Clarence Thomas’s luxury travel: A threat to the court’s legitimacy?

Yahoo! News 360

Clarence Thomas’s luxury travel: A threat to the court’s legitimacy?

Mike Bebernes, Senior Editor – April 13, 2023

Why Clarence Thomas' lavish vacations with a GOP donor are in the spotlightScroll back up to restore default view.

What’s happening

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s friendship with a billionaire real estate developer has come under intense scrutiny following a report last week by ProPublica that details luxury vacations Thomas took part in over the past two decades.

According to the report, Thomas and his wife, Ginni, have enjoyed lavish trips funded by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow “virtually every year,” including global travel on Crow’s superyacht and private jet as well as annual visits to his properties in the U.S. The justice did not report any of these trips in his annual financial disclosures.

Thomas, a staunch conservative who has played a critical role in the Supreme Court’s rightward tilt in his more than 30 years on the bench, released a statement asserting that the trips did not need to be disclosed because they fell under an exception that allows for “personal hospitality from close personal friends.” Legal experts disagree over whether Thomas’s failure to report his travels with Crow violated federal disclosure laws, with some arguing that until recently the rules were too ambiguous to clearly assert that he should have disclosed them.

The Supreme Court is generally left to police itself. Unlike officials on lower federal courts, the nine justices are not bound by a formal code of ethics. Because the country’s founders wanted members of the nation’s top court to be shielded from politics, the other branches of government have little power to influence the court — other than the drastic step of impeachment.

Thomas is no stranger to controversy. His confirmation hearings in 1991 became one of the most heated political fights of the era amid accusations he had sexually harassed a colleague named Anita Hill. He has been a key conservative vote in contentious rulings around equal rights, voting access and abortion. More recently, he faced fierce criticism for refusing to recuse himself from cases that related to his wife’s participation in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Why there’s debate

Democrats and liberal commentators have roundly condemned Thomas for failing to disclose the extent of his relationship with Crow as well as his willingness to accept such lavish hospitality in the first place. Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the justice’s relationship with Crow, who has given millions to fund Republicans, represents an “almost cartoonish” level of corruption and called for Thomas to be impeached. Though there’s no direct evidence that Crow’s generosity influenced Thomas’s rulings, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said his actions were “simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a justice on the Supreme Court.”

Most conservatives have rallied to defend Thomas, arguing that he followed ethics rules as they’re written and insisting that even Supreme Court justices are allowed to have close friends. They also sternly reject the implication that a billionaire could alter a justice’s decision making in key cases by taking him on vacation. Many have accused Democrats of using these trips as an excuse to try to discredit Thomas, who has provided a consistent conservative bulwark against their cause for three decades.

But others say Thomas’s actions, whether or not they constitute actual corruption, bolster the view that the Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy. The public’s faith in the court reached an all-time low last year in the months following its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Critics say Thomas’s actions, and the lack of any accountability for them, feed the perception that the conservative justices are merely an extension of the Republican political movement.

What’s next

Durbin said last week that the Senate Judiciary Committee will act in response to the ProPublica report. It’s unclear what steps he and any other members of Congress will take. The scandal has also revived calls for Congress to establish an official ethics code for the Supreme Court, but similar efforts in recent years have fizzled due to lack of bipartisan support.

Perspectives

This is exactly what real corruption looks like

“Corruption is much more than a cartoonish quid pro quo, where cash changes hands and the state is used for private gain. Corruption, more often than not, looks like an ordinary relationship, even a friendship. It is perks and benefits freely given to a powerful friend. It is expensive gifts and tokens of appreciation between those friends, except that one holds office and the other wants to influence its ideological course. It is being enmeshed in networks of patronage that look innocent from the inside but suspect to those who look with clearer eyes from the outside.” — Jamelle Bouie, New York Times

Justices can’t be expected to be lifelong hermits

“Supreme Court justices are allowed to have friends, even if a particular friend is rich and a particular justice is conservative. Clarence Thomas has written a lot of important Supreme Court opinions during his three decades on the bench. I recommend that we spend our time addressing those and leave his personal life to him.” — Scott Douglas Gerber, The Hill

Crow’s money gives him influence that regular people could never imagine

“Crow may not have bought Thomas’s vote, but he sure paid for hundreds of hours of face time. … If you’re a rich Republican friend of the Crows, you had an opportunity to plead your case to the justice. I didn’t. Women … didn’t. Parents of children who were murdered at school because of Thomas’s interpretation of the Second Amendment didn’t. Crow doesn’t invite those parents to his private resort when the justice is around.” — Elie Mystal, The Nation

Democrats want to dismantle the conservative court by any means available

“This non-bombshell has triggered breathless claims that the Court must be investigated, and that Justice Thomas must resign or be impeached. Those demands give away the real political game here.” — Editorial, Wall Street Journal

The country’s most powerful judges shouldn’t have lower ethical standards than regular workers

“While librarians and teachers and FDA inspectors and lawyers turn down water bottles and bagels, Thomas says yes to all this? Are those pesky ethics and rules just for the little people, too? It’s demoralizing, fuels cynicism, and corrodes trust in public institutions.” — Terri Gerstein, Slate

Partisanship makes it impossible to have a real conversation about the issues at play

“There is little doubt that interpretations of Thomas’s ethics fall quite neatly into red and blue camps. … If your guy does something, it’s unprecedented corruption. If my guy does it, it’s a trivial lapse. See: sex scandals of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.” — Mona Charen, The Bulwark

Thomas’s actions represent a lapse in judgment, not a major scandal

“Thomas was wrong not to disclose apparently free, luxurious trips as a guest of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. He should amend the record, apologize for the lack of disclosure, pledge to observe disclosure rules more scrupulously in the future — and then move on. Thomas’s nondisclosures are an ethical lapse. They are not, however, major sins.” — Quin Hillyer, Washington Examiner

The lack of any real guardrails for justices poses a threat to the court’s legitimacy

“Ultimately, what’s even more troubling than his behavior is the fact that the Supreme Court does not have its own code of conduct, even though there is one that applies to other federal judges. And if the high court doesn’t take the steps to adopt one on its own, Congress should act swiftly to pass legislation requiring justices to adhere to ethical standards.” — Julian Zelizer, CNN

The country’s legal system will collapse if the public doesn’t believe it’s legitimate

“The Supreme Court has no army or police department that can enforce its rulings outside its walls. … For the sake of the institution and its legitimacy, the justices need to display respect for the trust that should go with the lifetime appointments they have been given — or they will continue to see an erosion of public faith.” — Editorial, Washington Post

The myth of an independent judiciary is long dead

“The unspoken assumption is that, by definition, Supreme Court justices cannot be unethical, partisan cynics. It is an absurd, self-serving mythos propagated by legal elites who have earned the American people’s abhorrence. Thomas’s ethical quagmire exposes the Supreme Court’s self-mythology for the lie that it is.” — Max Moran, The American Prospect

The most worrying thing is that Republicans see nothing wrong

“One singularly unethical justice might be a containable problem. But Clarence Thomas is not seen by conservatives as an embarrassment they’re stuck with. To the contrary, they celebrate him as their moral beacon.” — Jonathan Chait, New York

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered in “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Photo illustration: Jack Forbes/Yahoo News; photos: Chris Goodney/Bloomberg via Getty Images , Alex Wong/Getty Images, Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.

HuffPost

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.

Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica

April 13, 2023

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives.

The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice. The Crow company bought the properties for $133,363 from three co-owners — Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother, according to a state tax document and a deed dated Oct. 15, 2014, filed at the Chatham County courthouse.

The purchase put Crow in an unusual position: He now owned the house where the justice’s elderly mother was living. Soon after the sale was completed, contractors began work on tens of thousands of dollars of improvements on the two-bedroom, one-bathroom home, which looks out onto a patch of orange trees. The renovations included a carport, a repaired roof and a new fence and gates, according to city permit records and blueprints.

federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.

The disclosure form Thomas filed for that year also had a space to report the identity of the buyer in any private transaction, such as a real estate deal. That space is blank.

“He needed to report his interest in the sale,” said Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer now at the watchdog group CREW. “Given the role Crow has played in subsidizing the lifestyle of Thomas and his wife, you have to wonder if this was an effort to put cash in their pockets.”

Thomas did not respond to detailed questions for this story.

In a statement, Crow said he purchased Thomas’ mother’s house, where Thomas spent part of his childhood, to preserve it for posterity. “My intention is to one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation’s second black Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “I approached the Thomas family about my desire to maintain this historic site so future generations could learn about the inspiring life of one of our greatest Americans.”

Crow’s statement did not directly address why he also bought two vacant lots from Thomas down the street. But he wrote that “the other lots were later sold to a vetted builder who was committed to improving the quality of the neighborhood and preserving its historical integrity.”

ProPublica also asked Crow about the additions on Thomas’ mother’s house, like the new carport. “Improvements were also made to the Thomas property to preserve its long-term viability and accessibility to the public,” Crow said.

Ethics law experts said Crow’s intentions had no bearing on Thomas’ legal obligation to disclose the sale.

The justice’s failure to report the transaction suggests “Thomas was hiding a financial relationship with Crow,” said Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis who reviewed years of Thomas’ disclosure filings.

There are a handful of carve-outs in the disclosure law. For example, if someone sells “property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse,” they don’t need to report it. Experts said the exemptions clearly did not apply to Thomas’ sale.

The revelation of a direct financial transaction between Thomas and Crow casts their relationship in a new light. ProPublica reported last week that Thomas has accepted luxury travel from Crow virtually every year for decades, including private jet flights, international cruises on the businessman’s superyacht and regular stays at his private resort in the Adirondacks. Crow has long been influential in conservative politics and has spent millions on efforts to shape the law and the judiciary. The story prompted outcry and calls for investigations from Democratic lawmakers.

In response to that reporting, both Thomas and Crow released statements downplaying the significance of the gifts. Thomas also maintained that he wasn’t required to disclose the trips.

“Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends,” Thomas wrote. “As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips.” Crow told ProPublica that his gifts to Thomas were “no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

It’s unclear if Crow paid fair market value for the Thomas properties. Crow also bought several other properties on the street and paid significantly less than his deal with the Thomases. One example: In 2013, he bought a pair of properties on the same block — a vacant lot and a small house — for a total of $40,000.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 07: Tourists move through the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building April 07, 2023 in Washington, DC. According to a ProPublica report published Thursday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas failed to include in his financial disclosures that for decades he was treated to luxury vacations by Texas real estate magnate and Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 07: Tourists move through the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building April 07, 2023 in Washington, DC. According to a ProPublica report published Thursday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas failed to include in his financial disclosures that for decades he was treated to luxury vacations by Texas real estate magnate and Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In his statement, Crow said his company purchased the properties “at market rate based on many factors including the size, quality, and livability of the dwellings.”

He did not respond to requests to provide documentation or details of how he arrived at the price.

Thomas was born in the coastal hamlet of Pin Point, outside Savannah. He later moved to the city, where he spent part of his childhood in his grandfather’s home on East 32nd Street.

“It had hardwood floors, handsome furniture, and an indoor bathroom, and we knew better than to touch anything,” Thomas wrote of the house in his memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.”

He inherited his stake in that house and two other properties on the block following the death of his grandfather in 1983, according to records on file at the Chatham County courthouse. He shared ownership with his brother and his mother, Leola Williams. In the late 1980s, when Thomas was an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, he listed the addresses of the three properties in a disclosure filing. He reported that he had a one-third interest in them.

Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1991. By the early 2000s, he had stopped listing specific addresses of property he owned in his disclosures. But he continued to report holding a one-third interest in what he described as “rental property at ## 1, 2, & 3” in Savannah. He valued his stake in the properties at $15,000 or less.

Two of the houses were torn down around 2010, according to property records and a footnote in Thomas’ annual disclosure archived by Free Law Project.

In 2014, the Thomas family sold the vacant lots and the remaining East 32nd Street house to one of Crow’s companies. The justice signed the paperwork personally. His signature was notarized by an administrator at the Supreme Court, Perry Thompson, who did not respond to a request for comment. (The deed was signed on the 23rd anniversary of Thomas’ Oct. 15 confirmation to the Supreme Court. Crow has a Senate roll call sheet from the confirmation vote in his private library.)

Thomas’ financial disclosure for that year is detailed, listing everything from a “stained glass medallion” he received from Yale to a life insurance policy. But he failed to report his sale to Crow.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 07: United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for an official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has begun a new term after Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was officially added to the bench in September. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 07: United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for an official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has begun a new term after Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was officially added to the bench in September. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Crow purchased the properties through a recently formed Texas company called Savannah Historic Developments LLC. The company shares an address in Dallas with Crow Holdings, the centerpiece of his real estate empire. Its formation documents were signed by Crow Holdings’ general counsel. Business records filed with the Texas secretary of state say Savannah Historic Developments is managed by a Delaware LLC, HRC Family Branch GP, an umbrella company that also covers other Crow assets like his private jet. The Delaware company’s CEO is Harlan Crow.

A Crow Holdings company soon began paying the roughly $1,500 in annual property taxes on Thomas’ mother’s house, according to county tax records. The taxes had previously been paid by Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent. Soon after Crow purchased the house, an award-winning local architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements.

People hold signs decrying U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in front of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, U.S. April 13, 2023. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
People hold signs decrying U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in front of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, U.S. April 13, 2023. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Crow’s purchases seem to have played a role in transforming the block. The billionaire eventually sold most of the other properties he bought to new owners who built upscale modern homes, including the two vacant lots he purchased from Thomas.

Crow also bought the house immediately next door to Thomas’ mother, which was owned by somebody else and had been known for parties and noise, according to property records and W. John Mitchell, former president of a nearby neighborhood association. Soon the house was torn down. “It was an eyesore,” Mitchell said. “One day miraculously all of them were put out of there and they scraped it off the earth.”

“The surrounding properties had fallen into disrepair and needed to be demolished for health and safety reasons,” Crow said in his statement. He added that his company built one new house on the block “and made it available to a local police officer.”

Today, the block is composed of a dwindling number of longtime elderly homeowners and a growing population of young newcomers. The vacant lots that the Thomas family once owned have been replaced by pristine two-story homes. An artisanal coffee shop and a Mediterranean bistro are within walking distance. Down the street, a multicolored pride flag blows in the wind.

Can a low level of cholesterol help prevent heart disease? Here’s 3 things to know

The Courier Journal

Can a low level of cholesterol help prevent heart disease? Here’s 3 things to know

Bryant Stamford – April 13, 2023

In the past, little was known about the cause of heart disease, and the belief was that bad heredity and aging were key factors. In other words, if you did a poor job selecting your parents, eventually it would catch up with you and you likely would die from a heart attack.

But this explanation seemed to fall short, especially after World War II when the incidence of heart disease skyrocketed, which inspired the Framingham Heart Study initiated in 1948. Several thousand residents of Framingham, Massachusetts, a typical U.S. small town, were asked to participate in the study. Their role was simply to come to the research clinic and undergo a variety of tests every two years. Otherwise, they were to live their normal lives and make no specific changes.

Over the years that followed, some folks developed heart disease while others did not. All the information that had been collected was then examined to see if there was a pattern that differentiated the two groups. Indeed, there were, and some factors conspicuously stood out in those with heart disease. These so-called “risk factors” were reported in the 1960s and they included cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, and high serum cholesterol.

Since then, it was assumed that a high cholesterol level is bad for you, and the lower it is the better. However, as always, some evidence surfaced on the opposite side, claiming that low cholesterol is bad for your health. A few research studies from decades ago reported that people with very low cholesterol were seriously ill, including some with cancer.

You may like: Can antibiotics ruin good bacteria in your gut? Yes. Here are 3 things to know

The media jumped on this story. As I have written many times, if you want to attract attention, go counter-culture. For example, hundreds of research studies have reported a low cholesterol level helped prevent heart disease, but they received no attention. In contrast, one report that low cholesterol may be harmful exploded in the media.

Skeptical experts examined these issues and provided an explanation. Here’s what to know.

Does low cholesterol cause illness, like cancer?
Perhaps it’s a better idea to lower cholesterol with a healthy lifestyle and use medications as a last resort.
Perhaps it’s a better idea to lower cholesterol with a healthy lifestyle and use medications as a last resort.

The media reports that low cholesterol is harmful and may cause cancer was based on the above observational studies. This means a relationship was observed, interpreted, and reported. It’s as simple as that. It was observed that a sample of seriously ill patients, some with cancer, had very low levels of cholesterol in their blood, leading to the erroneous conclusion that the low cholesterol level was the “cause.”

This is an example of poor science because a relationship between two variables (low cholesterol and illness) does necessarily indicate cause and effect.

Further investigation revealed that very ill patients often have low cholesterol levels because the disease is so devastating that patients become quite frail. What’s more, such patients lose their appetite, eat very little and become malnourished. The liver produces cholesterol for the body and production requires an adequate diet. Combine severe illness with malnutrition and the result is a dramatic drop in cholesterol. In other words, the low cholesterol level did not cause the illness. Instead, the illness caused a low cholesterol level.

You may like: Are processed foods bad for you? 4 things to know about how they affect your health

Although these observational research findings have been thoroughly debunked, reports still surface periodically. For example, a very low level of serum cholesterol has been observed to be associated with depressionanxiety, and an increased risk of suicide. Again, is low cholesterol the cause, or are there extenuating circumstances like severe chronic illness that contribute to low cholesterol?

What is the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol?

Total cholesterol has several components, including HDL “good” cholesterol, and LDL “bad” cholesterol that contributes to the clogging of the arteries (atherosclerosis). Current guidelines indicate that LDL should be less than 100 mg/dl, and no higher than 70 mg/dl in those with a history of heart disease. However, Dr. Henry Sadlo, a preventive cardiologist and my “go-to” resource for all things heart-related, recommends taking LDL much lower, and there is increasing evidence that his “lower the better” stance is highly effective.

What does it mean to have a low level of LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol?

A 2018 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association “Cardiology” analyzed a huge database of heart patients with an average LDL of 70 mg/dl. When LDL was lowered further to an average of 31 mg/dl, it was associated with 20% fewer heart attacks and strokes. This suggests that an LDL of 70 mg/dl, although preventive, is not as preventive as desired and that taking LDL much lower can provide substantial additional benefits.

A new approach always raises concerns about long-term effects and the risk-reward ratio. Here is the conclusion from a 2023 study published in the American Heart Association Journal “Circulation:” “In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, long-term achievement of lower LDL-C levels, down to <20 mg/dL (<0.5 mmol/L), was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes with no significant safety concerns.”

You may like: Can I exercise when I am sick? 3 ways a fever, runny nose can impact your workout

What about the potential for unwelcome side effects associated with high doses of statin drugs required to reduce LDL to such low levels? Studies show that additional medications (other than a statin drug) may be helpful, thus reducing the dose of statin drugs. A better option is combining statin therapy with a healthy diet. In my case, with my strict plant-based diet, Sadlo was able to lower my LDL to 35 mg/dl with only a modest dose of a statin drug.

All in all, research data to date suggest that promoting a very low LDL is safe and effective and holds considerable promise to prevent heart disease.

Reach Bryant Stamford, a professor of kinesiology and integrative physiology at Hanover College, at stamford@hanover.edu.

Landmark Trial Against Fox News Could Affect the Future of Libel Law

The New York Times

Landmark Trial Against Fox News Could Affect the Future of Libel Law

Michael M. Grynbaum – April 13, 2023

The Leonard L. Williams Justice Center in Wilmington, Del., March 21, 2023. (Hannah Beier/The New York Times)
The Leonard L. Williams Justice Center in Wilmington, Del., March 21, 2023. (Hannah Beier/The New York Times)

Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News, which goes to trial in Delaware next week, is expected to stoke hot-button debates over journalistic ethics, the unchecked flow of misinformation, and the ability of Americans to sort out facts and falsehoods in a polarized age.

For a particular subset of the legal and media communities, the trial is also shaping up as something else: the libel law equivalent of the Super Bowl.

“I’ve been involved in hundreds of libel cases, and there has never been a case like this,” said Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer. “It’s going to be a dramatic moment in American history.”

With jury selection set to begin Thursday in Delaware Superior Court in Wilmington, the case has so far been notable for its unprecedented window into the inner workings of Fox News. Emails and text messages introduced as evidence showed Fox host Tucker Carlson insulting former President Donald Trump to his colleagues, and Rupert Murdoch, whose family controls the Fox media empire, aggressively weighing in on editorial decisions, among other revelations.

Now, after months of depositions and dueling motions, the lawyers will face off before a jury, and legal scholars and media lawyers say the arguments are likely to plumb some of the knottier questions of American libel law.

Dominion, an elections technology firm, is seeking $1.6 billion in damages after Fox News aired false claims that the company had engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden. The claims, repeated on Fox programs hosted by anchors like Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs, were central to Trump’s effort to convince Americans that he had not actually lost.

Lawyers for Fox have argued that the network is protected as a newsgathering organization, and that claims of election fraud, voiced by lawyers for a sitting president, were the epitome of newsworthiness. “Ultimately, this case is about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news,” the network has said.

It is difficult to prove libel in the American legal system, thanks in large part to New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that is considered as critical to the First Amendment as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is to civil rights.

The Sullivan case set a high legal bar for public figures to prove that they had been defamed. A plaintiff has to prove not just that a news organization published false information, but that it did so with “actual malice,” either by knowing that the information was false or displaying a reckless disregard for the truth.

The question of that motivation is central to the Dominion case. The trial judge, Eric M. Davis, has already concluded in pretrial motions that the statements aired by Fox about Dominion were false. He has left it to the jury to decide if Fox deliberately aired falsehoods even as it was aware the assertions were probably false.

Documents show Fox executives and anchors panicking over a viewer revolt in the aftermath of the 2020 election, in part because the network’s viewers believed that it had not sufficiently embraced Trump’s claims of fraud. Dominion can wield that evidence to argue that Fox aired the conspiracy theories involving Dominion for its own financial gain, despite ample evidence that the claims were untrue. (Fox has responded that Dominion “cherry-picked” its evidence and that the network was merely reporting the news.)

Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer, has spent decades defending the rights of media outlets in libel cases. Yet like some media advocates, he believes that Fox News should lose — in part because a victory for Fox could embolden a growing effort to roll back broader protections for journalists.

That effort, led mainly but not exclusively by conservatives, argues that the 1964 Sullivan decision granted too much leeway to news outlets, which should face harsher consequences for their coverage. Some of the leading proponents of this view, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, are conservative heroes who are sympathetic to the right-wing views of Fox programming. But if Fox prevails in the Dominion case, despite the evidence against it, the result could fuel the argument that the bar for defamation has been set too high.

Not all media lawyers agree with this reasoning. Some even think a loss for Fox could generate problems for other news organizations.

Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who teaches media law at the University of Minnesota, said she detected from Fox critics “an intense desire for someone to say definitively that Fox lied.” But she added, “I don’t see a victory for Dominion as a victory for the news media, by any means.

“As an ethicist, I deplore a lot of what we’ve learned about Fox, and I would never hold it up as an example of good journalistic practices,” Kirtley said. “But I’ve always believed that the law has to protect even those news organizations that do things the way I don’t think they should do it. There has to be room for error.”

Kirtley said she was concerned that the Dominion case might lead to copycat lawsuits against other news organizations, and that the courts could start imposing their own standards for what constituted good journalistic practice.

Dominion’s effort to unearth internal emails and text exchanges, she added, could be reproduced by other libel plaintiffs, leading to embarrassing revelations for news outlets that might otherwise be acting in good faith.

“It’s an intense scrutiny into newsroom editorial processes, and I’m not sure that members of the public will look at it very kindly,” she said. “Maybe the emails show they’re being jocular or making fun of things that other people take very seriously.”

Journalism, she said, “is not a science,” and she said she felt uncomfortable with courts determining what constituted ethical news gathering.

Fox suffered some setbacks this week before the trial. On Tuesday, Davis barred the network from arguing that it aired the claims about Dominion on the basis that the allegations were newsworthy, a crucial line of defense. On Wednesday, he imposed a sanction on Fox News and scolded its legal team after questions arose about the network’s timely disclosure of evidence. The judge said he would probably start an investigation into the matter.

The trial may feature testimony from high-profile Fox figures, including Murdoch, Carlson, Bartiromo and Suzanne Scott, the CEO of Fox News Media.

Who is Jack Teixeira, the Massachusetts Air National Guard member arrested in Pentagon leak case?

Yahoo! News

Who is Jack Teixeira, the Massachusetts Air National Guard member arrested in Pentagon leak case?

The 21-year-old intelligence specialist was taken into custody by the FBI at his home in Dighton, Mass., on Thursday.

Dylan Stableford, Senior Writer – April 13, 2023

Jack Teixeira in uniform
Jack Teixeira (via Facebook)

Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old member of the U.S. National Guard, was arrested Thursday in connection with the alleged disclosure of highly classified military documents on the war in Ukraine.

Teixeira, an airman first class with the Massachusetts Air Force National Guard’s 102nd Intelligence Wing, based on Cape Cod, was taken into custody by federal agents at his home in Dighton, Mass., about 45 miles south of Boston and 15 miles east of Providence, R.I.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Teixeira’s arrest in a brief statement at the Justice Department. Garland said that Teixeira surrendered “without incident” and would be charged with the unauthorized removal of classified national defense information. The investigation is ongoing, Garland added.

Texeira is scheduled to make his first court appearance in Boston on Friday, according to Yahoo News partner USA Today.

Two local police officers and patrol cars block the road as the FBI conducts a search of Teixeira's home in Dighton, Mass.
Local police block the road as the FBI conducts a search of Teixeira’s home in Dighton, Mass., on Thursday. (Matt Stone/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images)

Footage from a local television news helicopter showed heavily armed tactical agents taking Teixeira, who was wearing a T-shirt and shorts, into custody along a wooded driveway.

The Pentagon and FBI had been scrambling to identify the source of the leak since Friday, when a trove of U.S. Defense Department slides, many marked “Secret” or “Top Secret,” were posted to a private chat group on the Discord platform.

As Yahoo News reported earlier this week, the documents included “intelligence culled from a host of spy agencies — the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and more — with a limitless purview reaching all regions of the globe.”

Speaking to reporters in Dublin earlier Thursday, President Biden said that the United States was closing in on identifying a suspect.

“There’s a full-blown investigation going on, as you know, with the intelligence community and the Justice Department,” Biden said. “And they’re getting close.”

Pentagon spokesman U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, in uniform, takes questions about the leak investigation during a press briefing in Washington, D.C.
Pentagon spokesman U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder takes questions about the leak investigation. (Alex Brandon/AP)

According to the New York Times, which first identified Teixeira as a suspect, he oversaw the private online group on the Discord site called Thug Shaker Central, where “about 20 to 30 people, mostly young men and teenagers, came together over a shared love of guns, racist online memes and video games.”

The newspaper also spoke with Teixeira’s mother, who said he had recently been working overnight shifts at the base on Cape Cod, and he had recently changed his phone number.

The Military Times reported that Teixeira joined the Air National Guard in September 2019 and that he works as a cyber transport systems journeyman.

Putin says Russia lost $15 billion in oil and gas revenue last quarter, but thinks the hole can be filled in the next few months

Business Insider

Putin says Russia lost $15 billion in oil and gas revenue last quarter, but thinks the hole can be filled in the next few months

Jennifer Sor – April 13, 2023

putin russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin.Contributor/Getty Images
  • Russia lost over $15 billion in oil and gas revenue over the past quarter.
  • But that hole in the Kremlin’s budget can be filled, President Putin said this week.
  • Academics have criticized Putin for misrepresenting the state of Russia’s economy.

Russia lost over $15 billion in oil and gas revenue in the first quarter of 2023 – but that gaping hole in the Kremlin’s budget can be filled over the next few months, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At a televised government meeting on Tuesday, Putin said Russia’s oil and gas revenue fell by $15.8 billion in the first quarter amid tightening Western sanctions following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine last year.

The Kremlin posted a $29 billion budget deficit in the first quarter overall, as military spending also increased to continue waging war and mobilizing hundreds of thousands more troops.

Despite the losses, Putin emphasized the resilience of the Russian economy, adding that he foresaw a “positive trend” as oil prices would continue to rise.

“It is expected that by the end of the second quarter, against the backdrop of rising oil prices, the situation will change. Additional oil and gas revenues will begin to flow into the budget,” Putin said, per Reuters‘ report.

Oil and gas exports are among Russia’s main revenue sources, but they have plunged since Western countries shunned Moscow’s supplies and imposed sanctions.

Putin has rebuffed those sanctions as “stupid,” and Russia has responded by slashing its oil production by half a million barrels per day.

OPEC+, of which Russia is a member of, also recently announced a surprise production cut of over a million barrels a day. The cuts have pushed oil prices upward, helping Russian export revenue going forward.

Still, academics have criticized Putin for misrepresenting Russia’s situation: The Central Bank of Russia hasn’t disclosed important statistics that could paint a bleaker picture of its situation, like the nation’s exports and imports, and its economic growth forecasts this year are largely created from “cherry-picked” numbers, two Yale researchers said this week.

Experts are also seemingly confused about Russia’s economy, with top forecasters divided on whether its economy is growing or shrinking. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and World Bank are all expecting a mild decline in real GDP this year.

The 6 things longevity expert Dr. Mark Hyman does each day to keep his brain sharp

Fortune

The 6 things longevity expert Dr. Mark Hyman does each day to keep his brain sharp

Alexa Mikhail – April 13, 2023

Getty Images

Just as you can build muscle by lifting weights, you can strengthen the brain through specific behaviors. Prioritizing brain health can help you stay sharp, alert, and focused as you age, protecting you against cognitive decline and preventing or slowing the onset of dementia or Alzheimer’s.

Dr. Mark Hyman, renowned longevity expert and author of the new Young Forever: The Secrets to Living Your Longest, Healthiest Life, shared the six things he does daily for brain health in a recent Instagram post.

Here are Hyman’s six daily steps for optimal brain health:

Healthy fats 

Prioritizing healthy fats each day can strengthen the brain. They contain omega-3 fatty acids which are the “building blocks” of the brain and can help bolster people’s memory and learning capabilities, according to the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center.

“My brain worked pretty well before, but embracing fat pushed my mental clarity through the roof,” Hyman writes in his post. He incorporates avocados, olives, olive oil, nuts, and seeds, among others, into his healthy fat rotation.

Protein 

Eating a diet rich in protein was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline later in life, according to a 2022 study, and protein helps brain neurons communicate with each other.

While protein requirements vary by weight, age, and exercise regimen, the general recommendation for adults is 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight (you can also multiply your weight in pounds by 0.36 to get a rough estimate). For those who are 40 and older, when muscle begins to atrophy, the protein recommendation rises to about 1 to 1.2 grams per kilogram of bodyweight, according to experts. Hyman, in his sixties, aims to eat 30 grams of protein at every meal to build muscle.

“When you lose muscle, you age faster, and your brain takes a huge hit!” Hyman writes in his post.

Start by incorporating protein shakes, nut butter, and fatty fish into your breakfast, according to Hyman.

Colorful plant foods 

Colorful plant foods should take up the bulk of your plate, Hyman says. Eating a diverse array of plant foods provides your brain and body with many nutrients. This diversity strengthens the gut microbiome, which helps reduce inflammation. Whole plant-based foods like legumes and berries have antioxidant properties to provide sustained energy for the brain to focus.

“These colorful superfoods come loaded with brain-boosting stuff like phytonutrients,” Hyman says.

Avoid sugar and processed foods 

Processed foods contain artificial flavorings and sweeteners that can cause brain fog and hurt memory. While these foods provide quick energy, they can also spike your blood sugar and lead to an energy crash shortly after.

Hyman suggests avoiding high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats, and food additives as much as you can each day.

Move daily

Recall the feeling of a runner’s high? Getting outside and moving have a positive impact on the brain. Exercising, riding a bike, or even taking a quick break to walk outside has been associated with improved brain function and can help reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. Even one workout a month was associated with improved cognitive function for older adults.

It can allow people to be more productive during their workday and instill a sense of calm.

Relax and calm the mind 

Lastly, Hyman recommends calming the mind and slowing down. It’s vital when bogged down with a slew of tasks each day, which can lead to a feeling of brain depletion.

“Learn how to actively relax,” he says in his post. “To engage the powerful forces of the mind on the body, you must do something.”

He suggests yoga, meditation, deep breathing, or tai chi.

Practicing the 4-7-8 technique, where you breathe in for four seconds, hold it for seven seconds, and breathe out for eight seconds is an accessible way to calm the mind and body. Journaling as a relaxation tool can also help reduce stress and improve confidence.

Incorporating mindfulness practices into your day—just for 10 minutes even on your way to work—can make a difference.

Why Republicans Are Overreaching So Hard in So Many States

Time

Why Republicans Are Overreaching So Hard in So Many States

Philip Elliott – April 11, 2023

US-NEWS-KY-ABORTION-BILLS-LX
US-NEWS-KY-ABORTION-BILLS-LX

Kentucky state Rep. Randy Bridges, a Republican, gives a thumbs down as protesters chant “Bans off our bodies” at the Kentucky state Capitol on April 13, 2022 Credit – Ryan C. Hermens—Lexington Herald-Leader/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

In state capitals across the country, Republicans seem to be overplaying their hand. The most obvious example is abortion, which poll after poll shows most Americans support in many, if not most, circumstances. In Iowa, a state policy to cover the costs of abortion and morning-after pills for rape victims is on hold as the Republican Attorney General reviews it. In Idaho, where abortion is already illegal in all cases, it is now a crime punishable by up to five years in prison for adults who help pregnant minors to cross state lines to obtain the procedure. In South Carolina, a bill categorizing abortion the same as homicide—punishable by the death penalty—has seemed to lose steam, but nonetheless remains in play.

And those are just some of the dozens and dozens of efforts undertaken with Republican guidance to further erode abortion rights in a post-Roe world. Look around at other culture-war-flavored topics running on parallel tracks inside the GOP, and it’s clear that their leaders are chasing broadly unpopular goals: banning books and targeting drag queens; making some of the most dangerous firearms even more accessibleblocking health care for transgender individuals; fighting corporations over “wokeness”; and engaging in the most brazen political retaliation.

All of these are polling clunkers—with the important exception of gender-affirming care for trans minors—and stand to leave the 44% of Americans who identify with neither party wondering just what is animating Republican lawmakers this session, be it in statehouses or here in Washington. Here’s the most basic answer: it’s what they need to do to survive.

Now, hear me out. A lot of my liberal friends predictably will retort that this is all part of some scary, hate-filled agenda meant to oppress non-white, female, and marginalized communities. My conservative pals will say these are simply efforts to roll back government’s reach. Both can be true, but if you get down to the realpolitik of the situation, this polarized agenda is merely the logical conclusion of what happens when the party in power looks around and sees there’s no one there to stop them from drawing legislative districts however they please. The extreme gerrymandering that results means red states get redder legislatures—and, to be fair, blue states turn deeper blue; there are just fewer of them—and the resulting policies move to the extremes with few consequences.

Few consequences, that is, until someone falls out of line. It’s really, really rare to lose re-nomination as an incumbent; just 14 of the 435 House seats saw that happen last year, and roughly half were victims of ex-President Donald Trump’s petty endorsement of a challenger. Moving to last year’s November ballot, a study of most of the races on most ballots found 94% of all incumbents won another term, with congressional incumbents posting a staggering 98% win rate and state-level incumbents notching a 96% record in the general election.

This job-for-life patina is not by accident. Incumbents know it’s statistically improbable that any newcomer can credibly boot them from power. Incumbency has huge advantages, including taxpayer-funded (official) travel, the power of the bully pulpit, and donors looking to stay in good graces. But you look at the few case studies about incumbents who didn’t win re-nomination, and there are warning signs. The folks who lose spectacularly often run afoul of orthodoxy inside the party’s most fervent crowds. Rep. Liz Cheney—who dared call Jan. 6, 2021, for what it was—is a prime example. (To be fair, Rep. Caroline Maloney, who had the misfortune of being matched with another longtime institution of New York Democratic politics, is not.)

Then there are the very carefully drawn and high-cost maps themselves. Chris Cillizza smartly noted in his newsletter last week that the Cook Political Report analysis of the current map shows a scant 82 House seats in play, and only 45 would be considered truly competitive. When Cook did this analysis back in 1999, the number of potentially competitive districts totalled 164—double what it is today. Which means this: the head-to-head, D-vs.-R voting isn’t the real race. The true competition is the one that transforms a candidate into a nominee in increasingly homogeneous communities where voters are picking real estate based not only on crime and tax rates, but also their prospective neighbors’ ideologies. Being seen as an oddball for a district—AKA collaborating across the aisle on legislation—is a death sentence in a lot of districts, which explains the steady polarization in Congress itself. The name of the game for incumbents is survival, and veering to an extreme can be a gilded path for another term, while trying for comity can mean a skid toward K Street.

So as you look at the seemingly out-of-touch agenda snaking its way through state legislatures and the Republican-led parts of Washington and think the plans are incompatible with the electorate, that’s only partially true. Broadly, yes, Americans are aghast at parts of this all-culture-wars-all-the-time agenda. Some 76% of Americans tell pollsters that they’re fine with schools teaching ideas that might make students uncomfortable. And a clear majority of all Americans—64%—think abortion should be legal in most or all cases. The same number of Americans say there should be laws protecting transgender individuals from discrimination.

Read moreExclusive: New Data Shows the Anti-Critical Race Theory Movement Is ‘Far From Over’

Dig into the numbers a little, though, and it’s quickly apparent that the lawmakers chasing these divisive notions are not completely irrational, especially when you consider their district borders are drawn to foment hardcore policies. The dirty secret among political professionals is that all voters are not created equal. Take the question of whether schools can teach ideas that make students uncomfortable. Among voters who backed Biden in 2020, just 7% of Americans said they were fine with such a block; look at Trump 2020 voters, and that number gets to 36%, meaning a full third of the GOP universe for 2024 is OK with at least some measure of book bans, and that group is probably more likely to vote in the next primary. On abortion, among Republicans, polls find 58% support for the overturning of Roe, including 35% who said they strongly support it. And while 64% of all Americans favor non-discrimination policies toward trans individuals, 58% of them also say trans student athletes should play on the team that matches their gender at birth, regardless of how they identify. Among Republicans, that number spikes to 85%, an astronomical figure that almost demands action.

Put simply: the culture wars might be less about the fight and more about how the battlefields were drawn well before any of the officeholders even showed up.

That’s a small consolation for liberals in competitive states watching as increasingly conservative lawmakers rush ahead on an agenda mismatched to what constituents actually want. Democrats may be able to claw back some of that imbalance if they ever convince their base of the reality that securing the right handful of state legislature seats would have far more power in shaping national politics than throwing millions at longshot, feel-good candidates who become darlings on social media but are chasing votes that aren’t there. Nonetheless, most of these maps are locked in place until at least 2031. Republicans know it, too, which explains why so many of them are leaning into broadly unpopular—but parochially homerun—policies.

18,000 cows killed in explosion, fire at Texas dairy farm may be largest cattle killing ever

USA Today

18,000 cows killed in explosion, fire at Texas dairy farm may be largest cattle killing ever

Rick Jervis, USA TODAY – April 12, 2023

The fire spread quickly through the holding pens, where thousands of dairy cows crowded together waiting to be milked, trapped in deadly confines.

After subduing the fire at the west Texas dairy farm Monday evening, officials were stunned at the scale of livestock death left behind: 18,000 head of cattle perished in the fire at the South Fork Dairy farm near Dimmitt, Texas – or nearly three times the number of cattle led to slaughter each day across the U.S.

A dairy farm worker rescued from inside the structure was taken to an area hospital and was in critical but stable condition as of Tuesday. There were no other human casualties.

Special report: ‘We don’t seem to learn’: The West, Texas, fertilizer plant explosion, 10 years later

“It’s mind-boggling,” Dimmitt Mayor Roger Malone said of the number of bovine deaths. “I don’t think it’s ever happened before around here. It’s a real tragedy.”

The Castro County Sheriff's Office was among several agencies to respond to a fire and explosion at a dairy farm near Dimmitt on Monday.
The Castro County Sheriff’s Office was among several agencies to respond to a fire and explosion at a dairy farm near Dimmitt on Monday.

It was the biggest single-incident death of cattle in the country since the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington-based animal advocacy group, began tracking barn and farm fires in 2013.

That easily surpassed the previous high: a 2020 fire at an upstate New York dairy farm that consumed around 400 cows, said Allie Granger, a policy associate at the institute.

“This is the deadliest fire involving cattle we know of,” she said of the Texas incident. “In the past, we have seen fires involving several hundred cows at a time, but nothing anything near this level of mortality.”

Where was the Texas cattle fire?

Castro County, where the fire occurred, is open prairie land dotted with dairy farms and cattle ranches, about 70 miles southwest of Amarillo.

Pictures posted on social media by bystanders showed the large plume of black smoke lifting from the farm fire, as well as charred cows that were saved from the structure.

What caused the dairy farm explosion?

A malfunction in a piece of equipment at the South Fork Dairy farm may have caused an explosion that led to the fire, said County Judge Mandy Gfeller, the county’s top executive. Texas fire officials are still investigating the exact cause, she said.

Malone, the mayor, said he wasn’t aware of any previous fires reported at the facility. He said the dairy had opened in the area just over three years ago and employed between 50 to 60 people.

The owners of South Fork Dairy couldn’t be reached for comment.

How many cows were killed in the dairy fire?

Most of the perished animals – a mix of Holstein and Jersey cows – were in a large holding pen before being milked, she said. The 18,000 cows represented about 90% of the farm’s total herd.

With each cow valued roughly at around $2,000, the company’s losses in livestock could stretch into the tens of millions of dollars, Gfeller said. That doesn’t include equipment and structure loss.

“You’re looking at a devastating loss,” she said. “My heart goes out to each person involved in that operation.”

How did the Texas dairy compare with the rest of the country?
Cattle stranded in a flooded pasture in La Grange, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The storm drowned thousands of cattle in southeast Texas.
Cattle stranded in a flooded pasture in La Grange, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The storm drowned thousands of cattle in southeast Texas.

Texas ranks fourth nationally in milk production, home to 319 Grade A dairies with an estimated 625,000 cows producing almost 16.5 billion pounds of milk a year, according to the Texas Association of Dairymen, a trade group.

And Castro County is the second-highest producing county in Texas, with 15 dairies producing 148,000 pounds of milk a month, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Even by Texas standards, South Fork Dairy was a behemoth. Its 18,000 cattle made it nearly 10 times larger than the average dairy herd in Texas.

It’s not the first time large numbers of Texas cattle have died, but rarely do so many perish from a single fire. A blizzard in December 2015 killed off around 20,000 cattle across the Texas panhandle, according to the Texas Association of Dairymen.

And Hurricane Harvey in 2017 drowned thousands more in Southeast Texas, leading to $93 million in livestock losses across the state, according to Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.

What happens next?

Now, state and dairy officials are turning to the massive, messy task of cleaning up 18,000 charred cow carcasses. On its website, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality lists several rules for onsite burial of carcasses, including burying the animal at least 50 feet from the nearest well and recording GPS coordinates of the site. Nowhere does it mention mass graves, however.

TCEQ and the AgriLife Extension Service are teaming up to assist in the clean up effort, officials said.

Malone, Dimmitt’s mayor, said he’s taken emergency management courses that teach how to dispose of animal carcasses after a disaster, just not at this scale.

“How do you dispose of 18,000 carcasses?” he said. “That’s something you just don’t run into very much.”

Trump’s tale of crying Manhattan court employees was ‘absolute BS,’ law enforcement source says

Yahoo! News

Trump’s tale of crying Manhattan court employees was ‘absolute BS,’ law enforcement source says

Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent – April 12, 2023

Former President Donald Trump, stony-faced, arrives surrounded by police.
Former President Donald Trump arrives at court on April 4. (Mary Altaffer/AP)

Former President Trump’s claim to a Fox News anchor that New York court employees were “crying” and apologizing for his arraignment on felony charges is “absolute BS” and doesn’t remotely resemble what took place, a law enforcement source familiar with the details of what transpired that day told Yahoo News.

“Zero,” said the source when asked how much truth there was to Trump’s colorful account. “There were zero people crying. There were zero people saying ‘I’m sorry.’”

Trump offered his version of events in an interview with the Fox News host Tucker Carlson that aired Tuesday night.

“When I went to the courthouse, which is also a prison in a sense, they signed me in, and I’ll tell you, people were crying,” Trump told Carlson. “People that work there, professionally work there, that have no problems putting in murderers, and they see everybody. It’s a tough, tough place, and they were crying. They were actually crying. They said, ‘I’m sorry.’ They said, ‘2024, sir. 2024.’ And tears were pouring down their eyes.”

In fact, the source said, aside from his lawyers and Secret Service agents, Trump interacted only with a handful of district attorney employees at the courthouse and had extremely limited exposure with others during his arraignment last Tuesday in lower Manhattan.

Former President Donald Trump sits in court for his arraignment, surrounded by his lawyers.
Trump in court with his lawyers on April 4. (Steven Hirsch/Pool via AP)

Upon his arrival, Trump was informed of the charges against him and was booked on 34 felony counts for falsification of business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn star in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election. The former president, looking glum, said little during the booking, as did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s deputies, who were with him throughout the process, the source said.

The only hiccup came when his fingers were too dry for his fingerprinting, at which point district attorney employees provided lotion for his fingers, the source added.

Carlson’s friendly interview with Trump was especially ironic given its timing. It comes on the eve of a trial slated to begin next Monday in Delaware, in which Carlson, along with his fellow host Sean Hannity and multiple Fox executives, are slated to be witnesses in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News for airing debunked claims of 2020 election fraud by Trump and his surrogates.

The suit has already brought to light multiple internal emails and texts by Carlson, in which he expressed his private contempt for Trump and derided the claims of fraud and vote flipping being brought by his lawyers — views he never shared with his audience.

“I hate him passionately,” Carlson said about Trump in a text to one colleague on Jan. 4, 2021, adding in another text, “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights.”

A person holds up as sign saying: Fox Lies, Democracy Dies.
A protester at a rally outside Fox News headquarters in New York City in June 2022. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

In other exchanges, Carlson privately called the claims of Trump lawyer Sidney Powell about vote flipping by Dominion “insane” and “absurd.”

Yet during Tuesday night’s interview, Carlson never challenged or pushed back against any of Trump’s assertions, including an unusual exchange about the Biden administration’s alleged failure to rescue German shepherds from Afghanistan.

“They left everything,” Trump said of Biden’s pullout from Afghanistan. “They left in the dark of night. They left the lights on. They left the dogs, by the way.”

“They left the dogs?” Carlson asked.

“They left the dogs,” Trump responded. “You know, the dog lovers, and you know there are a lot of them. I love dogs. You love dogs. One of the first questions I got was, ‘What did they do with the dogs?’ Mostly German shepherds. They left them. The way they got out was so horrible. … We would have gotten out with strength and dignity.”

In her memoir, “Raising Trump,” the former president’s ex-wife Ivana wrote that Trump “was not a dog fan” and often expressed hostility to her poodle, Chappy.