Gary Kramer/US Fish and Wildlife Service/AP/File

Last week, a bill introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) received a hearing.

For some congresspeople, this would not be news. For Boebert it is: In her first term, she sponsored 41 pieces of legislation—one set out to impeach President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris; another to require the Department of Homeland Security to treat fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction; a third to prohibit the use of federal funds to research youth gender transitions—and none warranted a hearing.

This turned out to be a problem. Despite being predicted to comfortably win reelection, Boebert prevailed over her Democratic opponent by less than a percentage point. Voters in her district told me the reason was simple: “I don’t think she did shit,” one constituent explained. “She didn’t back one bill, she just talked a lot.”

Now, it seems Boebert has taken that message to heart. In proposing to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act, she has taken aim at a serious, complex issue in her home state.

In 2020, Coloradans narrowly voted to allow the reintroduction of gray wolves, which had been hunted out of their natural range in the 1940s. Environmentalists say that wolves are an important part of ecosystems, allowing aspens and willows to thrive by mediating the elk population that feeds on them. Because wolves are protected by the Endangered Species Act, it is illegal to kill them—except in the Northern Rocky Mountains, which encompasses Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, because those states have already successfully restored their gray wolf populations. (Endangered species can be killed in self-defense.) Wolves have not yet been officially reintroduced by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Still, some packs have migrated into the state from Wyoming. These wolves occasionally kill cattle, frustrating ranchers, who view the reintroduction of wolves as harmful and say that the state’s city-dwellers don’t know what it’s like to have their livelihood threatened by carnivorous animals. By removing wolves from the ESA, Boebert wants to allow Colorado ranchers to shoot wolves.

This seems exactly the type of issue that Boebert, a congresswoman from a rural district, would be sent to Congress to solve. But what might look like Boebert listening to her constituents and doing something to help them could backfire: Her arguments have been so error-ridden and nonsensical that they could hurt her cause.

First, the name. Boebert titled her bill the Trust the Science Act, “the science” being that the wolf population has recovered. This is only half true. In a press release announcing the bill, the words “scientific fact” link to a letter from wildlife management professionals saying that the wolf population has recovered—in the western Great Lakes states. This is hardly evidence that the gray wolf is, in Boebert’s words, “fully recovered.”

Ever the shitposter, Boebert began her hearing by holding up photos of aborted fetuses, the kind that adorn anti-choice billboards by the side of the highway. “Since we’re talking about the Endangered Species Act, I’m just wondering if my colleagues on the other side would put babies on the endangered species list,” she said. “These babies were born in Washington, D.C., full-term. I don’t know, maybe that’s a way we can save some children here in the United States.”  As many people have pointed out, the human population is well-established across six continents.

Lauren Boebert brought photos of human fetuses to a hearing on endangered species. pic.twitter.com/IpXCI14cWT

— David Edwards (@DavidEdwards) March 23, 2023

It begs the question: Why is Boebert seemingly trolling her own bill?

There is plenty to debate here. There are ways to regulate the wolf population without giving hunters carte blanche to kill them. One controversial proposed federal rule would keep wolves on the endangered species list but allow ranchers to shoot wolves on-sight if they are regularly killing their cattle. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is supposed to reimburse ranchers for livestock killed by wolves, but some ranchers have complained that they haven’t received the money. Ensuring prompt payments could be one solution. Hazing wolves with fladry—a flag-lined fence that flaps loudly in the breeze—is a short-term fix.

Then there is a potential to do nothing. Wolves account for a small percentage of livestock deaths. Ranchers, under this argument, would just have to learn to live with them, as they’ve done with other predators like mountain lions and coyotes.

All of that seems worth talking about in the halls of Congress. It could even help pass legislation. Or, as Boebert’s constituent put it, it could be considered doing shit.

Evan Vucci/AP

This evening, when the historic news broke that a Manhattan grand jury had voted to indict the former president (and leading GOP 2024 contender) Donald Trump in a hush-money scandal, our Washington, DC, bureau chief, David Corn, quickly sat down to issue this video warning: This is no time to celebrate; we are at a dangerous and uncertain moment.

Trump's chaos machine has already been unleashed following his indictment. And now the system is about to be tested like never before, warns @DavidCornDC. pic.twitter.com/gjOn4ztrPR

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 31, 2023

“There’s going to be a lot of information, misinformation, and maybe some disinformation out there in the tsunami of response and reaction,” Corn says. “And I don’t think people should be celebratory of this: It’s a sad day if a presidential candidate… is accused of a crime.”

Corn says now is the time to respect the rule of law, as the legal system is about to encounter an unprecedented test from a man capable of unleashing extreme chaos. “It will be very, very ugly, and I think in the midst of all that, what we need to remember is he is presumed innocent, and that is a good thing,” Corn remarks. “We have to say, ‘This is an indictment. We will let the system work.’”

Rick Bowmer/AP

Some three months after New York published its exhaustive guide on the meritocracy-bending phenomenon, nepo babies roared back into the discourse last week with the unexpected arrival of Romy Mars. But some two thousand miles west from where the teenage daughter of Sofia Coppola and Thomas Mars was prepping pasta alla vodka, another offspring of a famous Hollywood family was taking flight inside a Park City, Utah courtroom.

“Oh, I have studiously avoided learning about this,” a colleague remarked when I mentioned my sudden interest in the Utah civil trial involving Gwyneth Paltrow. 

Fair enough. I too had once been ignorant of the details surrounding Paltrow’s role in a 2016 ski crash that allegedly left a now-76-year-old man injured. But the glimpses of Paltrow’s testimony that have emerged on social media, in which the actress and Goop founder emphatically denied accusations that she was responsible for the collision, have held a soft grip on my addled brain—and I’m far from alone. The scenes have been captivating: There’s the moment Paltrow, with the insouciance and stabbing derision only the richest and whitest among us is capable of deploying, asks to be reminded of an attorney’s name. When Paltrow is asked whether the crash had caused her to lose out during a “very expensive” ski vacation, Paltrow responds, “Well, I lost half a day of skiing, yes,” making it clear to the rest of us that her wallet hadn’t noticed the ordeal in the slightest. Then we have Kristin Van Orman, the attorney representing Paltrow’s accuser, Terry Sanderson, who at various turns, could barely contain an obsequious squeal at questioning a real-life Oscar-winning actress.

This trial is so absurd 😭 pic.twitter.com/8cPPswllqG

— Steve Morris (@stevemorris__) March 24, 2023

Even Paltrow’s clothes, predictably impeccable, have drawn considerable interest, producing shopping guides should you ever need to look like a woman defending herself in a civil suit. Except, of course, you and I could never, ever, look like that. Personally, I’m more apt to faux pax myself with a giant purse you could slide across the floor after a bank job. 

“This entire Gwyneth Paltrow ski trial was written by Mike White,” a Twitter user wrote referring to the White Lotus creator who is reportedly in Thailand scouting locations for the next season of the soap-series. Indeed, it was easy, even fun, to imagine White taking caustic notes on the same clips, building a character wrapped in the same luxe neutrals as Paltrow. “Gwyneth Paltrow is dressing for where she’d rather be,” read a Washington Post headline on Paltrow’s courtroom fashion. But I beg to differ. It seems as though the witness stand inside a drab Utah courtroom is exactly where Paltrow wants to be. Consider that Sanderson is suing her for $300,000—a significant adjustment from his initial $3.1 million for injuries he claims include brain damage. One can reasonably assume that Paltrow could simply settle and avoid the public drama. But clearly convinced she’s being extorted for her celebrity, you’ve got to almost relate to—even admire—that Paltrow is choosing to take the stand to defend herself. 

This week, the trial is expected to see Paltrow’s family, including her two teenage kids, take the stand to testify against Sanderson’s claims. Though vastly different scenarios, I couldn’t help but draw a contrast to Sofia Coppola. The two women hail from some of Hollywood’s most exclusive corners and are effectively dowagers of the same nepo baby empire. They seem nothing alike, neither in personality nor approaches to their kids in the spotlight. (It’s worth noting that Apple Martin, the daughter of Paltrow and Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, recently made her debut as a Chanel girl.) Yet both cases have struck me for their strange concoction of relatability, hateable privilege, and simple hilarity. Parenthood is a funny thing, I thought. That absurd moment of relatability was fleeting, of course, delimited by the boundaries of their extreme wealth.

Supporters of former President Donald Trump pose with a demonstrator who identifies himself as Steven Daniel Wolverton dressed like the Q-Anon Shaman outside Trump Tower.Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty

When I arrived at Trump Tower on Tuesday afternoon, a man was heckling one of the only Trump supporters who’d shown up to protest a potential indictment of the former president—who had posted on his platform Truth Social to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK” after warning he would be arrested in connection with an investigation of hush money he paid to a porn star. The Trump supporter was an Asian woman; the heckler’s face was obscured by a bandanna. “Yo, you from Wuhan,” he shouted. “You brought the virus over.” Another man told him to cut it out with the racism. Then the small crowd’s attention snapped to a stranger spectacle: a counter-demonstrator with a Trump mask, a fake diaper, red tape over her nipples, and black tennis shoes. She stuck her tongue out, posing for photos. 

Despite Trump’s calls for “PROTEST,” there was no real protest to speak of outside Trump Tower, or seemingly anywhere else. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be on the verge of reviving a years-old scandal as he tests a novel legal theory against a former president who tried to steal an election. It is the type of thing that Trump’s supporters could be reasonably expected to get in the streets about. But at least so far, they’ve mostly stayed at their keyboards. 

“Yo, this shit is wack,” one man said. “Where is the action at?” There was only one upside. He boasted that he’d gotten “so much free content.” 

“It’s more cops than people,” the woman in the diaper, a self-described “attention whore,” said to those around her. “I was the best thing here.” She added accurately: “It’s just press.” Reporters and streamers far outnumbered the former president’s fans and critics.

One of the only obvious Trump backers was a man named Joshua. He was wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” t-shirt and a hat featuring Trump’s face. “Wanted by the FBI. For Making America Great,” his baseball cap read. Joshua told me he’d flown in from Louisiana on Monday on the advice of a Rumble streamer who runs a page called “Professor Toto’s Conservative College.” In a video this weekend, Professor Toto said an indictment would backfire by reinvigorating Trump’s drifting base. Its imminent arrival was evidence that “Yahweh uses the enemy for good.”

“Professor Toto gettin’ on an airplane,” Professor Toto said at the end of the stream. “I’ll be in New York on Tuesday to watch the show.” It was unclear if he got an airplane, but Joshua did. I asked him if he’d been expecting more people. 

“I thought there would be,” he said. “I figured the crazies would show up, which they obviously did.”

“Who’s the crazies?” I asked.

“The naked lady with the shitty diaper,” Joshua replied.

Joshua was leaving town on Wednesday, which meant he’d miss the bigger protest he said had been pushed back until Thursday. He was confident the prosecution would fail. “They don’t have anything on him,” he said. “This is just another distraction.”

A few minutes later, a passerby shouted a different perspective to no one in particular. “They got Gotti,” he said about the federal government, who are not the ones expected to indict Trump. “What makes you think they’re not gonna get Trump?”

The event, if you can call it that, was dying down so I left to grab lunch at the Beach Cafe, New York Republicans’ Upper East Side haunt. As I ate an unusually good (and large) $21 cobb salad alone at the bar, a man with a Philly accent sat down looking for a Budweiser and a double of Cuervo. He settled for Bud Light, well tequila, and an avocado toast.

At a nearby table, I overheard someone asking the question, “Is Trump going to jail?” It appears he won’t today.

Jay LaPrete/AP

The state of Ohio is suing Norfolk Southern over the company’s train derailment in East Palestine last month, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced Tuesday.

“This derailment was entirely avoidable,” Yost said at a press briefing Tuesday, “and I’m concerned that Norfolk Southern may be putting profits for their own company above the health and safety of the cities and communities that they operate in.”

The 58-count complaint, filed in federal court, is the latest demand for accountability from a company that has been accused of prioritizing profits over safety, a systemic effort that laid the groundwork for the February 3 derailment that released toxic chemicals throughout surrounding communities near the Pennsylvania border. 

Yost’s lawsuit asks Norfolk Southern to cover costs associated with the emergency response, ongoing environmental cleanup, and property damage. Meanwhile, the National Transportation Safety Board is also investigating the company’s safety practices.

That Yost—a Republican who used coronavirus lockdowns as a pretense to halt abortions and suggested that the media was lying about a 10-year-old rape victim who had to travel out of state for an abortion—is leading the lawsuit against Norfolk Southern makes it an even bigger deal. Last week’s bipartisan grilling of Norfolk Southern’s CEO showed that members of both parties seem willing to take the railroad industry to task. That’s a marked change from the Senate’s decision to override the will of railroad unions late last year. Maybe a catastrophic chemical spill is all it takes to spark some change.

People line up outside a Silicon Valley Bank branch in Wellesley, Mass., on Monday.Steven Senne/AP

Silicon Valley Bank collapsed on Friday amid a bank run. The reasons are complex, even for those well-versed in the jargon of finance. (I am not.) The gist is that the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates in hopes of taming inflation. That requires banks to pay higher rates on their deposits. But since SVB’s assets (like loans) were issued at lower rates, they earn far less. At the same time, the higher rates from the Fed caused Treasury bonds to go down in value. SVB over-diversified on Treasury bonds and had too much money in long-term assets at the moment depositors wanted to withdraw money, as Michael Hitzlik explained in the Los Angeles Times.

So, you can blame increased interest rates. You can blame deregulation for allowing SVB to act as more of an investment tool than a bank, which made it particularly susceptible to a bank run. You can blame the very idea that this is how financialized capitalism works. You can even maybe blame Peter Thiel? Or, if you choose not to attempt to understand what happened, you can blame some DEI programs and say the word “woke” a lot.

“I mean, this bank, they’re so concerned with DEI and politics and all kinds of stuff,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said. “I think that really diverted from them focusing on their core mission.” The idea, as a former Trump economist said on Fox News, is that SVB over-invested in green-energy products, leading to its doom.

“SVB is what happens when you push a leftist/woke ideology and have that take precedent over common sense business practices,” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, not mentioning the role his father played in loosening bank regulations.

Investor Andy Kessler, in a Wall Street Journal opinion column, went so far as to suggest that SVB’s focus on diversity and inclusion was somehow responsible for the bank’s collapse:

Was there regulatory failure? Perhaps. SVB was regulated like a bank but looked more like a money-market fund. Then there’s this: In its proxy statement, SVB notes that besides 91% of their board being independent and 45% women, they also have “1 Black,” “1 LGBTQ+” and “2 Veterans.” I’m not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands.

This is, of course, nonsense. As my colleague Michael Mechanic explained in a newsletter last week, American conservatives (and some Democrats) have been loath to accept any whiff of progressivism in our financial institutions. That’s why the Senate blocked a Labor Department rule that would have allowed retirement fund managers to let clients invest in ESG funds—those that consider environmental and social factors. And it’s also why they choose to focus not on Silicon Valley greed or lax government regulations, but on the bank’s stated support of LGBTQ causes.

Do you think Bear Stearns was “distracted by diversity demands”? Lehman Brothers? Bailey Building and Loan from It’s a Wonderful Life? Give me a break.

Andrew Harnik/AP

It’s another week in Washington, which for Rep. George Santos, means another week contending with new claims of wrongdoing and criminal activity.

“I’m innocent,” Santos said, rejecting the latest allegations on Friday. “I never did anything of criminal activity and I’m no mastermind of anything.”

So what is Santos vehemently denying this time? Could it be diverting voter registration money to a GOP-allied gay rights group? Potentially making up top donors? Dressing in drag but never being a “drag queen?”

No, the newest claims of malfeasance come from a former roommate, a Brazilian man named Gustavo Ribeiro Trelha who in 2017 pleaded guilty to a charge of “access device fraud” as a part of a Seattle-based credit card operation that involved skimming devices to steal personal information from people’s credit cards. In a sworn deposition this week, Trelha told federal investigators that Santos was the brains behind the scheme.

“Santos taught me how to skim card information and how to clone cards,” Trelha wrote. “He gave me all the materials and taught me how to put skimming devices and cameras on ATM machines.”

“We used a computer to be able to download the information on the pieces,” he continued, seemingly referring to the parts they’d installed on ATMs. “We also used an external hard drive to save the filming, because the skimmer took the information from the card, and the camera took the password.” According to Trelha, he and Santos split their illicit earnings 50/50. Trelha claims that after his arrest in the operation, Santos visited him in jail and told him not to say anything about him. At a 2017 arraignment, Santos told a judge that he was there to secure accommodations for Trelha, whom he called a “family friend,” in case Trelha was released on bail. 

Now that’s damning stuff, even against the heaping pile of admitted lies, shady campaign reports, and increasingly outrageous remarks that have emerged since Santos was elected in November. Trelha’s claims come amid multiple active investigations into the freshman Republican, as well as bipartisan calls for his resignation.

Francis Chung/Politico/AP

At a hearing before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on Thursday, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw insisted that he was “deeply sorry” for last month’s train derailment that spilled toxic chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio. But throughout the hearing, he seemed hesitant to commit to measures that could begin to make it right.

Throughout the hearing, Shaw played a game of evasion. He answered question after question with “I am committed to…” before failing to commit to anything of substance. Shaw espoused ideals, but never endorsed the concrete examples that senators presented for how to enshrine them.

Take, for example, his baffling exchange with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass). Sen. Markey mentioned that Norfolk Southern spent $3.4 billion in stock buybacks and that it made $3.3 billion in profit last year. Shaw said, “I am committed to making Norfolk Southern’s safety culture the best in the industry.”

“Well, you’re not having a good month,” Markey shot back, referencing the other Norfolk Southern train derailment in Ohio this weekend. Markey then asked if Norfolk Southern would compensate homeowners for diminished property values resulting from the derailment.

“Senator, I’m committing to do what’s right,” Shaw said.

“Well, what’s right is, a family that had a home worth $100,000 that is now worth $50,000 will probably never be able to sell that home for $100,000 again,” Markey said. “Will you compensate that family for that loss?”

“Senator,” Shaw repeated, “I’m committed to do what’s right.”

“These are the people who are innocent victims, Mr. Shaw,” Markey said. “These people were just there, at home, and all of a sudden, their small businesses, their homes, are forever going to have been diminished in value. Norfolk Southern owes these people. It’s an accident that is basically under the responsibility of Norfolk Southern, not these families. When you say ‘do the right thing,’ will you, again, compensate these families for their diminished, lost property values for homes and small businesses?

“Senator, we’ve already committed $21 million, and that’s a down payment,” Shaw said.

“That is a down payment,” Markey said. “Will you commit to ensuring that these families, these innocent families, do not lose their life savings in their homes and small businesses? The right thing to do is to say, ‘Yes, we will.'”

“Senator, I’m committed to doing what’s right for the community, and we’re gonna be there,” Shaw said.

Sen. Edward Markey questions the CEO of Norfolk Southern on the company's safety regulations following the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

"You're not having a good month," the senator says. https://t.co/zRa2mfDdWg pic.twitter.com/ZFYjMPSpkX

— The Associated Press (@AP) March 9, 2023

Shaw waffled once again when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) asked, “Will you pledge today that you will do no more stock buybacks until a raft of safety measures have been completed to reduce the risk of derailments and crashes in the future?”

Shaw’s response: “Senator, I will commit to continuing to invest in safety.”

Senator Merkley pressed Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw to commit to halting stock buybacks for wealthy shareholders until he completes the major safety overhauls that the company admits it needs to undertake.

The CEO refused to commit. pic.twitter.com/3rlIXRKPg9

— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) March 9, 2023

OK, how about paid sick days? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked Shaw if he would commit to guaranteeing paid sick days to his entire workforce.

“I will commit to continuing to discuss with [our employees] important quality-of-life issues with our local craft colleagues,” Shaw said.

“With all due respect,” Sanders said, “you sound like a politician, Mr. Shaw.”

WATCH: Complete exchange between @SenSanders and Norfolk Southern Railway CEO Alan Shaw. pic.twitter.com/9b45rLIW3p

— CSPAN (@cspan) March 9, 2023

Watch the full hearing here:

Mother Jones illustration; Jason Koerner/Getty; Getty

How much would it take for you to publicly pledge allegiance to a man you privately loathe? Not just once, but night after night, in a pair of stale khaki pants? Really think about it: How much would it take for you to sell out, knowing full well your own lies convince others to live in delusion? 

I posed the question in a newsletter this week upon learning that Tucker Carlson, a man who reportedly rakes in somewhere between $10 to $35 million a year, privately fumes about hating Donald Trump “passionately,” despite Carlson playing one of the most prominent MAGA diehards on television.

Now, we’d all like to believe that we’re above such moral depravity. And so, as expected, most of our readers responded with a version of “there isn’t enough money in the world.” A sampling: “There’s not enough money on this planet”; “No amount of money”; “NO AMOUNT OF MONEY”; “No price”; “There aren’t enough jewels, there isn’t enough money or real estate in the universe.”  

Others seemed to take blood oaths against such an act. “I would rather be put in front of a firing squad,” one reader said. Others imagined taking the money, then using it for good: “It would take all the wealth of the world which I would then redistribute to every single soul on this earth equally.”

But I appreciated those who did name a price. “10 million per year,” Doug said in a simple one-liner.

Fair enough. But I still know myself: I’m a woman in a deeply capitalist society where childcare can cost twice as much as a mortgage, my 401K has taken some recent hits, and I love martinis. So, the next morning, upon mindlessly chattering to my husband about the Carlson texts, the conversation took an unexpected turn: Well, so how much would it take for us?

As it happened, we were on hold with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the United Kingdom’s version of the Internal Revenue Service, in order to finally get a sizable payment returned to our account after having left the UK two years ago. Which is to say, money was on the mind. I began to do some math.

But first, some parameters. Becoming Tucker Carlson would have to guarantee some basic, typically out-of-reach luxuries. For us, the two obvious ones would be: 1) a life without work, 2) being able to afford every piece of childcare assistance available to mankind to help raise our toddler. I’m talking nannies, car seats, tutors, the best snacks, soccer coaches, daycare, summer camp. Still, even in this unthinkably lavish scenario, we felt it was important to maintain our personalities. That means no yachts or fine jewelry.

When we tried to break that down annually, we agreed that roughly $500,000 a year would probably be a sufficient starting point. (Note: It’s become apparent that I need to emphasize that this number is based on our current real salaries and childcare expenses.) But lighting your soul on fire to become someone like Carlson is no small thing; we needed to think bigger—a lot bigger. After all, the rich parents of the world are apparently still miserable and if I’m going to ditch my values, the one thing I’d like to avoid is financial anxiety. We kept going.

In this plot, we agreed that we would probably lose all of our friends. But authentic human connection is important, even when you’re Tucker Carlson. So we figured more money could at least allow us to have more children and effectively raise people forced to forge personal bonds with us. So we tripled our initial numbers: $1.2 to $1.5 million annually. Stick in a bloated martini budget and you get about $1.5 million to $1.7 million. Then there’s the security detail we’d probably need for becoming some atrocious people. I couldn’t find how much Carlson pays for the stuff but according to one report, Trump spent at least $1.3 million in the 12 months since he left office. My husband and I adjusted that down to $500,000 for our new lives as toxic shitbags.

Totaled up, that’s still paltry compared to what Carlson gets paid to lie and spew hate for a living.

It was fun to imagine. But thinking about it for a few more beats, I realized that as incredibly flawed as I am, what it takes to be Tucker Carlson is something I simply do not have: a drive of personal ambition so hot that it burns every piece of moral restraint. I don’t have a worldview that could ignore mass hatred. The shame, which would justifiably pass down to my kids, would be unbearable. I’m grateful to have friends that would rightfully divorce me.

And so I’ll stay here I think, at my kitchen table; I’m still on the phone with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. 

Evan Vucci/AP

The mother of a close friend, probably around the time I was 16, once told me to never put anything in writing. The way she saw it, the permanence of emails, handwritten notes, and text messages always posed a threat: Something could get yanked out of context to hurt you.

I found her warning mildly paranoid. And regardless, I’m now someone who commits word to digital paper for a living. But upon learning today that Donald Trump is publishing private letters he’s exchanged with prominent people over the years, I find myself muttering: Maria was right.

The forthcoming book, Letters to Trump, will feature letters from the likes of Princess Diana, Bill Clinton, and Kim Jong-Un, Axios reports, and will sell for $99 or $399 if you want a signed copy. A 2000 note from Oprah Winfrey reportedly includes the line, “Too bad we’re not running for office. What a team!”

 “Sadly, once I announced for President, she never spoke to me again,” Trump writes.

Such hints at nostalgia and regret come as Trump, like the rest of us, is discovering that some of his fiercest confidantes privately hate him. “I hate him passionately,” Tucker Carlson literally wrote in a text message revealed in this week’s latest Dominion Voting Systems filing. “Increasingly mad,” is how Rupert Murdoch described Trump in the days following the 2020 election.

I find it pretty impressive these letters have survived Trump’s alleged habit of clogging toilets and eating paper. But then again, the man still keeps suits and swords from his WWE days around, perhaps as mementos from an era when the world didn’t hate him. Anyway, it’s hard to see how publishing private letters will gain him any new penpals. But at $400 a pop, who needs friends anyway?

Michael Brochstein/Zuma

For someone who claims not to be anti-union, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) certainly seems to have it out for the president of the Teamsters.

On Wednesday, at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing, Mullin prefaced a diatribe by averring: “I want to make it very clear, I’m not against unions. I’m not at all. Some of my very good friends work for unions. They work hard and do a good job.”

But it didn’t take long for Mullin, who owns a plumbing company, to begin complaining about how union organizers (presumably none of his “very good friends”) had harmed him, personally.

“Back in 2009, you guys tried to unionize me,” he said, addressing Teamsters president Sean O’Brien. “They [union organizers] would show up at my house. They’d be leaning up against my trucks. I’m not afraid of a physical confrontation. In fact, sometimes I look forward to it…And then when that didn’t work, they started picketing our job sites, saying, ‘Shame on Mullin.’ Shame on Mullin, for what? For what? Because we were paying higher wages? Because we had better benefits and we wasn’t requiring them to pay your guys’ exorbitant salaries?”

Mullin pointed out that O’Brien’s salary was $193,000 in 2019. (A senator’s salary is $174,000 per year.)

Mullin then began attacking the nature of O’Brien’s work. “What do you bring for that salary? What job have you created?” he said, before becoming slightly incoherent. “One job, other than sucking the paycheck out of somebody else that you want to say that you’re trying to provide because you’re forcing them to pay dues.”

“No, we don’t force anyone to pay dues,” O’Brien said. “You’re out of line, man.”

As O’Brien and Mullin began talking over each other, committee chair Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) started pounding his gavel and told Mullin to allow O’Brien to answer the question. Then the exchange really heated up.

“We create opportunity,” O’Brien said, “because we hold greedy CEO’s like yourself accountable.”

“You’re calling me a greedy CEO?” Mullin said.

“Oh, yeah, you are,” O’Brien said. “You want to attack my salary, I’ll attack yours. What did you make when you owned your company?”

“When I made my company, I kept my salary down at about $50,000 a year because I invested every penny into it,” Mullin said.

“You mean you hid your money?” O’Brien shot back.

In 2013, Mullin earned more than $600,000 from his plumbing companies, in excess of the $27,495 limit on outside earned income for congresspeople, according to a report by the Office of Congressional Ethics. Instead of using his time to contribute to a debate about labor law, Mullin engaged in an ad hominem attack, and O’Brien gave it right back to him. At the end of his time, Mullin asked O’Brien, “If you’re really for the employee, then why are you against right-to-work? Why are you against private ballots?” But Mullin didn’t give O’Brien the opportunity to answer these questions. He had already made up his mind.

Watch the exchange beginning at about 48:50 in the video below:

🚨WATCH NOW: AFL-CIO President @LizShuler, @SEIU President @MaryKayHenry and @Teamsters President Sean O'Brien @TeamsterSOB testifying this morning before @HELPCmteDems defending our right to organize! https://t.co/kw6fprWSnc

— AFL-CIO #PassThePROAct (@AFLCIO) March 8, 2023

Rich Graessle/AP

Tucker Carlson’s disdain for his own viewers, whom he supplies with lies and hateful discourse every weeknight as Fox News’ biggest star, apparently extends to one in particular: Donald Trump.

Despite playing a MAGA diehard on television, a message Carlson sent in the lead-up to January 6 reveals his private verdict: “I hate him passionately.”

Cold stuff. The revelation comes in the latest batch of private messages to emerge from Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against the network, which also featured Carlson expressing sharp relief at the prospect of a post-Trump future. “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait.” Other notable tidbits include former DC bureau chief Bill Sammon denouncing the “existential crisis” at Fox News as colleagues relentlessly backed Trump’s election lies.

But here’s what I personally found to be the most alarming message to emerge in the latest Dominion filing.

“I want to see massive fraud exposed,” Maria Bartiromo, one of the hosts Rupert Murdoch admitted had endorsed election lies, told Steve Bannon, explaining that she refused to acknowledge Joe Biden had won the election. She added, “I told my team we are not allowed to say pres elect at [all]. Not in scripts or in banners on air.” Bannon responded by praising Bartiromo as a “fighter.”

So why, in a heaping pile of damaging messages, is this the craziest? Well, at one point in her career, Bartiromo was an actual journalist. So while Carlson is getting exposed as a deceitful snake, one who continues to back the lies of a man he privately detests, that doesn’t exactly land as shocking. After all, his reputation as a serial liar has been cited by his own lawyers. But Bartiromo here is revealed as something even more disturbing. Once a CNBC megastar, she now appears to be a genuine, true believer in the cult of Donald Trump. That’s what is actually batshit to me.

David Zalubowski/AP

Tina Peters, the former Colorado election official who has been charged with election fraud, could be going to jail for obstructing a government operation.

Peters made national headlines last year when she pleaded not guilty to numerous felonies related to her alleged participation in a scheme to prove that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. In her position as Mesa County clerk, Peters allegedly attempted to copy software from voting machines in a ploy that allowed sensitive voter information to wind up online.

While under indictment, she launched an unsuccessful run for Colorado Secretary of State. Peters finished third, but is hoping for better luck in her ongoing bid for chair of the state Republican Party. In the unlikely event that Peters were to win the March 11 election, she could spend a some of the two-year term behind bars.

On Friday, Peters was found guilty of obstructing government operations, a charge that stemmed from her February 2022 refusal to hand over an iPad that prosecutors say she had used to videotape a court hearing. Officers had a warrant to seize the iPad. Peters was acquitted of another charge of obstructing a peace officer. Body cam footage of Peters’ arrest at a Grand Junction, Colorado, bagel shop shows Peters repeatedly yelling, “Let go of me!” as officers attempt to handcuff her.

💥Tina Peters Arrest 2-8-22 ⚖
Synched with Police Bodycam pic.twitter.com/hiWePelBKl

— 🌻 Justice Now ⚖🌟🇺🇸 (@ChrisJustice01) July 14, 2022

The misdemeanor obstruction charge carries a minimum sentence of six months in jail. Peters’ sentencing is set for April 10.

A call to Peters’ cell phone from Mother Jones went directly to voicemail, which said, “Everyone needs to be involved. Do something. Our republic is in jeopardy right now. Good Americans need to stand up and get involved. I love you, God bless you, and thank you.”

"Hello, I've come to take your house."Andrew Milligan/AP

On the eve of his coronation, King Charles faces an apparent predicament: What ever to do with Prince Andrew, the disgraced brother accused of sexually abusing a teenage girl, who can no longer afford his massive estate? And what about the estranged son intent on publicly speaking out against the family’s alleged cruelty?

Does one, in keeping with efforts to rehabilitate his reputation as something of a cold buffoon, attempt to settle the separate matters with some decency intact? Or is Charles hoping to offer more evidence of the familial brutality Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have warned us about?

Well, according to multiple reports, it appears as though the king is going for the latter. British tabloids are in a frenzy over Charles’ decision to evict his son and daughter-in-law from Frogmore Cottage—the couple’s only residence in the United Kingdom and a gift from the late queen—and install his brother in their place. From there, Andrew will presumably continue to wither away in ignominy, significantly less rich, and stripped of his royal patronages and military titles.

Now, getting kicked out and replaced with the worst member of the band, the queen’s favorite boy who befriended Jeffrey Epstein, is clearly designed to insult Harry. But Andrew is reportedly pissed too. That’s because, as BBC reports, Andrews’ current home is a 31-bedroom mansion while Frogmore Cottage can only boast ten. Them’s the breaks, I guess. But Andrew should cheer up. After all, downsizing is preferable to federal prison, where his former friend, the convicted sex trafficker Ghislane Maxwell, is currently serving a 20-year sentence.

Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the private matter. But as your resident monarchy-in-shambles correspondent, I’ll fill in the silence to say: It sure seems like Harry and Meghan were right about their mean family! Now read our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book.

Michael Brochstein/AP

New York City’s interfaith breakfast, an annual gathering of religious leaders hosted by the city’s mayor, is a typically staid event. But this is Eric Adams’ town now—and anything goes, including overt dismissals of fundamental, overwhelmingly supported U.S. Constitution doctrines and one deeply absurd sponge metaphor. 

“Don’t tell me about no separation of church and state,” Adams said in a speech at the Tuesday breakfast. “State is the body. Church is the heart. You take the heart out of the body, the body dies.”

He continued, sounding increasingly confident: “I can’t separate my belief because I’m an elected official…When I walk, I walk with God. When I talk, I talk with God. When I put policies in place, I put them in with a God-like approach to them. That’s who I am.”

Then, in the midst of claiming that houses of worship are the “gyms” in which New Yorkers train to “bring our best fight in the ring,” Adams seemed to express disappointment over the 1962 Supreme Court ruling that banned prayer in schools. He even appeared to accuse the landmark decision of laying the groundwork for the country’s school shooting epidemic.

“When we took prayers out of schools, guns came into schools,” Adams said.

That’s some pretty stunning material, particularly for a supposedly Democratic mayor. But for me, it was the appearance of a yellow sponge that alarmed the most. In fact, I gasped:

NYC Mayor Eric Adams (D) just pulled out a sponge as a prop at the New York Public Library interfaith breakfast:

"You're not going to be able to receive the purifications of God's blessing if you keep your sponge saturated … Ring it out." pic.twitter.com/uHJXeinRWM

— The Recount (@therecount) February 28, 2023

By now, New Yorkers are likely worn down by Adams’ penchant for bombastic statements. I’ll admit to even shrugging at his unconstitutional support for bringing prayer back into the classroom. But watching Adams speak with such passion, while clutching a sponge supposedly saturated with my despair, is not something I expected to see today.

Let it be the call to worship you didn’t know you needed.

Michael Nigro/AP

President Biden’s cabinet is the most diverse in American history, according to the White House. But in Tulsi Gabbard’s view, the bragging right is anything but. In fact, the former Democrat believes it warrants comparison to Adolf Hitler.

“They’re are proud to be judging people, hiring people, selecting people based on race,” Gabbard said during a Friday appearance on Fox News. “Let’s be clear about how serious of a problem this is. It’s based on genetics, race, based on your blood, your genes, and where do we see that connection?” 

She continued: “Well, these are the very same geneticist core principles embodied by Nazism and Adolf Hitler. This should be something that is sickening and alarming to every single Democrat and every single American. We have seen where this philosophy can lead.” 

The assertion, which went on to liken inclusive hiring practices to the “core principles” of Nazism,” was so outlandish, even host Jesse Watters had to express some hesitation.

“I’m not sure about the German thing, but I think you are right on this point,” Watters said.

Gabbard’s complaints, which build upon her apparent habit of comparing Biden to Hitler, were a direct response to White House press secretary Karin Jean-Pierre’s remarks last week after a reporter asked whether diversity would be a factor in choosing a new vice chair for the Federal Reserve. 

Tulsi Gabbard on Fox just now: Biden efforts to hire women, minorities, LGBT+ etc for top administration roles makes him just like Hitler.

(she actually said this on live television not 10 minutes ago) pic.twitter.com/XSFGrz4GGU

— Andrew Feinberg (@AndrewFeinberg) February 25, 2023

“The cabinet is majority people of color for the first time in history,” Jean-Pierre said. “The cabinet is majority female for the first time in history. A majority of White House senior staff identify as female. Forty percent of White House senior staff identify as part of the racially diverse communities, and a record seven assistants to the president are openly LGBTQ+.”

Gabbard, who left the Democratic party in October, blamed identity politics as one of the top reasons for her departure. Well, good riddance. 

Press Association/AP

Preparations are underway for King Charles’ coronation, a lavish affair that’s expected to see the only G-7 economy likely headed for a recession this year dig deep into taxpayer funds to host an anachronistic pageant honoring hereditary rule.

If that doesn’t smack of a grand old time to you, well, you’re in good company. Some of the United Kingdom’s biggest stars, including Adele, Harry Styles, Elton John, the Spice Girls, and Ed Sheeran have all reportedly declined invitations to perform at Charles’ big day. The House of Windsor is now scrambling to find someone—anyone—to headline the royal gig.

What’s behind the apparent snubs? Well, that’s a bit of a Rorschach test. You could easily see why the likes of Adele and Harry Styles could be allergic to a wasteful event that’s bound to see atrocious blokes like Jeremy Clarkson among the high-profile guests. Seen from another angle, perhaps they’re Meghan Markle supporters. Or maybe they simply want to steer clear of that drama altogether. Either way, they’re Adele and Harry Styles; they certainly have better things to do. As for Elton, I’m not sure why the royals would think to reach out to the close friend of Princess Diana to play at a ceremony partly honoring the woman that made her life hell. 

“I wouldn’t quite panic yet,” Christopher Andersen, a royal biographer, told Fox News in a write-up teeming with various excuses for why people may be turning down Charles’ big day, including a random mention of Adele’s back pain. “There is also a long list of American pop stars chomping at the bit to perform,” Andersen insisted, pointing to Alicia Keys and Diana Ross as previous examples of Americans who performed for Charles’ mummy. 

Sure, I guess I could see a world where Taylor Swift ends up playing the gig; “London Boy” points to exactly that kind of torment. But here’s to hoping we Americans rise above any Anglophile affliction we might possess—and keep relishing a monarchy in shambles.

Mother Jones Illustration; Getty

Earlier this month, the New York Times published an article about the least pressing issue arising from the legalization of marijuana: Dogs are getting stoned.

That might strike you as strange, since humans do not get high from eating raw weed. The cannabinoid receptors in our brains respond to cannabis only after its THCA has been heated and converted to THC in a process called decarboxylation. Dogs, however, have more cannabinoid receptors and can get high from uncooked cannabis.

The article doesn’t mention that, but it does say that dogs are scrounging around for discarded roaches and breaking into their owners’ stashes, which is making them very sick. After a few anecdotes, the writer offers advice on how to detect and treat a stoned dog. (As with marijuana intoxication in humans, it’s unlikely to cause any long-term health problems. If your dog gets high, you can wait it out or, if needed, call the vet.)

I think the spread of legal marijuana has prompted too many questions about what it means for dogs. There was another example this month: Minnesota State Sen. John Jasinski (R) spoke at length about how weed should remain illegal so that we can keep expensive weed-sniffing police dogs out of retirement. Is it really worth imprisoning people over a substance that’s safer than alcohol just so police departments can save a few thousand bucks instead of purchasing dogs that don’t sniff for weed?

But the bigger problem I had with the piece—beyond the weird fixation on dogs’ health in relation to marijuana legalization—is the suggestion of causation: Because weed was legalized, dogs are getting high.

The article includes this baffling assurance:

There are no precise figures about the number of dogs picking it up on the street, but the data show they are getting sick from weed more often in places where recreational use is legal.

If there are no precise figures, how can the data show anything? 

Trend pieces in major newspapers swear by this faulty logic, collapsing correlation into causation. Each time, the paper notes the facts: We do not have data to show this thing we think is happening. Then, it continues: It seems like this thing is happening, so here’s an article.

Here is the “but” from an article on women allegedly not returning to the subway in New York City:

The M.T.A. doesn’t track ridership by gender, so it is unclear whether women have abandoned the transit system in greater numbers or have been slower to return than men. Many women have returned to the subway, either by preference or necessity; many never left.

But interviews with a dozen women, community leaders and transportation experts suggested that an uptick in subway crime during the pandemic has only deepened a longstanding wariness that is second nature for some women on public transit.

Here it is again, disguised as an “although,” regarding teen sadness and cellphone use:

Dr. Victor Fornari, the vice chair of child and adolescent psychiatry for Northwell Health, New York’s largest health system, noted that the drop in teen well-being coincided with the rise of smartphones. Although the technology’s full impact on adolescents’ mental health is still unknown, he said, there is “no question” of an association between the use of social media and the dramatic increase in suicidal behavior and depressive mood.

This might seem silly when the Times writes about Fido getting fried; no rational reader would conclude that we shouldn’t legalize pot. But in general, that trend piece tick—I don’t have the evidence, but…—is how you can keep the facts in place and still tell a lie.

I found the stoned dog piece especially annoying because there is a six-year-old article on the same topic in the Times that attempts to incorporate some data, albeit haphazardly. The writer called up the ASPCA (or A.S.P.C.A., in Times parlance), who said that pet marijuana overdose calls increased by 144 percent between 2010 and 2015. Without raw numbers, though, this doesn’t mean much. Perhaps there were 50 cases in 2010 and 122 in 2015—we have no idea. Furthermore, the cause of the jump is unclear. California had the second highest number of reports, after New York. Weed has been legal for medical use in California since 1996 and in New York since 2014. California is by far the most populous state; New York is the fourth. Whether any of this means anything is anyone’s guess.

I’m not saying that it’s not sad and uncomfortable when Buddy starts wobbling around with his tongue hanging out of his mouth. But might I suggest that we stop attempting to shoehorn a suggestion of an unproven policy-related causation into every trend piece? Consider teaching your dog to drop it—then drop it.

Christian Monterrosa/ Sipa USA

For a group that constantly complains that Democrats enjoy making “everything about race,” the right’s biggest names are suddenly eager to push the narrative that the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and the Biden administration’s response to the disaster are the result of racism against white people.

That’s the big takeaway from Tucker Carlson, who has been hellbent on accusing Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg of intentionally neglecting East Palestine, a majority-white town. According to Carlson, Buttigieg is instead occupied with efforts to increase job opportunities for minorities and improve roads in Philadelphia and Detroit—cities that, Carlson sneeringly mentions, “vote Democrat.”

“East Palestine is overwhelmingly white, and it’s politically conservative,” Carlson said during a February 14 broadcast. “That shouldn’t be relevant but as you’re about to hear, it very much is.” He added: “If this had happened to the rich or the ‘favored poor’, it would be the lead of every news channel in the world. But it happened to the poor town of East Palestine, Ohio, whose people are forgotten, and in the view of the people who lead this country, forgettable.”

In a separate Fox Business interview, Republican Sen. J.D. Vance echoed a similar narrative, blaming the Transportation Department’s racial equity initiatives for setting the stage for the train derailment. “I’ve got to say, the Secretary of Transportation…talking about how we have too many white male construction workers instead of the fact that our trains are crashing…This guy needs to do his job.” 

"I've got to say: the Secretary of Transportation not talking about this issue…talking about how we have too many white-male construction workers instead of the fact that our trains are crashing at alarming rates. The guy needs to do his job." – Senator @JDVance1 pic.twitter.com/WzTizjk0Hh

— William Martin (@wsmartin218) February 15, 2023

It’s true that a host of systemic issues contributed to the East Palestine train derailment. But as my colleague Abigail Weinberg wrote last week, much of those issues are tied to anti-labor practices and corporate greed—not some manufactured instance of the federal government hating white people. After all, it was Norfolk Southern, the rail company behind the crash, that chose not to update its “Civil War-era” brakes. It’s Norfolk Southern that refuses to give its workers paid sick leave, while simultaneously refusing to hire enough workers. Meanwhile, the company made $4.8 billion in operating profit last year.

It’s against this backdrop that Buttigieg on Tuesday urged rail companies to immediately improve safety measures, including providing paid sick leave to workers and alerting state emergency response teams in advance when trains are carrying hazardous gas tanks through states. 

That Fox News and the right are twisting an environmental disaster into bait for the white grievance crowd may not be surprising. After all, these are the same folks who pushed outlandish election lies despite privately mocking those very lies. But it comes as especially grim today, as desperate residents look for relief and accountability, only to find some of the country’s most powerful talking heads are all too eager to seize on their tragedy for more hate.

Presidential candidate Nikki HaleyJohn Locher/AP

Today, I think we’ve seen the entire 2024 Republican presidential primary writ small. Let’s start with specifics and then go broad.

This morning, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley announced she is running for president. She did so at a relatively normal rally with a pre-Trumpian tone, a reminder that once a “BYAH” could sink a campaign. And it was so startlingly normal, the commentariat must have looked at it and wondered: Is this a moment to take this rather odd contender seriously? (Most said “no”—except Bret Stephens, who said someone told him car dealership owners like her.)

Other pundits noted that much as she presented herself as the sweet voice of moderation, Haley still is far from a centrist herself, not the least in her appeasement of Trump. What’s even harder to stomach, as my colleague Inae Oh noted, was Haley’s admiring shoutout to the radical pastor John Hagee, who former GOP presidential nominee John McCain once described as “crazy and unacceptable.” (When the rally ended, the new Republican presidential hopeful walked off to “American Girl” by Tom Petty. A fitting choice: Petty, too, had his period of believing the Confederate flag is not racist.)

Trump responded by launching an email attack about the “real” Haley. He noted a specious connection between his former UN ambassador and Hillary Clinton. He harkened back to Haley’s support for reforming Social Security and Medicaid. He questioned her desire to find a “peaceful” solution in Ukraine because she has publicly discussed funding fighter jets that (he says) “fuel the war.”

Got it? And so we have the pattern that is going to be repeated over and over and over again:

• A presidential candidate will announce a run against Donald Trump.
• The candidate will (cautiously) attack Trump.
• And, some will ask, is there an opportunity for this Republican—just maybe? Look at how their attacks clearly signal their independence from Trump!
• Then, wait, is that candidate really so different from Trump? She or he is connected to fringe ideas too. And is a Republican. And, probably to varying degrees, has a history of having sold out to Trump.
• And so, with all of that, why in the world are people even imagining that the challenger has a chance?
• Finally, Trump attacks.
• In his attacks, he will highlight the reasons why he won in 2016 (and, of course, again in 2020). He will respond by being in some way bigoted (specious Clinton connection) but also strong on issues that alienated the mainstream Republican party from a potential base of voters (“entitlement reform” and foreign wars).

And this is how most of the Republican primary will play out.

Imagine these stages as if they were an old standard song. A series of notes that can be doggedly followed or wildly adapted. Think of the difference between Julie Andrews‘ and John Coltrane’s “My Favorite Things.” How Republican challengers move through them in this primary will either be direct (like Haley) or evasive (like DeSantis) but the essential structure will be the same.

It’s clear why this loop seems inevitable: If you were actually capable of making an honest case against Trump that is sufficiently strong to run against him, then you are not likely to remain enough of a Republican to run as the party’s nominee in 2024. There is no way to imagine carrying forward his ideas without him.

Let us call this Haley’s Paradox: Any 2024 campaign against Trump in the primary must explain both why Trump would be a bad enough choice for them to need to run (vote for me, not him), and why it is also not a criticism of Trump (vote Republican!). The candidate must be a synthesis of pre- and post-Trump Republicanism, and yet that means this person will obviously carry the flaws of both. Haley can be criticized for her fealty to Trump (her role in his administration on foreign policy) and also as indicative of what he stood against (her actual foreign policy positions). This contradiction will be at the heart of this endless cycle in the primary.

Still, paradoxes are just bouts of the illogical; politics has never really made rational sense. There is no reason to believe this means Donald Trump will inevitably be the nominee. It just means that on most days, as we wait and ponder what will finally happen in the 2024 presidential election, we also will see if any candidate can solve Haley’s Paradox. I doubt the theory’s inspiration has a chance.