Former president Donald Trump awaits the start of proceedings at Manhattan criminal court.Yuki Iwamura/AP

Last week, Justice Juan Merchan pulled off an impressive feat in the New York Supreme Court’s criminal division: He finished empaneling 18 jurors in the first-ever criminal trial of a former president.

This was not easy. Donald Trump’s first criminal trial—of the four he faces in the coming months—concerns 34 counts of falsifying business records, including a reported hush money payment he made to pornstar Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair, in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

In putting together a jury, Justice Merchan needed to find, somehow, a group of New Yorkers who felt they could not only be impartial about Trump, but also deal with the spotlight—which is to say, potential abuse from the defendant or his followers. Justice Merchan has imposed a gag order on Trump talking about certain people involved in the case to this end. But the former president has repeatedly seemed to violate this by criticizing Merchan’s family and several witnesses. Tomorrow, there will be a contempt of court hearing.

It was exactly this type of behavior from Trump, and its potential blowback for jurors, that led Justice Merchan to also order an anonymous jury. Not that this has all played out smoothly. When two of the initial jurors were excused over concerns about the potential public disclosure of their identities, the press’s potential role in that exposure became a talking point.

With all this mayhem, as we enter the first days of the next phase of the trial, there are key moments from the jury selection that should be remembered that might have been missed.

Most importantly, there has been one big misconception—that this selection process had culled from the jury anyone who had an opinion of Trump. That wasn’t the case. Striking a juror for simply knowing of or having an opinion of Trump was not an option.

Instead, jury selection highlighted Trump’s ubiquity in America. This is in part a reflection of the venue—the city of New York—but it’s also about Trump’s celebrity. As many prospective panelists entered the courtroom, they stretched their necks to get a look at the famous defendant, and one woman even giggled and put her hand over her mouth after realizing which trial she was summoned for.

In a departure from usual practice, Justice Merchan asked each new panel of prospective jurors to raise their hands if potential jurors felt they couldn’t be fair or impartial; he excused those who did without further questioning. This approach dispatched over half the jury field each time. The survivors completed a rigorous questionnaire and an interview, called voir dire, further nixing potentially biased Manhattanite jurors.

At one point in the process, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said, “Everyone and their mother has an opinion about this case.” In the vetting process, we heard many of them.

Over the past week, more than 100 New Yorkers have had an inadvertent opportunity—a legal requirement, in fact—to tell Trump to his face exactly how they feel about him, without fear of response or retribution from the former president. A great many of them, prospective and now permanent jurors alike, expressed explicit distaste.

Liking or disliking Trump is not a basis for striking a juror who says he or she can be fair and follow the evidence and the instructions of the court. And both prosecution and defense have only so many “peremptory” strikes—that is, strikes of jurors who may be qualified but seem unattractive from the party’s perspective. So eventually, that means admitting a lot of people with opinions. And, unsurprisingly in Manhattan, those opinions seem to tilt heavily in a dislike-of-Trump direction.

One prospective juror, an amateur boxer who told defense attorney Susan Necheles that back in 2016, she felt that Trump’s “devout” followers were emboldened by his rhetoric to make “homophobic and racist comments” and discriminate against her “as a woman.” Several other prospective jurors clarified social media posts and memes on their pages excoriating Trump. One such post said he “actually is the devil.”

“I’ve got opinions, yeah,” said another prospective juror when asked about her opinion of Trump, “I’m born and raised in Brooklyn, New York.” She spent her whole life hearing about Trump, and even once saw him and Marla Maples, Trump’s second wife and mother of Tiffany Trump, shopping for baby things. Some of her family lives in Trump buildings. Before Trump’s face became a fixture on TV screens across America, he made himself a staple of city life. (“You just don’t get more New York than that,” the TV show “Sex in the City” had explained when Trump appeared during a cameo.)

Those potential jurors were excused, but the jurors who made it into the final 18 should give the defense little comfort. Juror 5, for example, said that while she’s “not a political person” herself, as a person of color she has friends who have strong opinions on Trump. Juror 11 will likely present an even bigger problem. She said she doesn’t like Trump’s “persona” or “how he presents himself in public,” calling him “very selfish and self-serving,” an attribute she “[doesn’t] really appreciate… in a public servant.” She added: “It’s not my cup of tea.” When Necheles tried to clarify whether she was saying that she doesn’t like Trump, Juror 11 simply responded: “Yes.”

Some commentators have suggested that Trump might find a guardian angel in Juror 2, the only one to have admitted to following Trump on Truth Social and to getting his news from the platform. But the media consumption graphic only tells part of the story. “I read basically everything,” Juror 2 said. “I follow Truth Social posts from Trump on Twitter. I do follow Michael Cohen, Mueller She Wrote, and some more.” He said that Trump has done some good for the country, but added “it goes both ways.” (That doesn’t sound exactly like a MAGA diehard.)

Rolling Stone reported that Trump is so incensed over the past week that he is reaching levels of anger that are “maxed out, even for him,” citing allegations of his courtroom napping and unflattering courtroom artist sketches.

Having sat through the entire jury selection process, I suspect he has other reasons to be worried—18 to be exact.

Supporters cheer remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at a rally in 2004. To our knowledge, John Bolton was not in attendance.ANN HEISENFELT/AP

On CNN, John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump and rabid war lover who wants to bomb Iran and North Korea (among others), revealed that he is voting for a write-in candidate in 2024.

“I might as well say it now,” Bolton said, “I voted for Dick Cheney [in 2020]. And I’ll vote for Dick Cheney again this November.”

Why would Bolton do this? “Because [Cheney] was a principled Reaganite conservative, and he still is,” Bolton told the CNN viewers. Bolton then went on to explain that age is no longer a factor, allowing him to vote for a man who is 83 years old. And he continued, in a bit of a joking tone, to say that if he could sway the nation toward a write-in campaign for Cheney to prevent either Biden or Trump from being president, he would. Bolton also noted that someday he might vote for Cheney’s very hawkish, very anti-Trump daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney.

John Bolton: “I might as well say it now: I voted for Dick Cheney [in 2020]. And I’ll vote for Dick Cheney again this November.” pic.twitter.com/RCJGpeJQBJ

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) April 11, 2024

This isn’t the first time Bolton admitted something on TV a bit randomly. In 2022, he argued that one has to be smart to do a coup—and that he, John Bolton, would know because he’d helped do some coups. We tried to narrow down which adventure in American imperialism Bolton might have been referring to here.

Mother Jones illustration; Fox News; Rafael Pacheco/La Nacion/ZUMA

In a few hours, millions of people across North America will seize the rare opportunity to (hopefully safely) observe a total solar eclipse, when the moon covers the sun and darkens the skies for a few minutes. The Great American Eclipse will stretch from Mexico through parts of Texas all the way to Maine and into Canada, drawing curious beholders from as far as Beijing to Indianapolis. 

During such moments, one could be led to ponder things greater than our mere human experience: the cosmos, fate, and the vastness of the universe. Or, if you’re Fox News, you could do this:

Let's see how Fox News is covering today's eclipse.

Dana Perino: "Fox News alert! A rare celestial event collides with a policy failure on the ground. The southern border is directly in the path of totality today when the moon covers the sun." pic.twitter.com/5bDhjEQNqY

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) April 8, 2024

“A rare celestial event collides with a policy failure on the ground,” anchor Dana Perino told viewers. “The southern border will be directly in the path of totality today when the moon covers the sun for nearly four minutes.” The eclipse, co-anchor Bill Hemmer then added, represents “a real opportunity for smugglers and cartels and migrants to come right in.” 

The truth about the “opportunity” is a bit less chaotic. There have been warnings of heavy traffic at both the border in the north and south because (of course) people are traveling to see the eclipse. There’s nothing particularly esoteric or conspiratorial about border-crossers making moves to try and catch a glimpse of the astronomical phenomenon.

Still, that didn’t stop Fox. They showed a map of the total eclipse’s path that transitioned into images from the weekend of supposed migrants in New Mexico, a Fox News reporter talked about “suspected cartels’ scouts and coyotes watch[ing] from a mountain above.” 

Fox News wasn’t alone in making the wild connection between the eclipse and migration to the southern border. In a segment with Arizona Sheriff Mark Lamb, a Republican running for the US Senate, a Newsmax host asked if the over three-minute darkness following the eclipse posed “any concern that there could be a rush on the border during that time.” Sheriff Lamb, a frequent guest on the right-wing media circle and harsh critic of the Biden administration’s border policies, gave the only conceivable answer: “Look, it gets dark every night.” 

Mother Jones illustration; Shawn Thew/CNP/ZUMA

Donald Trump wants to pretend he isn’t to blame for the devastating consequences of overturning of Roe v. Wade—even as he boasts about being responsible for the momentous Supreme Court decision.

In a more than four-minute-long video released on Truth Social this morning the presumptive Republican nominee attempted to clarify his nebulous stance on abortion rights. It remained confounding.

Trump took credit for overturning Roe and said he wants to leave abortion rights “to the states,” seemingly rebuking prior reporting that he’d support a 16-week national ban if re-elected. (Trump didn’t specifically say what he’d do if Congress passed a national ban and sent it to his desk as president). He also insisted on his support for exceptions for “rape, incest and life of the mother”—but didn’t make clear how he’d square that with his insistence on states’ rights to come up with their own abortion policy. (The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment seeking clarification on these points.)

This is, for all intents and purposes, a mish-mash of policies that sound fine but do not actually make sense in practice.

After all, it’s thanks to Trump—who appointed three of the five Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe—that 14 states have enacted almost total bans on abortion. And in 2016, the former president said there “has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

“There has to be some form of punishment [for a woman who obtains an abortion].”

Trump in 2016.

Now he’s trying to dodge the issue—after bragging of ending Roe.

Who’s going to fall for this? https://t.co/p25GodRKWB https://t.co/o1Ze0i3CHn

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) April 8, 2024

Trump also failed to acknowledge that abortion opponents, including many Republicans, are currently seeking to dramatically restrict access to medication abortion at the Supreme Court, and have also floated invoking the Comstock Act—a 19th-century anti-obscenity law that remains on the books—to enact a federal ban on abortion. (The campaign also didn’t respond to a request for comment on Trump’s stance on these issues.) 

So, Trump’s much-hyped “statement on abortion” didn’t actually clarify much at all: he’s essentially saying that, if re-elected, he wants to preserve the status quo, which is his doing, and has resulted in abortion bans spreading throughout the country. 

In fact, let’s review just some of what that decision has wrought: 

• Children as young as 10 years old who have gotten pregnant as a result of rape have been forced to give birth, or cross state lines to get an abortion; 
• Women like Kate Cox in Texas, and their doctors, have been forced to shoulder legal risk and take legal action in their quests to obtain abortions in light of life-threatening health emergencies;
• As I’ve reported, advocates who support victims of domestic and sexual violence have been left in the lurch and without information on all their options to help survivors; 
• IVF access has been imperiled, affecting couples who are trying to have kids.

But listening to Trump, you wouldn’t know any of this: he tried to cast Democrats as extremists through a litany of lies: 

• He claims “all legal scholars, [on] both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded” Roe be overturned. This is demonstrably false, as evinced by the ‘friend of the court’ briefs legal scholars filed in the Dobbs case urging the court not to overturn Roe. 
• He says Democrats “support abortion up to, even beyond, the ninth month,” including through what he called “execution after birth.” Federal data shows more than 90 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester, and data from the states shows that third-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare. Most of the time, people get third-trimester abortions because they received new information about the pregnancy or faced barriers to obtaining an abortion earlier in their pregnancy. By “execution after birth,” it’s unclear what Trump was referring to (we asked his campaign), but it’s likely he’s talking about a procedure that’s already outlawed at the federal level. 
• He insists that, thanks to Dobbs, “now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint” and that his stance on abortion supports “the will of the people.” But polling shows the majority of Americans disapproved of Dobbs and that most think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This is probably why so many ballot measures that have put the question of abortion rights directly to voters post-Dobbs has passed. 

As Ammar Moussa, the director of rapid response for President Biden’s re-election campaign, pointed out in a post on X: “Donald Trump is endorsing every single abortion ban in the states, including abortion bans with no exceptions. And he’s bragging about his role in creating this hellscape.” 

Trump, essentially, wants to have it both ways: he wants credit for Dobbs, while also ignoring its consequences and casting Democrats as extremists. And it seems to be working. Polling has showed voters don’t necessarily hold Trump responsible for overturning Roe. But they should: in the video, Trump said that he’s “proudly the person responsible” for the Dobbs decision.

Still, for the far-right that isn’t enough. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the organization is “deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position.” 

“Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats,” Dannenfelser said in the statement. 

Ultimately, Trump didn’t announce anything new today—he just affirmed what we already know: abortion rights are currently left to the states, he won’t take ownership of the confusion and mayhem that Dobbs has wrought, and he’ll keep spreading false information about abortion. And, perhaps most importantly: abortion rights are on the ballot this November. 

Eric Gay/AP

It seems like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott could use a dictionary. 

Why? Because on Sunday, the Republican went on Fox News and accused President Joe Biden of “using illegal immigrants as political pawns.” And given his own record, it is unclear if understands what the word means. 

Chessboards aside, Oxford Languages says a pawn is “a person used by others for their own purposes.” This, of course, describes how Abbott has himself treated migrants who have crossed the border into Texas.

Since 2022, he bussed thousands of them to Democratic-controlled New York City and Washington, D.C. The arrival of more than 150,000 migrants in New York since that time has created a humanitarian crisis that the city government has struggled to adequately manage, leaving many migrants bearing harsh conditions and stuck in shelters.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has sued more than a dozen charter bus contractors that helped transport the migrants to the city under Abbott’s direction, alleging that the companies violated the city’s Social Services Law, which requires that anyone who brings “a needy person from out of state” to New York City to cover the resulting expenses. Last month, one of the bus companies agreed in court papers to halt transporting migrants from the southern border to the city, Politico reported. 

But this week, when Abbott came to New York for a Republican fundraiser, he made it clear he has no plans to stop sending migrants to New York for his own purposes—at least for as long as Biden remains president. “We are going to have to maintain this process until we get a new president this next November who will secure the border for the United States of America,” the governor told the gathering, according to Gothamist.

Late last year, Abbott signed a law making undocumented immigration into Texas a state crime and allowing state law enforcement officials to arrest undocumented immigrants anywhere inside its boundaries. The issue is wrapped up in litigation, with Biden’s Department of Justice arguing that the law violates the Constitution, which “assigns the federal government the authority to regulate immigration and manage our international borders.”

The reason behind Abbott’s rhetoric isn’t hard to pin down: Draconian anti-immigration policies—including separating children from their parents—have become a cornerstone of today’s GOP, who don’t actually seem interested in funding border security, given that Republican lawmakers recently blocked a bipartisan bill to do just that. 

While Abbott’s threat to keep busing immigrants north could further burnish his anti-immigrant credentials, it pales when compared to another he made earlier this year. As I reported in January, he told a right-wing radio host that “the only thing that we are not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border—because, of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”

That’s what we’d call using immigrants as political pawns. 

Palestinians transporting the bodies of employees from the World Central Kitchen killed in an Israeli airstrike, according to the Hamas-run Gaza government media office.Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto/AP

World Central Kitchen founder José Andrés accused Israel on Wednesday of deliberately targeting the organization’s seven aid workers killed in an airstrike on Monday, “systematically, car by car,” rejecting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims that they were unintentionally killed.

“This was not just a bad luck situation where ‘oops’ we dropped the bomb in the wrong place,” Andrés told Reuters in an exclusive interview.

At one point, the celebrity chef and humanitarian appeared emotional and holding back tears as he described the “friends” who were killed by Israeli missiles after delivering more than 100 tons of food to a warehouse in Gaza. Andrés said the Israel Defense Forces had been aware of the convoy’s activity before the attack and that the hit vehicles were clearly labeled with WCK’s logo.

According to Andrés, the vehicles had “very defined” and “colorful” logos indicating they were aid workers. “It’s very clear who we are and what we do,” said Andrés, adding that they were in a “deconflicting zone, in an area controlled by IDF.”

“They [knew] that it was our teams moving on that road…with three cars.”

Since the attack on Monday, Netanyahu has promised that “an independent, professional and expert body” would investigate the airstrikes. But speaking to Reuters, Andrés called for a separate investigation into the airstrike led by the United States and other home countries where the aid workers had come from.

In a phone call with Netanyahu on Thursday, Biden declared that continued support for Israel would be contingent on whether Israel takes further steps to protect the lives of civilians, stating that an “immediate ceasefire is essential.” Shortly before Monday’s attack, the Biden administration had signed off on more than 1,000 500-pound bombs and 1,000 small-diameter bombs to be transferred to Israel, according to CNN. 

Charlie Riedel/AP

Across social media, right-wing posters are complaining that President Joe Biden has usurped Easter. “Joe Biden just proclaimed that ‘Transgender Visibility Day’ is on Sunday,” once-presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy posted on X, “I wonder how he came up with that date.”

Except Biden, of course, did not come up with this date, he just issued a pretty standard proclamation recognizing it. (His administration also recently issued proclamations recognizing National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, Cesar Chavez Day, and Care Workers Recognition Month.)

Trans Day of Visibility has fallen on March 31 since it was created in 2010 by Rachel Crandall-Crocker, the executive director of Transgender Michigan. Crandall-Crocker recently told NPR she was hoping the day would be an opportunity for the trans community to come together and feel joy. That mission is important as ever as legislation across the country takes aim at the rights and safety of trans people, some of which, as my colleague Henry Carnell reported, cites anti-trans reporting coming from our country’s largest and most important newspaper, the New York Times. 

Meanwhile, Easter can fall on any Sunday from late March to mid-April. So basically, Easter falling on Trans Day of Visibility is no different from when Hannukah fell on Thanksgiving in 2013. Which was actually pretty cool! My mom got custom boxes of mints that commemorated “Thanksgivukkah,” and we had latkes with our turkey, which is a delicious combination and a concept I think we as a culture should revisit. And sometimes my birthday falls on Mother’s Day, which is less cool because it should really be about me, but then again, my mom was here first.

Point being, sometimes two holidays are on the same date. And Biden does not control the calendar or whatever forces dictate when Easter comes. So have a lovely Easter, and a lovely Trans Day of Visibility, and while you’re at, it remember what Crandall-Crocker learned from organizing the latter: “I changed the world. You don’t have to be perfect. Come and change it along with me.” 

Marilyn Lands flipped a seat in the Alabama legislature by campaigning on abortion rights.Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post/Getty

On Tuesday, Alabama provided even more evidence of what we already know to be true: Abortion rights win elections. 

Democrat Marilyn Lands won a special election for an Alabama state House seat, flipping a Republican-held seat by campaigning on abortion rights in the deep-red state that bans abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Lands won 62 percent of the nearly 6,000 votes cast, while her challenger, Republican Teddy Powell, won 37.5 percent, according to the unofficial election night results from the Alabama Secretary of State. The candidates were running to replace Republican David Cole, who resigned last year after he was arrested on a voting fraud charge. (Lands ran against Cole in 2022 and lost by just under 1,000 votes, or about 7 percentage points—making her win last night all the more significant.)

Lands—a licensed professional counselor whose website says her “Christian values deeply influence her life and work”—campaigned on repealing the state’s abortion ban, as well as expanding Medicaid, investing in community mental health resources, and improving the local economy and education. Days after the state Supreme Court‘s decision threatening IVF last month, Lands released a campaign ad in which she and another Alabama woman, Alyssa Gonzales, each shared their personal stories of getting emergency abortions following nonviable pregnancies. For Lands, it happened 20 years ago; for Gonzales, it happened after the Dobbs decision was handed down in 2022. 

“We will not stand by and watch our most basic human rights be stripped from us,” Lands says in the ad.  

I’m sharing my abortion story because Alabama's no exceptions abortion ban is putting lives at risk. We must repeal this legislation, and if I'm elected on March 26th, I'll work tirelessly to do just that.

Learn more at https://t.co/VQKTW9Ivob pic.twitter.com/n7fZDB2Eqx

— Marilyn for Alabama (@MarilynForAL) February 20, 2024

Tuesday’s election results once again demonstrated the far-reaching effects that abortion bans can have in galvanizing voters in decisive elections around the country. The trend can be directly traced to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling, which was repeatedly cited throughout the Alabama Supreme Court decision that effectively banned IVF procedures. (The Alabama Legislature subsequently passed a bill, which the governor signed, to protect IVF access, but it didn’t address the legal status of frozen embryos.) 

While Alabama is reliably red—and the state legislature remains majority Republican—Lands’ district, the state’s 10th District, has been a battleground: Trump won it by only one percentage point in 2020, the Washington Post reported, while he won the state by more than 35 percentage points. Voters told the 19th earlier this month that they were going to vote for Lands because of her stance on abortion and reproductive rights. 

Lands told local CBS affiliate WHNT that she saw her victory as “a victory…for women, for families,” adding that she wanted to “repeal the bad ban on no-exceptions abortion” and “protect IVF and contraception.” 

“It feels like the start of a change here, and I think we’ll see more change in 2026. I think Alabama is changing,” she said.

Former Alabama Sen. Doug Jones (D) agreed, telling CNN that the results were “a huge win for Alabama, not just for Democrats.”

Lands’ win seems to send a clear message—one that advocates have been trying to send President Biden and other Democrats for some time: it’s reproductive justice that wins elections in the post-Roe era. And as long as Republicans’ anti-abortion policies continue to harm pregnant people—including those who aren’t seeking abortions—they’ll likely continue losing to Democrats like Lands.

Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed early Tuesday after a support column was struck by a vessel.Karl Merton Ferron/The Baltimore Sun/ZUMA

Early Tuesday morning, a massive cargo ship struck a structural pillar of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, collapsing the 1.6-mile-long bridge into the Patapsco River. The stunning collapse shut down the Port of Baltimore, one of the country’s busiest, and launched a search for at least six construction workers believed to be missing. 

Amid the frantic rescue mission, Fox News, similarly aligned conservative news outlets, and fringe characters wasted no time tying the collapse to some of their favorite right-wing talking points. Here are a few.

Border “crisis”

Fox’s Maria Bartiromo is attempting to link the Francis Scott Key bridge’s collapse to "the wide open border". @atrupar
pic.twitter.com/lPXpFDJWoW

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) March 26, 2024

In an interview with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fl.), Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo appeared to suggest a “wide open” immigration policy at the border could be a factor here. Her rationale? The cargo ship had been flying under a Singaporean flag.

Drug-addled employees

Matt Schlapp on Newsmax admits he's "no expert" but tries to blame the Baltimore bridge collapse on "drug-addled" employees and covid lockdowns pic.twitter.com/TAxjgRU5Dt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2024

Over on Newsmax, Conservative Political Action Conference chairman Mike Schlapp invoked everything from “drug-addled employees” to Covid lockdowns while discussing the collapse. “We have to wake up as a country and realize that we have too many people who aren’t ready to do these jobs,” Schlapp, who conceded that he was not an expert on the situation, said.

Cyberattack

Looks deliberate to me. A cyber-attack is probable. WW3 has already started.. https://t.co/wLTGjT6ErN

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) March 26, 2024

In a crossover that no one asked for, Alex Jones repeated a post from accused human trafficker Andrew Tate to speculate, without evidence, that foreign agents deliberately launched a cyberattack targeting US infrastructure.

“Everything so far indicates that this was a terrible accident,” President Biden said in a brief this afternoon. “At this time, we have no other indication—no other reason to believe there was any intentional act here.”

DEI

DEI did this pic.twitter.com/U8HIbFNAUE

— Anthony Sabatini (@AnthonySabatini) March 26, 2024

This succinct message, from a man running for Congress in Florida, is not parody. It is a conservative obsession.

Inmates walk through the exercise yard at California State Prison Sacramento, near Folsom. This season of ‘On Our Watch’, featured on this week's episode of Reveal, follows in the footsteps of a whistleblower officer, whose tragic death helps uncover the secrets hidden inside the most dangerous prison in California.

After graduating from the academy to become a California correctional officer, Valentino Rodriguez thought he’d be joining a supportive brotherhood, committed to protecting the incarcerated, with honesty and accountability. But upon starting his job at the high-security New Folsom facility in Sacramento, Rodriguez reported encountering personal harassment while witnessing inmate mistreatment inside the most dangerous prison in California.

As time went on, Valentino wasn’t just a correctional officer; he also became a whistleblower. Valentino died just days after he had spoken up about corruption and abuse by his fellow officers.

This week’s episode of Reveal delves into the confusion surrounding his sudden death after an apparent overdose at age 30. Was it connected to the prison? His family still isn’t satisfied with how the tragedy was investigated, and years later, Valentino’s death has also raised questions from the FBI and his mentor in the elite investigative unit where they both worked. The episode features reporting by Sukey Lewis, Julie Small, and their On Our Watch investigative team at KQED, as they meet Valentino’s father, Val Sr., who begins to share evidence he’s collected surrounding his son’s death. As Lewis tells us during the episode, “He wants to understand what happened to his son and why and who’s responsible. But instead of finding answers, Val Sr. just keeps finding more questions.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by KQED (@kqed)

This season of On Our Watch, parts of which are featured on this week’s Reveal, delves into Rodriguez’s experiences, the culture of silence in the prison, and the aftermath of his death. Through interviews with Valentino’s wife Mimy, texts from his phone, and disciplinary records, the reporters uncover harassment and disproportionately high rates of force at the facility compared with other California prisons.

Here's Trump four years ago. At his daily briefing that day, April 5, he said the federal government had stockpiled 29 million doses of hydroxychloroquine. “What do you have to lose?” he said.Patrick Semansky/AP

“ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO?” blared Trump’s Truth Social account last Monday.

Let’s take a trip back, shall we?

This week, four years ago, Trump was in the throes of dangerous denial as his extravagant mishandling of the COVID crisis plunged the nation into almost hourly panic attacks. There were already about 18,000 reported cases in the United States, and more than 260 deaths.

Trigger warning on this one: On March 21, 2020, Trump tweeted, “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” which was as untrue then as it is now. Two days later—four years ago today, on Day 63 of the crisis—it was reported that an Arizona man died after intentionally ingesting chloroquine phosphate, a fish tank cleaner. Trump told a press briefing, “Parts of our country are very lightly affected.” Just a few days later, the country he ran, and wants to run again, reported more coronavirus cases than any other country.

These are just a handful of the nightmarish details drawn from March 2020, four years ago. The president’s vanity and lack of preparedness in those first 100 days of the pandemic allowed the virus to metastasize into the supersized public health crisis he’s now asking voters to forget. This period was also a showcase of his very worst traits in office: his reliance on spin and bluster, his aversion to taking responsibility (“No, I don’t take responsibility at all,” he said on March 13, 2020), and his magical thinking. He indulged in desperate blame shifting, bunk science, and mixed messaging—the antithesis of good public health leadership.

At the time, Mother Jones took on the enormous reporting task of meticulously cataloguing, sometimes hour by hour, the missteps, miscalculations, and cruelties of Trump’s response to the disaster unfolding on his watch. The resulting timeline makes for enraging reading, to say the least.

I also started to compile video clips of the absurdities and outrages. And the resulting video is both a time capsule of horrors and a teleporter for any voter who might be doubting whether they are better off than they were four years ago this month.

Graeme Sloan/AP

Work sucks and everyone knows it.

But for House Republicans, it isn’t the lack of labor protections or benefits that fuels discontent. These privileged men and women who enjoy a lifetime of perks, including weak insider trading rules, appear aggrieved over how much they simply can’t stand each other. 

In fact, CNN reports that animosity within the GOP conference has ballooned to convince nearly half of the party to skip next week’s annual retreat. The reasons vary. Some are still salty over the humiliating speakership battle. Others are disappointed in Mike Johnson’s choice of venue, a “family-friendly” resort in West Virginia, which is decidedly not Florida where past retreats have taken place. Even the retreat’s keynote speaker, Larry Kudlow, has abruptly ditched the event. 

The lack of RSVPs seems to reflect wider GOP discord. Over at the Republican National Committee, longtime staffers were recently purged in what has been described as an “absolute bloodbath.” Infighting and dysfunction are at peak levels. And Republicans come dressed to the State of the Union like this and that.

Work retreats, or really any after-hours work event where attendance is expected, can be soul-crushing. But it’s hard to have sympathy for anyone who helps elect colleagues they don’t want to spend time with.

Mother Jones illustration; Shawn Thew/EFE/ZUMA

President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address last night was, in many respects, better than expected. But one moment, when the president went off-script, will be hard to shake off.

During the section on immigration, Biden fumbled when mentioning the death of 22-year-old Laken Riley. A nursing student at the University of Georgia, Riley was killed in February. A man from Venezuela who US officials say entered the United States unlawfully was, soon after, charged with kidnapping and murder. Since then, Republicans have elevated the tragedy to accuse the Biden administration of allowing an “invasion” at the border.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), wearing a MAGA hat, interrupted Biden during the speech and shouted at him to say Riley’s name. In response, Biden held up a pin that Greene had handed him earlier and said: “Laken Riley, an innocent woman who was killed by an ‘illegal.’”

Biden’s slip seemed Freudian in light of the president’s significant shift on immigration and departure from his “moral leadership” agenda. Three years ago, his administration ordered immigration officials to stop employing the term “illegal aliens” in official communications and press releases. Now, he is pushing border proposals that some advocates call “unconscionable.” Biden is moving right on immigration. And now, even if by accident, his language is matching it.

As my colleague Daniel King wrote, “‘Alien’ was baked into this country’s founding vocabulary to strip British of personhood and legal rights.” Biden’s impromptu flub echoed the direction of his policies—making immigrants, as a collective, seem lesser, somehow stripped of peoplehood.

“The rhetoric President Biden used tonight was dangerously close to language from Donald Trump that puts a target on the backs of Latinos everywhere,” Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas said on social media. “Democrats shouldn’t be taking our cues from MAGA extremism.” The National Immigrant Justice Center’s X account posted that “blaming an entire group of people for the alleged acts of one person is xenophobia which must not be tolerated in part of the US government.”

Naturally, Biden’s “an illegal” moment played right into Greene’s hands. The congresswoman took credit for making Biden “go off script” and telling the “truth” by admitting “Laken Riley was murdered by an ILLEGAL!!!” 

They are melting down because I forced Biden to go off script and he finally told the truth and admitted Laken Riley was murdered by an ILLEGAL!!!

Yes that’s right Joe.

ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!! https://t.co/auwxadMcD1 pic.twitter.com/TNH9aHcHJr

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) March 8, 2024

After the ruckus, Biden went back to the prepared remarks. He declared he wouldn’t “demonize immigrants saying they ‘poison the blood of our country,'” referring to a Trump quote. He promised not to separate families or “ban people from America because of their faith.” He gave a nod to his Irish ancestry and talked about migrations who fled persecution to pursue the American Dream. “That’s America,” Biden said, “where we all come from somewhere, but we are all Americans.” 

Immigration and the border have been front and center this campaign cycle. Biden also took the opportunity to rail against Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers for tanking a bipartisan senate border deal so restrictive it would have previously been unthinkable for Democrats to stand behind it. Biden touted the bill as the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen,” saying it would save lives and restore order at the border. (Republican Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who led the border deal negotiations, seemed to approve.)

“If my predecessor is watching instead of playing politics and pressuring members of Congress to block this bill, join me in telling Congress to pass it!” the president said. “We can do it together.”   

For me, a non-American who came from somewhere, a question lingered. Which Biden from the State of the Union represents his true thoughts: The scripted version, who lauds immigration as a strength worth being celebrated? Or the extemporaneous one—who uses language that enables openly anti-immigrant policies?

Screenshot

On Friday, a YouTube Music contractor named Jack Benedict took the podium before Austin’s City Council. He was there to urge the council members to encourage Google to negotiate with the Alphabet Workers Union-CWA Local 9009. Instead, mid-testimony, he learned that he and 42 of his colleagues had been laid off. The jaw-dropping moment, captured on a livestream, has already spread across social media like wildfire.

This is the exact moment that workers on the @Youtube Music team learned they were being laid off by @Google – as they were testifying in front of their local Austin city council. pic.twitter.com/N4GnMKda4A

— Alphabet Workers Union (AWU-CWA) (@AlphabetWorkers) March 1, 2024

“Our jobs have ended today, effective immediately,” said Katie Marie Marschner, an Alphabet Workers Union member, shakily in the clip. Marschner and Benedict were attending the city council meeting to push a resolution calling on Google and Cognizant, a professional services company, to negotiate with union members. As Benedict testified to city council members, Marschner received a text about the lay-offs from her co-workers, who’d been let go in a scheduled weekly team meeting. 

“Basically, Cognizant flew in all their top HR goons from Arizona and Florida and a bunch of Pinkerton security guards to come in and deliver the news to us,” said Marschner in a follow-up video posted to Twitter. “I burst into tears.” In 2023, the team of more than 40 YouTube Music contractors participated in two strikes: a month-long one in February, urging Cognizant to change its return to the office policy and a single-day pause in September.

In April 2023, YouTube contractors joined the Alphabet Workers Union for better pay and working conditions. Under their current agreement, the workers were making as little as $19 an hour and had no sick pay, according to the Washington Post. Since unionizing, Google has refused to bargain with the contractors- a move that the National Labor Relations Board deemed illegal earlier this year.  

This recent round of firings come at a time where Austin, which became hotbed for tech talent in recent years, is struggling with its tech economy. Companies like Apple, Google, and Meta fled from California for cheaper taxes and living conditions in Texas during the pandemic. Now, these huge companies are starting to pack up their operations and leave the area after underestimating people’s willingness to return to the office without appropriate compensation, leaving a city of empty office buildings in its wake.

In a statement to the Verge, Google insisted that the decision to terminate the team’s employment was Cognizant’s, who claimed that the employees had reached the end of their agreed-upon business contract. However, the union says these lay-offs are textbook silencing tactics. 

“This is Google attempting to fire us and make us go away,” said Marschner. “But we’re not done. And we won’t stop fighting.”

Jimin Kim/Zuma

On Friday, Walgreens and CVS announced they would begin selling the abortion pill mifepristone in their pharmacies in select states, part of a plan to eventually expand access to about half of US states where abortion is still legal. The announcement is notable ahead of arguments in a Supreme Court case that could further restrict access to the abortion pill, making pharmacy access to it especially critical for women—and potentially profitable for the pill’s backers.

Part of the case, which is scheduled for argument later this month, is a challenge by abortion opponents to the Food and Drug Administration’s 24-year-old authorization of mifepristone. Last year, I wrote about the private equity investors who helped to secure that authorization, bringing the abortion pill to market in the United States and creating the secretive web of financial entities that would become Danco Labs—today one of only two US retailers of mifepristone. (Until 2019, Danco was the country’s only retailer of the medication.) In the years since, they’ve earned tens of millions on their investment. As the story explained:

Their windfall has come through a byzantine corporate structure set up in the 1990s by a private equity fund, now called MedApproach Holdings, to allow investors to pour money into Danco Labs—until 2019 the only US retailer of mifepristone—without disclosing their identities. As states have imposed ever-stricter limits on abortion access, their investments have generated hefty returns.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last June, undoing the federal right to abortion—and the FDA’s announcement, in January, that retail pharmacies can now sell abortion pills—these investors are likely to earn even more, as medication abortion becomes the only option for millions of women living in the 26 states where abortion is now illegal or severely restricted. The potential is so promising that two of the primary investors have engaged in a bitter court battle to take control of the investment, and Danco itself.

The story had a dizzying plot that involved shell companies on the Cayman Islands, a priest, a disbarred lawyer, and a couple of racehorses. And there was plenty that remained uncovered—Danco is famously secretive. What I was able to report emerged only because several investors decided to sue each other for greater control of the company, putting their names and some of the company’s financials into the public record. That reporting revealed that the average return on investment for Danco’s private equity investors was, before the Dobbs decision, about 452 percent. One of the main investors had earned in the ballpark of $20 to $25 million. 

Depending on the contours of the high court’s final decision this spring, Danco’s investors could lose money—or they could earn an impressive return. (Danco is one of the parties to the lawsuit.) The Supreme Court could go as far as to throw out the FDA’s authorization of the abortion pill—which is used in more than half of US abortions—closing down Danco’s ability to sell its only product. But the court could also limit how mifepristone is dispensed, prohibiting the ability to mail it but making pharmacies one of the few places able to give it to patients. (Previously the drug could only be dispensed directly from clinics or via mail.) That decision could make Danco’s investors untold additional money. 

Jim Lo Scalzo/EFE/ZUMA

Just a week after saying that “embryos, to me, are babies,” Nikki Haley is now joining other Republicans in suddenly claiming to support IVF access in the wake of rising abortion restrictions and the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can now be considered children under state law.

“I think there should be federal protection that we allow for IVF places to be able to function…I think the only thing the federal government should do is make sure IVF places are protected or available,” Haley said in an interview on CNN on Friday after host Dana Bash asked if she thought there should be federal protections for IVF and doctors who perform the procedure.  

“We don’t need government getting involved in an issue where we don’t have a problem,” Haley added. “We don’t have a problem with IVF facilities. If you have a certain case, let that case play out the way it’s supposed to, but don’t create issues, and that’s what I feel like has happened with this IVF.” 

Nikki Haley on IVF: "We don't need government getting involved in an issue where we don't have a problem. We don't have a problem with IVF facilities. If you have a certain case, let that case play out the way it's supposed to, but don't create issues" @nikkihaley @InsidePolitics pic.twitter.com/HKexTJTSWn

— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) March 1, 2024

That’s a stark departure from what Haley told NBC News last week. “Embryos, to me, are babies,” she said in an interview, adding, “I do see where that’s coming from when they talk about that,” in reference to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling. 

Haley’s not the only member of the GOP rushing to signal their support for IVF after a national outcry over the ways the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade—which was repeatedly cited throughout the Alabama ruling—is imperiling access to fertility treatments and care. 

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), no stranger to flip-flopping for political gain, introduced a non-binding House resolution on Friday pledging “strong support for continued access to fertility care and assisted reproductive technology.” This is ironic given that Mace was a co-sponsor of the 2021 Life at Conception Act which would’ve effectively banned IVF by establishing a “right to life” from “the moment of fertilization.” Several other Republican supporters of the legislation, which was re-introduced in the House last year, have similarly scrambled to fend off criticism since Alabama’s ruling. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for example, who co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act both times it was introduced, claimed Thursday to “support IVF and its availability.” 

But, once again, Republicans’ actions appear to speak louder than their words. When Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) introduced a bill on Wednesday to establish federal protections for IVF—the same measures Haley claimed on Friday to support—Republicans killed the measure. 

“I don’t know the details of any of the bills,” Haley said on Friday when asked about Duckworth’s bill. “So I can’t weigh into that.” 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is "absolutely" on Trump's short list of potential running mates, the former president told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday.ZUMA

Trump is considering Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as a potential running mate, he told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday—even though Abbott has said that he doesn’t want the job. 

When Hannity asked Trump if Abbott was on his short list during a joint interview with the two politicians in Eagle Pass, Texas—the epicenter of the fight between Texas and the feds over control of the border—the former president said yes.

“He’s a spectacular man,” Trump said of Abbott, praising him for endorsing his reelection campaign. 

“Certainly he would be somebody that I would very much consider,” Trump added later. 

Abbott, meanwhile, sat there nodding and smiling and presumably feeling awkward given that just last week he told CNN that “there’s so many people other than myself who are best situated” to the role. 

After the interview, Abbott reiterated his disinterest, according to the Texas Tribune. “Obviously it’s very nice of him to say, but I think you all know that my focus is entirely on the state of Texas,” Abbott said at a press conference today, according to the Tribune. “As you know, I’m working right now on the midterm election process. I’ve already talked about that I’ve announced that I’m running for reelection two years from now, and so my commitment is to Texas and I’m staying in Texas.” 

According to the Tribune, Trump also awkwardly floated Abbott as a potential replacement for outgoing Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell—even though, as the Tribune notes, Abbott isn’t in the Senate. The governor was also (surprise, surprise) not interested in a role he cannot take: “I’d rather be governor of Texas,” Abbott told Trump.

But the two share a hardline anti-immigrant stance that, if Abbott changed his mind, could make their joint ticket attractive to many voters within the GOP.

In January, Trump urged states to send troops to the southern border to curb illegal immigration, and pledged in a Truth Social rant that, if reelected, he would “work hand in hand with Governor Abbott” to enact what he called “the Largest Domestic Deportation Operation in History.” (As my colleague Isabela Dias reported, many of Trump’s proposals are both terrifying and legally dubious.) Abbott has used similarily caustic rhetoric, telling a right-wing radio host earlier this year that “the only thing that we are not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border—because, of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder.” (Those remarks earned him widespread condemnation from Democrats, as I reported at the time.)

Besides Abbott, other rumored Trump veep contenders include Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio). NBC News reported last month that Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) had shot to the top of Trump’s short list, and reported this week that Alabama Sen. Katie Britt (R)—who will deliver the GOP response to Biden’s State of the Union address next week—is also on the list. 

In yesterday’s interview, Trump told Hannity that Scott has been “a surrogate…he’s done a very good job.” 

Mother Jones illustration; Gripas Yuri/Abaca/ZUMA

Washington state’s largest private-sector labor union has followed Michigan voters‘ lead, urging its 50,000 members to vote “uncommitted” rather than for Joe Biden in the state’s March 12 primary.

The news, first reported by NBC today, comes as Biden faces growing protests from voters on the left about his support for Israel in its war in Gaza, and concerns about his ability to defeat Trump, the GOP’s all-but-certain nominee, in November.

The executive board for the Washington chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers—which represents more than 50,000 of the union’s more than one million workers, including some in parts of Oregon and Idaho—unanimously voted for the endorsement Wednesday night, just one day after more than 100,000 voters in Michigan, or 13 percent overall, opted to vote “uncommitted” as a protest vote, as my colleague Noah Lanard reported. Enough uncommitted votes can mean some state delegates at the party’s national convention are uncommitted, and can vote for the nominee of their choosing. 

“While Biden has been an ally to workers over the last four years, low-wage workers cannot afford setbacks when it comes to the right to organize and the protections we’ve won during Biden’s time in office,” UFCW 3000’s statement said. 

The Washington union also said it’s “in solidarity with our partners in Michigan who sent a clear message in their primary that Biden must do more to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Biden must push for a lasting ceasefire and ending US funding toward this reckless war.” As I wrote on Tuesday about the effort in Michigan, a state with large Arab and Muslim populations: 

The campaign says it hopes that, if successful, “Biden would feel more at risk of losing Michigan in the general election, prompting a potential reassessment of his financing and backing of Israel’s war in Gaza.”

While Michigan has historically been a crucial swing state, Washington state has reliably voted blue—and the union doesn’t want its “uncommitted” endorsement to change that, noting that it will send “staff, members, and resources to any swing state across the nation to support the Democratic nominee to win and defeat Trump.” 

Representatives for the Biden campaign didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Clarification, March 1: This story has been revised to make clear that UFCW 3000 is Washington’s largest private-sector union, not the state’s largest union overall.

J.R. Majewski at a campaign rallyTom E. Puskar/AP

Ohio Republican Congressional candidate JR Majewski considered dropping out of his race (again) after backlash for saying that Democrats, like disabled people participating in the Special Olympics, are “retarded” in a podcast episode that aired earlier this month.

Majewski, who apologized after backlash, told Politico that he would consider dropping out if his “comments put me in a position where I can’t win the general election.” But, this morning, he clarified that he intends to continue “standing strong for patriots” and will not leave the race.

Ohio congressional candidate J.R. Majewski (R): “Shout out to all the Democrats living in Mom's basement, that like to talk shit on the internet.”

“It's like being in the Special Olympics. No matter how good you perform, you're still a fucking retard.“ pic.twitter.com/btjrG3rMZA

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) February 15, 2024

The phrase used by Majewski became a medical term in the 19th century to describe people with intellectual disabilities and insinuates they are slow. It is now widely considered to be a slur, but it is still commonly used in state legislation and even popular culture. A 2010 law did require the federal government to update language from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability” in laws that mention disability.

Steve Lankenau, who is running against Majewski in the Ohio Republican primary, said of his opponent’s statement: “This is a slur on many beautiful, wonderful people who are every bit equal. It’s incredibly hurtful and cruel.” 

GOP House candidate JR Majewski says he’s not dropping out of the race in OH-9 after calling Special Olympics athletes “fucking retarded.” pic.twitter.com/pZYva3eCnu

— bryan metzger (@metzgov) February 28, 2024

Majewski previously ran for his congressional seat in 2022. During that race, the Associated Press reported that he misrepresented his military background. Majewski lost.

Early voting for Ohio’s March 19 primary election began on February 21. 

Mother Jones illustration; Getty

Donald Trump keeps losing in the courtroom, but that isn’t stopping him from prevailing at the ballot box. The former president is facing four indictments covering a combined 91 criminal counts. He’s racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in civil judgments against him. And still, he’s winning GOP primaries. On Tuesday, he won Michigan’s.

With his massive victory over Nikki Haley in Michigan, Trump has now been victorious in all six states that have held Republican primaries or caucuses so far this year. His Michigan win is especially significant given that the state was a major epicenter of Trump’s failed, and allegedly criminal, efforts to overturn the 2020 election.