantis and the Republican Party of 1956.”
While it’s worked to the advantage of the GOP, the fossil fuel and private prison industries, and the billionaire class for four decades or more, it’s extraordinarily dangerous to our nation and our children’s future.
That’s because a society can’t function when its people don’t have faith in its institutions, and it’s even more of a challenge for a democracy, a form of government which only exists “by the consent of the governed.” When people lose faith in their nation’s institutions, the result is both social and political chaos much like America is experiencing right now.
I saw this over and over again when doing international relief work back in the 1980s and 1990s: in failed and failing states, people not only distrusted their governments, but were openly disdainful of them and their elected and bureaucratic officials.
Out of that distrust grew a plethora of conspiracy theories that tried to explain why things got so bad, and those often led to political violence (I saw this in Haiti and Colombia), authoritarian takeover (I witnessed this working in Russia) and, in two cases where I worked (Sudan and Uganda), actual civil wars.
America is now going through something similar. For example, prior to Reagan’s presidency, 73% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing “just about always” or “most of the time.” Pew found in 2024 that 85% of Americans said most elected officials “don’t care” what people like them think, and only 4% said the political system is working “extremely” or “very” well.
That’s absolutely unsustainable without radical change.
We’re also experiencing a crisis of confidence in America internationally, as nations that were formerly allies across the planet are now openly questioning whether they can ever again trust us after all the betrayals, trash-talking, and Putin-fluffing coming from Trump and his lickspittles.
Tariffs, destroying USAID, and silencing The Voice of America have devastated our soft power and credibility around the world, moving dozens of countries away from us and toward mostly China and Russia.
All of which raises the question: How did we get here and how do we get out of this mess?
Three factors that burst onto the scene in a big way in the 1960s led us to the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, which brought us to today’s crisis.
— The first was the invention of neoliberalism in the 1940s, as I lay out in my book The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America.
— This was followed by the creation of the Libertarian Party a few decades later as a lobbying vehicle against rent control by the real estate lobby.
— And, finally, in the 1980s a handful of fossil fuel billionaires jumping into politics to fund think tanks, media, and politicians who’d preach the doctrine that, as Reagan famously said, ”Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Prior to these interventions, the New Deal consensus had brought Americans together around the idea that the purpose of government was, to quote the Constitution’s Preamble:
“[T]o form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Neoliberals, Libertarians, and rightwing petrobillionaires like David Koch (who ran for VP in 1980 on a ticket of shutting down pretty much all domestic spending, presaging Trump’s recent rant that the only legitimate function of government is to run the military) all began the refrain that government is essentially evil, because they all objected to paying taxes to “promote the general Welfare,” or losing profits to regulations that prevented harms to workers and average Americans.
An army of sycophants and spokesmen was mobilized from William F. Buckley to Rush Limbaugh to the “stars” of Fox “News” and its imitators. Soon, the word spread. As Limbaugh used to joke, social programs were actually evil because:
“What do you do for a man when he’s down? You kick him! Otherwise, he’ll never get up!”
Men with wealth beyond the imaginings of Midas were telling average white working Americans that it wasn’t the GOP’s tax cuts and Republicans’ destruction of unions that crushed them, but brown-skinned immigrants, women, and Black people who wanted to “steal” their jobs, invade their homes, and rape their daughters.
The foundation of Trump’s 2024 campaign was the ad repeated on loop asserting that Kamala Harris wanted government to pay for trans surgery for people in prison. Don’t think about being robbed by billionaires; there are queer people out there who just want to live their own lives!
By the end of the George W. Bush presidency (and his and Cheney’s lies that led us into bloody quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq), most Americans had decided they couldn’t believe or trust our government. Then Trump came along and, presumably on Putin’s orders, told the world that we couldn’t be trusted internationally, either.
Just like with domestic politics, our nation can’t effectively function internationally if other nations also don’t have faith in our institutions. The Reagan Revolution, Donald Trump, and the Republican Party have destroyed both our faith and the world’s faith in the institutions of America and thus put our democracy at serious peril.
Part of that peril is that Donald Trump is now threatening to turn America into an “illiberal democracy” police state with rigged elections like Russia and Hungary. And it’s Americans’ cynicism that is his main weapon.
As John Mac Ghlionn wrote this week for The Hill about how hard a serious recession could hit Americans:
“The cultural confidence that once carried societies through genuine hardship – the belief that sacrifice was worth something, that tomorrow warranted patience – has faded into a nihilism that is difficult to condemn in people who arrived at it honestly.
“A society that still believes in endurance can survive contraction. A society built entirely on consumption faces a harder test.”
The solution is straightforward, and it appears we’re moving quickly in that direction, just like we did in 1932 as we woke up and chose to move out of the Republican Great Depression.
First, Americans must realize that these nihilistic ideologies promoted by billionaires and massive, monopolistic corporations are grounded in lies. We’re not a society of selfish individual consumers driven primarily by greed; we’ve historically been here for each other, and that’s why our government was first formed. It worked best during the 1933-1981 New Deal era, when the Middle Class went from around 10% of us up to around two-thirds of us. And it was crippled by the Reagan Revolution, which has cut it down to around 43% of us.
Second, the Democratic Party needs to re-embrace the social and economic goals of the New Deal and Great Society that brought us Social Security, the minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, free and cheap college, etc., etc. Put “we, the people” first and again restrain the toxic impulses of billionaires and corporations through appropriate taxation and regulation.
And third, we must repudiated the GOP’s corrupt ideology at the polls this fall and bring into office a new generation of FDR-style progressives who are committed to undoing Reagan’s, Bush’s, Musk’s and Trump’s damage and rebuilding American institutions so they’ll once again work for the average family.
It may seem like a big lift, but more and more Americans are waking up to the Great Grift billionaires and their Republican toadies have been running on us for the past half-century. A new America is possible!
Pass it along.
This is what happens when pro-life Republicans play God
I would suggest that, by overwhelmingly passing a measure Thursday to protect in vitro fertilization providers and patients from criminal and civil liability, Alabama legislators are doing more than covering their asses. They are discovering what happens when you play God.
Alabama’s supreme court ruled recently that frozen embryos are “children” under state law, and that providers and patients can be prosecuted or sued for wrongful death of those “children.” In response, clinics across the state suspended services and procedures, sending not only hopeful parents into a panic, but Republican leaders as well.
The ruling was a logical extension of the conservative Christian belief that life begins at conception. If that’s true, an embryo is a person and abortion is murder. It stands to reason, furthermore, that frozen embryos are children who are equally deserving of the same legal protections that born children have. The disposal of unused embryos, a common practice, is now “a death.” While that may make sense as a matter of theology, it makes very little sense as a matter of politics.
READ: 'That's a crime!' HBO's Bill Maher corners Trump defender over criminal indictments
In the wake of the ruling, there have been scores and scores of stories on nationwide media outlets about women in Alabama being denied motherhood. “One woman who appeared before a House committee Wednesday testified that she had spent nearly $400,000 on IVF, which would be wasted if programs were not restored soon,” the Post said.
Seeing a disaster of their own making on the horizon, national “pro-life” Republican leaders, including the party’s presumptive nominee Donald Trump, demanded the Alabama legislature respond swiftly. On Thursday, it passed a measure, by veto-proof margins, that protects parents and providers if embryos are damaged or destroyed.
They are covering their asses, to be sure, but as I said, they’re doing more than that. They are discovering what happens when you deny your humanity, refuse to accept human limitations and play God.
What most call “conservative politics” I often call anti-political politics. The greater point of conservative laws, values and rhetoric is getting critics and opponents of conservative laws, values and rhetoric to stop behaving politically. This is why conservative politics is inherently regressive. It does not make room for solving problems that inevitably rise. Problems wouldn’t be problems if people would just shut up.
The goal of the Republican (and sometimes Democratic) practitioners of anti-political politics is neutralizing democratic politics. They do this most successfully by enacting laws and policies seeming to have come not from human beings who are making human choices while existing in a human context, but instead straight from the Almighty.
Such is “life begins at conception.” To them, it’s not a conservative Christian belief. Alabama legislators did not choose to enshrine it in the state constitution. It’s a commandment. God ordained it. They had no choice. As a consequence, Alabamans can dispense with debate over the complexities of the human condition, especially arguments over life. This is how democratic politics becomes an affront to God.
The obvious problem with absolutes is they rarely accommodate for complexity – like in vitro being the only way some people can have babies. Absolutes are a desire for simplicity where there is little. At the same time, they can create more complexity where there might be less had the people involved embraced, rather than denied, their humanity.
In ruling that frozen embryos are children deserving equal protection, the Alabama Supreme Court obeyed a state constitutional amendment requiring it to “construe ambiguous statutes in a way that ‘protect[s] … the rights of the unborn child’ equally with the rights of born children.” If killing an already-born child is murder, killing an embryo is, too.
But in avoiding a political disaster, Alabama legislators created conditions for a legal disaster, which could become an even bigger political disaster. The new legislation protects parents and providers from criminal and civil liability in the case of damaged or destroyed embryos. However, they are still legally “children”. In doing so, legislators created a two-tiered system of justice through which I’d be prosecuted for killing a born child but not for killing an unborn child.
You see where this is going. If I am protected from criminal and civil liability after “murdering” an unborn child (as someone who disposes of embryos at an in vitro clinic or as a parent who decided to dispose of unused embryos), what’s the continued point of Alabama’s complete ban on abortion? If these “children” are not equally protected, what’s the continued point of possible future “fetal personhood” laws? What’s the continued point even of believing that “life begins at conception”?
Such are the questions at the heart of what could be a political disaster for pro-life Republicans across the country. Not only did they spend half a century claiming the unborn were the same as the born. They organized around the idea of life beginning at conception. They believed the pro-life movement had the biggest civil rights agenda since the age of Martin Luther King, Jr. Their efforts led to the fall of Roe and it could lead to a national ban on abortion under Trump.
Yet by carving out exceptions to an absolute in order to accommodate for the complexities of in vitro fertilization, pro-life Republicans, so far in Alabama but potentially everywhere, are undermining their own position, because they are undermining a commandment from God. In doing so, they are exposing pretty clearly the greater objective of conservative politics – or what I often call anti-political politics. It isn’t conserving things, not even life. It’s neutralizing democratic politics.
This could have been avoided had they accepted their humanity.
But they had to play God.
NOW READ: Trump ally Mike Flynn hit with sanctions bid by ex-Republican he's suing for defamation
Why America’s happiness ranking is irrelevant
LaGRANGE, Ga. — Earlier this month, the news media was flooded with articles showing that America’s happiness ranking had declined, pushing the United States down to 23rd in the world. Reports showed that younger people are behind their elders when it comes to measures of happiness.
While reading these articles, I was invited by my college students to a “Dance Marathon.” These students spent their morning and afternoon having the time of their lives, fundraising thousands of dollars for the Children’s Miracle Network while perfecting a dance routine. There were athletic teams, Greek organizations, student government and theater students. They even worked with those who weren’t part of a student organization, making them feel welcome.
ALSO READ: DeJoy faces pain over postal 'crime wave’
Don’t think I was invited for my moves on the floor. I was there to sit atop the dunk tank. And yes, these students had a blast pitching balls to soak me thoroughly, all in good fun.
Oh, did I mention that it was the first Saturday of Spring Break for the college? They all postponed their travels home and vacations for this event, an annual tradition of fun for Children’s Healthcare Of Atlanta.
Had these college students tapped into something that pundits scrutinizing the survey results might have missed? What made these kids so … lively?
Author Emily Esfahani Smith knows their secret.
In a pre-pandemic TED Talk, she began by saying, “I used to think the whole purpose of life was pursuing happiness. Everyone said the path to happiness was success, so I searched for that ideal job, that perfect boyfriend, that beautiful apartment. But instead of ever feeling fulfilled, I felt anxious and adrift. And I wasn’t alone; my friends — they struggled with this, too. Eventually, I decided to go to graduate school for positive psychology to learn what truly makes people happy. But what I discovered there changed my life. The data showed that chasing happiness can make people unhappy.”
ALSO READ: Noem book describing dog killing is a donation perk at upcoming GOP fundraiser
What should we focus on? Esfahani Smith goes on to add, “Psychologist Martin Seligman says meaning comes from belonging to and serving something beyond yourself and from developing the best within you. Our culture is obsessed with happiness, but I came to see that seeking meaning is the more fulfilling path. And the studies show that people who have meaning in life, they’re more resilient, they do better in school and at work, and they even live longer.”
And it’s not just one day of the year of volunteering for these service-oriented students. I’ve been with several on natural disaster cleanups, donated to their lunchtime fundraisers and read about their activities in helping the community. Many have a family member or friend affected, and they simply want to help. And for those worried about the role of religion in America, you’ll find these college kids at events organized by our chaplain and church, too.
So instead of pumping up some “happiness” ranking, we should be boosting our country’s record on volunteering. The good news from the U.S. Census Bureau is that America is doing all right at volunteering. Women volunteer more than men. Veterans are the best at volunteering, helping neighbors. Those with higher education, and parents of kids, are among the best at volunteering. Generation X is the best at formal volunteering, while baby boomers lead in informal volunteering. And Americans do OK on rankings of donations to charity.
We could be doing better. More than 10 percent of charities closed during the pandemic, never to reopen.
But if you want joyful Americans, don’t look for artificial ways to make people happier. Give them some real service opportunities, a chance to make a tangible difference. You just might find this country will become a lot more cheerful, while tackling some real needs in our communities.
John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His X account is @JohnTures2.
'Ugly' Noem’s dog killing was bad — but to really understand her, consider her billy goat
Since Gov. Kristi Noem’s disclosure of her farmyard killing spree, everybody’s been focused on Cricket.
That’s understandable. Cricket was a 14-month-old dog. It’s easy to imagine her head jutting out of a pickup window, hair and tongue blowing in the wind. Like many dogs, Cricket probably had a personality and other human-like qualities that we so often attribute to canine companions.
Noem shot and killed Cricket on some undisclosed date years ago for being bad at pheasant hunting and good at chicken hunting. The moral, Noem wrote, is that leaders deal with problems immediately. That makes her a “doer,” she claimed, not an “avoider.”
That’s pure bunk, as millions of people have pointed out in an avalanche of criticism since The Guardian obtained an early copy and revealed some of the contents of Noem’s ironically named memoir, “No Going Back.” The relevant pages have since been shared with South Dakota Searchlight, which requested an advance copy but was ignored; the book’s official publication date is next Tuesday.
Again, the focus on Cricket makes sense, because we can all see that Noem could’ve taken the dog to a shelter and given it another chance at life.
But if you’ll hear me out, I want to tell you why Cricket’s fate is the wrong place to focus your attention.
If you really want to understand Kristi Noem, you need to consider the goat.
‘I spotted our billy goat’
After Noem made the death march to her farm’s gravel pit, where she shot Cricket, she was apparently still in an uncontrollable rage.
“Walking back up to the yard, I spotted our billy goat,” Noem wrote.
The nameless goat’s only sin in that moment was being in Noem’s field of view.
Noem blames ‘fake news’ for backlash against her killing a dog and goat
In the book, Noem tried to justify her snap decision to kill the goat by writing that it “loved to chase” her children and would “knock them down and butt them,” leaving them “terrified.” The animal also had a “wretched smell.”
But apparently none of that had been a big enough problem to do anything about it. Not until Noem got angry enough to kill a dog and decided she needed to kill again.
Noem says she “dragged” the goat to the gravel pit, “tied him to a post,” and shot at him. But the goat jumped when she shot.
“My shot was off and I needed one more shell to finish the job,” she wrote.
She studiously avoided saying she wounded the goat with the first shot, but that’s the implication.
“Not wanting him to suffer,” she added — apparently experiencing her first twinge of feeling, after saying that killing the dog was not “pleasant” — “I hustled back across the pasture to the pickup, grabbed another shell, hurried back to the gravel pit, and put him down.”
The goat story not only reflects a disturbing lack of self-control, but also raises a question of law.
The crime of animal cruelty
Noem has defended her shooting of the dog, citing legal justification for her actions. She’s likely referencing a state law that exempts from the definition of animal cruelty “any reasonable action taken by a person for the destruction or control of an animal known to be dangerous, a threat, or injurious to life, limb, or property.”
Cricket killed a neighbor’s chickens and “whipped around to bite” Noem when she intervened; therefore, by Noem’s logic, her killing of Cricket was legally defensible. She’s probably right, legally speaking.
What Noem’s shot heard around the world says about her approach to problems
But what about the goat?
Sure, it chased children, butted them, and smelled bad. “So, a goat,” Stephen Colbert deadpanned during his Monday monologue on “The Late Show,” speaking for everybody who’s ever been around goats. If those traits meet the legal definition of “dangerous, a threat, or injurious to life, limb, or property,” killing any goat would always be legally justified.
In reality, what Noem did to the goat — dragging it to a gravel pit, tying it to a post, shooting at it once, leaving to get another shell, and shooting it again — sounds an awful lot like the legal definition of animal cruelty. That definition in South Dakota law is “to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously inflict gross physical abuse on an animal that causes prolonged pain, that causes serious physical injury, or that results in the death of the animal.”
Alas, cruelty to animals is a Class 6 felony, and lower-class felonies like that carry a seven-year statute of limitations in South Dakota. We don’t know exactly what year it was when Noem shot her dog and goat. She gave a clue in the book when she wrote that her children came home on the school bus the day of the killings and one of them asked, “Where’s Cricket?” Noem didn’t say how she responded, and all of her children are now grown.
If that was more than seven years ago, the goat killing is probably not prosecutable. But no prosecution could do more damage to Noem’s reputation and career than she’s already done to herself by writing about her animal bloodthirst.
As Noem wrapped up her bloody tale in the book, she wrote that being a leader is often “messy” and “ugly.”
In her case, it certainly is.
South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: info@southdakotasearchlight.com. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and Twitter.
Hush money isn’t a crime. Slush money is
Editor’s Note: The following first appeared in Political Junkie, Claire’s newsletter. –JS
Thursday, Michael Cohen, former president Donald Trump’s former attorney and fixer, completed his third day on the stand in People v. Donald J. Trump. The prosecution is expected to rest its case. So far, we have been reminded of all kinds of delicious facts about Cohen, a man from central casting if there ever was one. For example, that after Trump abandoned him, he said things like: “You better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family.”
You can never tell how something like that might land with a New York jury. Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead defense attorney, hopes that it will plant the idea that Cohen would say or do anything to hurt Trump.
But it may backfire and add to Cohen’s authenticity, making him more believable to the jury. Why? Because most New Yorkers would feel the same way. There are undoubtedly people sitting in that jury box thinking, “Yeah. I can see that. I’m surprised he didn’t go after Trump with a crowbar. No offense meant.”
If you are a New Yorker, you know this is true. If you are not a New Yorker, and you need supporting evidence, take a look at Jacob Bernstein’s piece in the Times about how and why Rosie O’Donnell became Michael Cohen’s friend after Cohen participated in Trump’s vicious smear campaign against her.
The quick answer is that after he went to jail, O’Donnell felt sorry for him. “Mr. Cohen, with his heavy Nassau County accent, reminded her of the boys she knew growing up in Commack, on Long Island,” Bernstein writes. “'He was every guy I went to high school with,' she said.”
Friday was a day off in Criminal Court (although sadly, not for the other criminals), during which Trump attended the graduation of Barron Trump (otherwise known by his father as “Melania’s son”) from Oxbridge Academy in West Palm Beach, Florida. Trump then skipped the rest of the festivities and flew to Minnesota for a campaign fundraiser, a normal Dad way of saying “I love you” when your youngest kid is at a turning point in his life.
Since the defense will not begin its case until Monday, this is a good time to take a breath and remind everyone what this trial is about, since it will be the defense’s job next week to make that very confusing.
The sensational testimony, much of which we have heard before, also makes the trial confusing, even though the prosecution is knitting it together in a story that is not about sex, tabloids or payoffs. Prosecutors are telling that story because it establishes meaning, motivation and a chain of verifiable facts for the real crime: that Donald Trump used his company as a slush fund and an arm of his 2016 campaign; and that under his direction, fake bookkeeping enabled this felony.
The charging document lists 34 counts of falsified business records, all of which pertain to a payment of $130,000 made to adult film star Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) to buy her silence about a one-night stand in 2006. Each payment occurred in 2017, and they are identical, but for two things.
They have different check, voucher or invoice numbers; and they were authorized or paid on different dates: on or about February 14, 2017 (4), March 16 (1), 2017, March 17 (1); April 13 (1), June 19 (2), May 22 (2), (May 23 (1), June 16 (1), June 19 (2), July 11 (3), August 1 (3), September 11 (2), September 12 (1), October 18 (3), November 20 (2), November 21 (1), December 1 (2), and December 5 (1).
Every check has Donald Trump’s signature on it.
But let’s talk about what this case is really about: whether these acts pertained to fees for legitimate legal and personal services provided by Michael Cohen; or, as the prosecution alleges, whether Cohen (as he claims) fronted a payment of $130,000 to Clifford, at Trump’s direction, and was repaid over time via invoices for legal fees, invoices that were padded to conceal the reimbursement.
These payments exceeded the original sum by about $50,000 to account for Cohen’s total expenses (wiring and transfer fees, interest paid on the home loan and taxes on the “income”), a sum that represented less than half of what Trump paid Cohen that year.
Although this is commonly referred to as a “hush money” trial, none of these charges are about hush money: it’s where the hush money came from, how it got to where it was intended to go, and why it needed to be paid.
So it would be more accurate to say this is a slush money case, because Trump is alleged to have used his corporate, rather than his personal, accounts as a slush fund for making problems go away. Had he used his own funds, and concealed the payments, it is likely these charges would never have been filed.
But he’s a cheapskate, and he did, and they were.
So here is the thing to hold in your head as the defense goes to work next week.
Trump is being prosecuted because of crimes he has not yet been charged with. The crimes are: committing a fraud on the American public by conspiring to hide a sexual encounter that might have influenced voters; by failing to disclose this payment in his 2017 annual financial disclosure; and by making an unreported contribution to his own political campaign. These are felonies, and under New York State law, misdemeanors in pursuit of a larger crime or crimes are felonies. This, Alvin Bragg’s theory of the case, transforms each of the 34 misdemeanors into felonies.
This is obviously complicated. So let’s look at how Trump, Trump supporters, and the broader extreme right are trying to use this complexity to insist on the Former Guy’s innocence. I have framed what follows around four common, but false, assertions that deliberately misread what has happened in this trial so far.
The 34 actions cited in the indictment were minor mistakes that are common in corporate life, and obviously, this trial was concocted to interfere with Trump’s presidential campaign.
Here’s an example of this falsehood. As recently as mid-April, in an appearance on Sean Hannity’s evening show, Lara Trump (who is Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and co-chair of the Republican National Committee) characterized the 34 actions under scrutiny as "bookkeeping errors." According to Newsweek, she then said that:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg "refused to prosecute this case until ... Donald Trump decided he was running for president."
"Everyone can see what this is about," she said. "They have, and are forcing, Donald Trump to sit in a courtroom — this is a former president of the United States, the current nominee for the Republican side of the aisle for president — for weeks on end. For what, Sean? They claim a bookkeeping error. Really?"
First, this case has been in the works since 2020 when Cy Vance was Manhattan DA. Second, while it is not uncommon to conceal payoffs for sexual misbehaviors and crimes by passing the money through someone else, the bookkeeping actually is crucial. Harvey Weinstein used his brother Bob for this purpose, and it was vile — but legal.
Yet even if it was a series of bookkeeping errors — perhaps Lara means that the invoices were not properly itemized? — it would still be, as the IRS says, “inadvisable,” to make a personal pay off with corporate money. Why? Because it is almost impossible to stay on the right side of the law if you do.
Notably, if the jury convicts, it will establish two facts that can be referred to the Southern District: that Trump took extra, unreported income from his company, used that money for his campaign, and took the payoff to Clifford as a corporate deduction.
Stephanie Clifford tried to extort Donald Trump and should be charged with blackmail.
This is false: Clifford never approached Trump for money. Nor did Karen MacDougal, the Playmate and preschool teacher who also allegedly shtupped Trump, and who was paid $150,000 via National Enquirer publisher David Pecker in August 2016. Instead, like McDougal, Clifford began to shop her story about a sexual encounter with Trump in early October, 2016, around the time Trump was under fire for the "Access Hollywood" tape.
But Pecker balked: Trump had not yet paid him back for the McDougal story, and this is why the payment to Clifford had to go through Cohen. Allegedly, Trump believed that he would lose the presidency if the story about Clifford came out, compounding the damage done by having publicly admitted that he sexually assaulted women.
It’s also important to emphasize that the damage from such revelations was entirely reputational. While adultery is illegal in 16 states, Nevada, where the alleged sexual encounter took place, is not one of them; and Pecker’s “catch and kill” operation — paying someone money for the rights to a story you will never publish — is also perfectly legal, and a longstanding tabloid technique
The Biden administration is using the courts to persecute its political enemies.
The New York case is not a federal case, and the Manhattan District Attorney is not a federal employee. If Trump were convicted, no president could pardon him. But as I said above, there could be federal referrals.
Trump just needs one juror to not convict. Just one.
That’s true. There is a meme on the right about how to force the judicial system to heel, and it is called “jury nullification” or “jury independence.” This means that a juror or jurors break the oath they take at the beginning of the trial, not just to be honest about their views and decide the case impartially, but to decide it according to the law. A juror who “nullifies” makes a statement that the law itself is unjust, and/or ignores the judge’s instructions about how the law applies to the evidence they have heard.
Jury nullification has been associated with both progressive and rightwing causes. But excitement about the practice has accelerated on the right under Trumpism, because MAGA-world is anti-institutionalist. This excitement seemed to have been vindicated in 2022 when Timothy Shea, charged (along with Steve Bannon) in the Build the Wall fraud, received a mistrial because of a juror who refused to convict.
The juror did not object to the law, however. He objected to people he liked being tried under it, and this is commonly how jury nullification plays out on the right. According to Ben Feuerherd at Politico, “during the deliberations in Shea’s case, in US district court in Manhattan,
the holdout juror spoke about a “government witch hunt” and accused the other members of the jury of being “liberals,” the New York Times reported at the time.
“Tim Shea is a good man. He doesn’t beat his wife,” the man reportedly said during deliberations. “You just can’t vote to lynch someone.”
The juror also accused the government of bringing the case in a blue state like New York to secure a conviction.
But jury nullification enthusiasts often forget that the practice, when successful, generally conceals the fact that the prosecution has made a very strong case for conviction. Shea, for example, simply got a new trial and, according to Feuerherd, “was later convicted for his role in the scheme and sentenced to more than five years in prison in July 2023. Two of his co-defendants in the case were also sentenced to prison for the fraud.” And Shea’s alleged co-conspirator, Steve Bannon, although convicted and then pardoned by Donald Trump, will be retried for Build the Wall in New York State.
And let’s remember: Trump has lost every case that has come to trial so far, and one involved a jury. I would put money on it (from my private bank account, of course) that he will lose this slush money case too.
Copyright © 2026 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.
