Tools
Change country:

How Jack Smith Outsmarted the Supreme Court

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent filing to the D.C. District Court in the Trump v. United States presidential-immunity case both fleshes out and sharpens the evidence of Donald Trump’s sprawling criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. To understand the filing’s larger significance as well as its limitations, we must first review a bit of recent history.

In its shocking decision on July 1 to grant the presidency at least presumed immunity from criminal prosecution for all official acts, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed once again that it was intent on immunizing one president in particular: Donald Trump. The Court majority’s decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, was explicit. It held, for example, that Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure then–Vice President Mike Pence into voiding the 2020 election results on January 6 constituted “official conduct” from which Trump “is at least presumptively immune from prosecution.” That presumed immunity, the Court contended, would disappear only if the prosecution could convince the courts that bringing the case to trial would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

The Court thus remanded the case back to the D.C. District Court to decide the matter, along with the question of whether Trump is actually immune to the rest of the charges against him. How, though, could the prosecution of a president or former president over an “official act” fail to intrude on presidential authority? Seemingly, anything pertaining to Trump’s contacts with the vice president as he presided in his constitutional role as president of the Senate—as well as Trump’s contacts with the Department of Justice, which the Court also singled out and which the prosecution, significantly, felt compelled to omit from its revised indictment—deserves, as the Court sees it, virtually ironclad protection, a powerful blow against the entire January 6 indictment.

Although the sweeping outcome of Trump v. United States took most legal commentators by surprise, its protection of Trump was completely predictable given the Court’s previous conduct regarding the January 6 insurrection. The refusal of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from any matter related to the insurrection despite their own conflicted positions—Thomas because of his wife’s, Ginni Thomas’s, direct involvement in the subversion; Alito because of his flag-waving support of Trump’s election denials—has received the most public attention about the Court majority’s partisan partiality. But another set of telltale signs becomes apparent after a closer tracking of the Court’s decision making.

Almost as soon as the case against Trump came before D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Supreme Court played along with the Trump lawyers’ efforts to delay the trial until after the November 2024 election. First, after Chutkan ruled against Trump’s absolute-immunity claims in December 2023, Special Counsel Smith asked the Supreme Court to expedite matters by hearing the case immediately, not waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals to rule on Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s decision. The Supreme Court refused. Two months later, though, when the appeals court ruled against Trump and set a new trial date, the Supreme Court dragged its feet for as long as possible before announcing that it would take up the case after all. It then set the date for oral arguments as late as possible, at the end of April. This meant that even before hearing the case, the Court made it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial would proceed in a timely manner, effectively immunizing Trump until after the election.

Although radical in its long-term reconstruction of the American presidency, the ruling more immediately affirmed and extended the Court’s protection of Trump from prosecution. By remanding the case to the D.C. Circuit Court to decide what in the indictment constitutes official (and, therefore, presumably immune) conduct, the justices guaranteed that no trial would occur until after Election Day. After that, meanwhile, should Trump win the election, no trial would occur at all, because he would certainly fire Smith and shut down the proceedings.

Smith’s filing tries to slice through the Court’s security shield regarding the insurrection. Skillfully quoting from or alluding to language in the Court majority’s own opinion, the filing demolishes the notion that Trump’s activities, culminating on January 6, deserve immunity. Outwardly, Smith’s filing respects the Court’s dubious ruling about the immunity of official presidential acts. Legally, Smith had no choice but to operate within that ruling, a fact that sharply limited how far his filing could go. But even though it never challenges the conservative majority directly, the filing makes a case, incontrovertible in its logic and factual detail, that the core of Trump’s subversion involved no official actions whatsoever. It persuasively argues, with fact after fact, that Trump was the head of an entirely private criminal plot as a candidate to overthrow the election, hatched months before the election itself.

In remounting his case, Smith has taken the opportunity to release previously unknown details, some of which he says he doesn’t even plan to present at trial, that underscore the depravity as well as the extent of Trump’s criminal actions. Consider, for example, Smith’s telling of Trump’s reaction to the news from one of his staff, at the height of the violence on January 6, that his tweets attacking Pence had placed Pence’s life in extreme danger. “So what?” Trump reportedly replied. He had clearly intended for his tweets to reach the mob at the Capitol. His nonchalance about the vice president’s life epitomizes the lengths to which he would go to complete his coup d’état.

But the real force of Smith’s filing is in its tight presentation of the evidence of a criminal conspiracy in minute detail, dating back to the summer before the 2020 election, when Trump began publicly casting doubts on its legitimacy should he not be declared the winner. “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election,” he told the Republican National Convention in his nomination-acceptance speech in August 2020.

From that point forward, Trump was at the center of every effort to keep him in power, even once he was fully aware that he had no grounds to contest Joe Biden’s victory. There were his private operatives sowing chaos at polling places and vote-counting centers, the scheming to declare victory on Election Night before the results were in, the bogus legal challenges, the fake-elector fraud, the plot to deny official certification by Congress on January 6, and finally the insurrection itself. “It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election,” one witness reports Trump saying. “You still have to fight like hell.”

The crucial point to which the filing unfailingly returns is that none of Trump’s actions listed in the revised indictment, even those that the Court cited as “official,” deserves immunity. As Smith makes clear, the Framers of the Constitution deliberately precluded the executive branch from having official involvement in the conduct of presidential elections. The reason was obvious: Any involvement by a president would be an open invitation to corruption. To make the case that any such involvement falls within a president’s official duties would seem, at best, extremely difficult.

It is here that Smith turns the Court’s Trump v. United States ruling to his own advantage. Concerning specific charges that Trump’s speechmaking contributed to the insurrection, the Court allowed that “there may be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.” Quoting from an earlier Court decision, the ruling then states that determining these matters would require that the district court undertake “objective analysis of [the] ‘content, form, and context’” of the speeches in question, a “necessarily fact-bound analysis.” Likewise, regarding the allegations apart from Trump’s supposedly official communications and public speeches, the justices enjoined the district court, on remand, to “carefully analyze” those charges “to determine whether they too involve conduct for which the President may be immune from prosecution.”

Citing those exact phrases as the Court’s standard of inquiry and proof, Smith then offers evidence that every count in the revised indictment concerns either technically official conduct undeserving of immunity or unofficial conduct involving Trump’s private actions as a candidate and not his official duties as president. These actions include his efforts to pressure state officials, preposterously presented by Trump’s defense attorneys as official inquiries into election integrity. They include his conversations about elector slates, about which the president has no official duties. They also encompass all of his speechmaking about the allegedly crooked election, up to and including his incitement at the January 6 rally at the Ellipse, which was not an official function.

Above all, Smith nails down a matter that the Court’s opinion went out of its way to declare “official” and presumably immune: Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence into declining to certify Biden’s win. Although the filing acknowledges that the Court had held that these conversations between Trump and Pence about “their official responsibilities” qualified as “official,” it rebuts the presumption that those discussions therefore qualify as immune. The filing observes that the discussions did not concern Pence’s duties as president of the Senate “writ large,” but only his distinct duties overseeing the certification of a presidential election—a process in which a president, whether or not he is a candidate for reelection, has, by the Framers’ considered design, no official role.

Here the logic of Smith’s argument cuts to the quick. By the Court majority’s own standard, as stated in his Trump v. United States decision, the presumption of immunity for official actions would disappear only if a prosecutor could demonstrate that bringing criminal charges against a president or former president would not present “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Because certification of a presidential election, the subject of Trump’s “official” pressuring, involves neither the authority nor the functions of the executive branch, the immunity claims concerning that pressuring are therefore groundless—according to the Court majority’s own logic.

The rest of Trump and Pence’s interactions do not even qualify as official, Smith shows. In all of their other postelection, in-person conversations and private phone calls, Trump and Pence were acting not in their capacities as president and vice president but as running mates pondering their electoral prospects, even after Biden had been declared the winner. If, as the Court itself has stated, context is important with regard to speechmaking, so it is important with regard to communications between the top officials of the executive branch. To be sure, Smith allows, Trump and Pence “naturally may have touched upon arguably official responsibilities,” but “the overall context and content of the conversations demonstrate that they were primarily frank exchanges between two candidates on a shared ticket”—strictly unofficial conduct.

In all, by recasting the case against Trump in view of the Court’s immunity decision, Smith has drawn upon that very ruling to establish that none of Trump’s actions in connection with January 6 cited in the revised indictment is immune from prosecution. And in doing that, he has further discredited an already discredited Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, important as it is with respect to Smith’s specific case, the filing cannot come close to undoing the damage that Trump v. United States has wrought, with its authorization of an authoritarian American regime. The very fact that Smith had to omit from both his revised indictment and his filing Trump’s nefarious but official dealings with the Justice Department, including his brazen hiring and firing of top law-enforcement officials on the basis of who would do his personal bidding, shows how fearsomely the Court’s immunity decision has constrained the special counsel. There was a great deal more criminal behavior by Trump and his co-conspirators, as laid out in detail in the House January 6 committee report, that Smith could not touch because the Court has effectively immunized it as “official” activity under the executive branch’s authority.

These limitations show all over again how the Court has given the president absolute license to rule like a tyrant, against which even the ablest special counsel is virtually powerless. Nothing in Smith’s filing alleviates Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s judgment in her forthright dissent in Trump v. United States that the decision empowers the president, acting in his official capacity, to order the assassination of political rivals, to take a bribe in exchange for a pardon, to organize a military coup with impunity: “Immune, immune, immune.” That Smith managed to outsmart the Court as much as he did is a remarkable feat that could have important results—but only if Kamala Harris succeeds in winning the presidency.

On the basis of their past decisions, it is reasonable to expect that both the D.C. district court under Judge Chutkan and the U.S. Court of Appeals will rule in favor of Smith. Trump v. United States would then go once again before the Supreme Court. This will certainly happen if Harris wins the election, because a Justice Department under her administration would almost certainly allow Smith to remain to continue prosecution of Trump. What, then, would the Court do? Would it uphold those decisions and throw Trump upon the mercy of a D.C. federal jury? Or would it strike those decisions down, thereby redoubling the disgrace it earned the first time around?

The only way the Court can avoid that dilemma is if Trump wins the election, an outcome that its conservative majority would now have all the more reason to desire. But what happens if, as seems highly possible, the election leads to litigation, much as the 2020 election did, only this time the Court is left to make the final decision? Will the Court then intervene as Trump’s enabler once again, installing him as a constitutionally tainted president, allowing him to kill the indictment against him, and to pardon those convicted of violent crimes in the attack on the Capitol whom he calls “hostages”? The Court, in Trump v. United States, claimed that it was protecting the sanctity of the presidency, but if it aids Trump in his attempt to escape justice for his January 6 insurrection, it will further seal its illegitimacy while also sealing MAGA’s triumph—and, with that, the majority of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, will pay a crushing price.


Read full article on: theatlantic.com
Hoda Kotb, Jenna Bush Hager Gush Over ‘Nobody Wants This’ Kiss But Can’t Show It On Daytime TV: “It’s Too Steamy!”
Kotb said Kristen Bell and Adam Brody have some seriously "palpable" chemistry.
nypost.com
Taylor Swift named world’s richest female musician with $1.6 billion net worth, surpassing Rihanna
The "Cruel Summer" singer's fortune includes $600 million amassed from royalties and touring and a music catalog worth an estimated $600 million.
nypost.com
Emirates bans passengers from carrying pagers, walkie-talkies after handheld attacks against Hezbollah
Dozens of Hezbollah members were killed and thousands were wounded after their devices detonated in what is believed to be a covert attack by Israel.
nypost.com
Why J.D. Vance might be Reagan’s real Republican heir
“Saturday Night Live” joined in the Tim Walz pile-on this weekend, mocking the Minnesota governor’s disastrous debate performance. The vice-presidential debate won’t affect the election’s outcome very much, though. Indeed, it has mostly dropped from discussion owing to events at home and abroad. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have lasting impact. J.D. Vance’s performance...
nypost.com
I spent a wild night in the Amazon — and awoke to a shredded tent invaded by these horrifying visitors
"They're opening up holes big enough to put my fist through, which means that everything else in the Amazon is coming into my tent."
nypost.com
Bill Belichick, 72, and girlfriend Jordon Hudson, 23, look loved-up in photos from romantic summer
The cheerleader shared several snaps looking smitten with the former New England Patriots coach in an Instagram post Sunday.
nypost.com
‘RHOSLC’ star Whitney Rose’s daughter, Bobbie, 14, rushed to ICU: ‘We need prayers’
The “Real Housewives of Salt Lake City” star’s husband, Justin Rose, shared a video of Bobbie sitting on a stretcher while getting wheeled into an ambulance.
nypost.com
Billionaire Ben Horowitz pledges ‘significant’ donation to Kamala Harris in major reversal
Horowitz revealed his about-face in a letter to Andreessen Horowitz staffers, writing that he and his wife Felicia had “known Vice President Harris for over 10 years” and that the Democrat has “been a friend to the firm in our early days.”
nypost.com
Oct 7 anniversary live updates: Loved ones mourn at Nova musical festival site
Follow live coverage of protests and memorials in NYC and around the world as Monday marks one year since Hamas began its attack on Israel.
nypost.com
Rosie O'Donnell feels like the Menendez brothers' 'big sister'
Rosie O'Donnell is speaking out about her unique relationship with Lyle and Erik Menendez and why she is like "a big sister" to them.
foxnews.com
Corey Lewandowski Sent Home to New Hampshire After Trump Campaign Coup Fails
VIEWpress/Corbis/GettuDonald Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has been exiled to New Hampshire after parachuting onto this year’s campaign in August and suggesting to people he was plotting a coup, according to a report in The Guardian.After the abrasive Lewandowski returned to the Trump orbit as an unpaid senior adviser, he told people he had been brought back to “run the campaign,” sources told the newspaper. That was false, those sources said, noting Trump merely asked people to find “something for Corey to do.”In addition to playing palace intrigue against Trump campaign chiefs Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, Lewandowski also began a clandestine audit of the campaign’s finances because of his misgivings about LaCivita, The Guardian reported.Read more at The Daily Beast.
thedailybeast.com
Brown University endowment grew 11.3% last year — as school mulls Israel divestment
The divestment vote, the date of which has not been made public, was a concession from the administration to students who set up a tent encampment.
nypost.com
These ‘sex myths’ are holding your relationship back
Sexual myths are a roadblock to a thriving sexual connection.
nypost.com
Kamala Harris campaign frustrated by recent Biden media appearances, says CNN reporter
CNN reporter Edward-Issac Dovere said Monday that the Harris campaign was frustrated by recent appearances by President Biden, and wish he would stay on a foreign trip longer.
foxnews.com
5 smoothie recipes for quick breakfasts and snacks on the go
Five smoothie recipes, starring blueberries, chocolate, ginger, tahini and more.
washingtonpost.com
Tigers vs. Guardians ALDS Game 2 predictions, odds: Back Tarik Skubal
Cleveland’s Matthew Boyd has made eight starts since he came back from elbow surgery in August.
nypost.com
October 7 Supercharged Anti-Semitism in the United States
For many American Jews, today is a stark reminder that they are still trapped, a year later, inside October 7, 2023. Here in the United States, that day—the largest massacre of Jews on a single day since the Holocaust—and the events that followed it have unearthed a terrifying potential in American life, a monstrous development that is both a pattern and a warning.Physical assaults, harassment, and death threats; vandalism at homes and businesses; bomb threats at synagogues—all of these have become almost commonplace for American Jews in the past year. In addition to this intimidation and violence, Jews have also been loudly and proudly ostracized in spaces ranging from professional networking groups to the corner bookstore, in what can only be described as an ongoing campaign to push Jews out of American public life. Reasonable people have tried to rationalize this as simply passionate “free speech,” imagining that it’s an expression of concern for civilians in Gaza, whose suffering is undeniable—a wishful but implausible conclusion, because people who care about civilians do not generally express that compassion by harassing and intimidating other civilians. Clearly, something else is going on. How did we get here?I’ve been thinking a lot over the past year about a story I published in these pages in the spring of 2023 on Holocaust education in America. I’d noticed how Holocaust education, initially promoted in the United States by Jewish survivors hoping to inoculate the American public against anti-Semitism, had long since been recast to portray the murder of 6 million Jews as a universal story. The Holocaust is taught to American students as a case study in morality; well-meaning educators frequently compare it to the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the treatment of Black Americans and Native Americans, and other acts of persecution and intolerance. This approach has undeniable resonance and value.But few of these educators think to connect the Holocaust to other assaults against and persecutions of Jews: for example, the Russian Civil War massacres in Ukraine in 1918–21, during which more than 100,000 Jews were murdered. Or the massacres, property seizures, and ethnic cleansing that drove nearly 1 million Jews from almost the entire Arab world in the mid-20th century. Or the ongoing genocidal rhetoric and periodic butchery of Jewish civilians undertaken by a slew of Islamist fundamentalist groups in the past 40 years. No—the Holocaust is mainly of interest when it’s extracted from Jewish history, used to teach a lesson about the humanity we all share. Instead of teaching students to understand anti-Semitism as a specific pattern in society, or to understand who Jews are, these curricula suggest that what happened to Europe’s Jews—who were just like everyone else—actually happened to all of us.At the time my article was published, I thought little about the fact that few of the many Holocaust educators I’d encountered across the country were Jewish. But I have thought about it again and again in the past year, every time I encounter non-Jewish Holocaust educators bewildered by the explosion of anti-Semitism in their own schools and institutions. Hadn’t they taught the “universal” lessons of the Holocaust? Where had they gone wrong? One such educator attending one of my lectures told me ruefully, alongside her colleagues, about the surge in anti-Semitic sentiment that many of them had witnessed among their own students. Like every Holocaust educator I’ve met, she was sincere, well meaning, eager to improve. After my talk, she privately asked me if I thought that the October 7 attack had been plotted by the Israeli government. When I told her this was an anti-Semitic myth comparable to Holocaust denial, she seemed genuinely surprised.[Dara Horn: Is Holocaust Education Making Anti-Semitism Worse?]What I observed in my deep dive into American Holocaust education, I now realize, was a massive appropriation of the Jewish experience that obscured, behind a screen of happy universalism, an intellectual tradition that has been used to justify the demonization of Jews for millennia. This appropriation was entirely consistent with what non-Jewish societies have routinely done with the Jewish experience: claim that that experience happened to “everyone,” and then use it to demonstrate how wrong Jews are for rejecting the “universalism” of their own experience—for refusing to be just like everyone else. As far back as the Seleucid and Roman Empires, which turned the site of the Jews’ ancient temple into a center for their own worship as part of their persecutions of Jews, non-Jewish societies have followed a similar pattern of appropriation and rejection.Christianity engaged in this appropriation for hundreds of years, claiming that Christians were the “new Israel” and then excoriating Jews who failed to accept the Church’s universal salvation. Islam did this too, insisting that the Quran was the true universal message, and that the Torah, which shares many of the Quran’s stories and precedes it by many centuries, was somehow “corrupted.” Of course, both Christianity and Islam developed their own rich traditions over time. Yet, for centuries, both Christian and Islamic societies also used the Jews’ failure to accept their “universal” values as permission to ostracize, discriminate against, and periodically slaughter them.This pattern continued to evolve in the more secular modern era, as some societies graduated from appropriating Jewish holy sites and texts to appropriating Jewish experiences—including experiences of persecution. In the 1870s, German Jews were only a couple of generations out of the ghettos and had only recently been granted equal rights when their fellow Germans decided that they were the ones experiencing subjugation—by Jews. Sophisticated 19th-century Germans would never have dreamt of hating Jews for being Christ killers. But racial “science” had recently declared Jews a predatory, inferior race hell-bent on oppressing others. In 1879, the German author of a best-selling book explaining how Jews were discriminating against Germans introduced a handy new term for this fresh justification of Jew hatred: anti-Semitism. The supposed grounding in science gave enlightened Germans a new form of permission to persecute Jews based on “universal” values.In the years after World War II, when racial anti-Semitism lost its luster, the Soviet Union popularized a new form of universalism rooted in appropriation. Announcing on the official memorial for the 100,000 people, mostly Jews, massacred at Babyn Yar that Nazis had simply murdered “citizens of Kiev,” the Soviets declared themselves—not the Jews, who went unmentioned—to be Nazism’s chief victims. (Starting in the the 1960s, Jews attempted to gather at the site annually to commemorate the massacre; many were arrested.) The regime positioned the Jews, in fact, as perpetrators of evils like those of the Nazis. By the late 1960s, the KGB was pumping out enormous amounts of propaganda trumpeting a new value: anti-Zionism. Around the world, endless Soviet-sponsored publications and broadcasts proclaimed, without evidence, that Zionism is Nazism, Zionism is racism, Zionism is apartheid, Zionism is colonialism, and Zionism is genocide—all while the Soviet Union armed its Arab client states for their repeated invasions of Israel. And even as they endlessly repeated that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, the Soviets continued to mercilessly persecute Soviet Jews.This is the permission structure for anti-Semitism: claim whatever has happened to the Jews as one’s own experience, announce a “universal” ideal that all good people must accept, and then redefine Jewish collective identity as lying beyond it. Hating Jews thus becomes a demonstration of righteousness. The key is to define, and redefine, and redefine again, the shiny new moral reasoning for why the Jews have failed the universal test of humanity.The current calls for banishing “Zionists” from American public life follow the same ancient pattern.Jews were murdered, gang-raped, mutilated, and abducted on October 7, 2023, by the proudly genocidal death cult Hamas. Its fellow Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen continue firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Yet anti-Israel protesters now claim that Jews are “committing genocide.” (As apparently bears repeating, civilian deaths in war are devastating, but they are not genocide. And sadly, Gaza’s own leaders have been outspoken about their lack of care for civilians.) The recent pager attacks in Lebanon, targeting operatives of Hezbollah—a federally designated terrorist organization that has fired more than 8,000 rockets at Israeli targets since October 8 and turned tens of thousands of Israelis into internal refugees—have been decried by righteous Americans as “terrorism.” Zionists, anti-Israel activists announce over and over, are the new Nazis.[Dara Horn: Why the most educated people in America fall for anti-Semitic lies]Zionists, to be clear, are simply people who do not want the state of Israel to be dismantled—a possibility vividly illustrated on October 7. To be a Zionist is not necessarily to support Israel’s current government or the current war, or to oppose Palestinian statehood. According to 2024 polling, 85 percent of American Jews ages 18 to 40 believe in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; pre–October 7 polling reflects similar attitudes among American Jews of all ages. Which means that this denunciation of “Zionists” has amounted to a denunciation of the overwhelming majority of American Jews themselves. Yet those who have objected to being stalked and harassed and assaulted this year—tactics designed to intimidate and silence them—have been told, repeatedly, that they are perniciously shutting down “free speech.” And because Jews have supposedly rejected these universal values of promoting free speech and opposing genocide and terrorism, they must be pushed out of society by any means necessary.As I write this, I feel a bone-deep weariness at having to list examples from the endless effluvium of this campaign. Fact-resistant slogans that demonize Jews (“Genocide supporters!” “Zionism is white supremacy!”) have by now been repeated so often across America that these lies, recycled from medieval blood libels and KGB talking points, have become boring. Where to even begin?If I must, I’ll start with my own field, literature. Last month, an annual literary festival in upstate New York canceled an event at which the novelist Elisa Albert was set to moderate a panel. According to an email that one of the festival organizers sent to Albert, the novelists Lisa Ko and Aisha Abdel Gawad didn’t want “to be on a panel with a ‘Zionist.’” Albert had written an article after the October 7 attack titled “An Open Letter to Hamas’ Defenders.” Her books, however, are not about Israel, but about American Jews. (Gawad and Ko have denied accusations of anti-Semitism. Ko has said that she did not decline to be on the panel, but merely expressed concern about the decision to put Gawad, a Muslim author, on the same panel as Albert.)This was but one of several instances this year of American literary institutions canceling book events to prevent the public appearance of “Zionists.” In April, writers forced the cancellation of the PEN Literary Awards ceremony—a major American literary event that provides rare opportunities for emerging writers—over the organization’s “consistent platforming of Zionists.” Readers have organized smear campaigns against “Zionist” (read: American Jewish) novelists; at least one person even burned a popular “Zionist” romance novelist’s books for the delight of online viewers. The author in question has never written about Israel at all.[Joshua Leifer: My demoralizing but not surprising cancellation]Demands for denouncing “Zionism” have reportedly resounded among therapists, too. According to Jewish Insider, some clinicians have been open about their desire to deny referrals to therapists “with Zionist affiliations,” and an online networking group for therapists asks its members if they are “pro Palestine” before they are allowed to join. (The group’s moderator did not respond to Jewish Insider’s request for comment.)Jews working and training in the medical field have watched their colleagues and instructors justify the murders and rapes of October 7 and claim that “Zionism in US medicine should be examined as a structural impediment to health equity.” Like book burning, these smears in the medical field are time-honored; they echo those favored by medieval rabble-rousers who accused Jews of poisoning wells during the Black Plague and contemporary alt-right nuts who accused Jews of spreading COVID-19.[Yair Rosenberg: The anti-Semitic revolution on the American right]One American moment from the past year that has stayed with me involved a group of people gathered in a New York City subway car, some of them wearing face coverings. In the viral video of the incident, their leader instructs them, “Repeat after me,” after which his flock dutifully and childishly repeats, “Repeat after me.” Then the leader announces to the subway car’s passengers, “Raise your hand if you’re a Zionist.” His followers repeat the words: “Raise your hand if you’re a Zionist.” Then he continues, “This is your chance to get out.” His followers repeat: “This is your chance to get out.” (The man accused of leading the chant was charged with a misdemeanor; he has pleaded not guilty.)The group’s loyal repetition of the leader’s words is chilling. It is an act of faith, a declaration of belonging, a placement of oneself inside the circle of good and right. It is the sound of a society capitulating.In 1935, Varian Fry, an American journalist who would later rescue thousands of Jews and dissidents from Nazi-occupied Europe, described something similar he happened to observe while in Berlin. A mob had set up a gantlet on the busy thoroughfare of the Kurfürstendamm and were demanding that any Jews in cars that came by present their identification papers. “The crowd raised the shout ‘Jude!’ whenever any one sighted or thought he had sighted a Jew,” Fry told The New York Times. “At times a chant would be raised … ‘the best Jew is a dead Jew’—precisely like a Christian liturgy, with a leader speaking the lines first and the crowd chanting them over and over again, line for line, after he had finished.”As we are repeatedly reminded, today’s chanting and targeting and harassing and ostracizing of American Jews is nothing at all like that, because we all agree that anti-Semitism is bad. The mobs pushing Jews out of public spaces in 2024 are in no way similar to the mobs pushing Jews out of public spaces in 1935, or 1919, or 1492, or 1096, or 135. This time, you see, the Jews deserve it. Perhaps it’s their chance to get out.The consequences for Jews of this hatred are obvious. Indeed, many American Jews have changed their behavior, hiding outward signs of Jewish identity and thinking twice before sharing their identity with colleagues and acquaintances. But its consequences for non-Jews are incalculable—not because of the often inaccurate Holocaust-education claim that Jews are the canary-in-the-coal-mine whose persecution indicates that other groups will later be persecuted, but because this permission structure devours human potential.Imagine how many intelligent people in the 19th and early 20th centuries devoted their talents to justifying “scientific” anti-Semitism instead of doing actual science, or how many years of oppression have been endured by populations duped into thinking that their enemy was “Zionism” instead of their Soviet-sponsored dictatorships or fundamentalist regimes. Human-rights activists have appropriately raised awareness of very real injustices committed by Israel. But the enormous investment in exposing primarily Jewish perfidy—the United Nations Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation in the world—has left fewer resources to address rampant human-rights abuses elsewhere. Meanwhile, any Israeli government is less likely to consider legitimate criticism from outsiders, because the supply of such criticism has been so thoroughly poisoned by those who want Jews dead. Blood, treasure, and talent in the Muslim world have been horrifically wasted in war after war against Israel.Palestinian Arabs have borne the brunt of their leaders’ and manipulators’ anti-Jewish obsession, winding up subjected to autocratic rule, used as human pawns, and deprived of multiple opportunities for statehood, collaboration, prosperity, and peace. Like Israeli Jews, they aren’t going anywhere; they, too, deserve freedom and dignity, and must build a future with their neighbors. For people in all of these societies, the costs of this fixation are high.American institutions that cave to this hatred will also face these costs. Schools and universities lose their credibility and their ability to teach when educators let lies undermine learning. The same is true for other sectors of American life. A literary world where conformity is the price of entry is unworthy of the name. A prejudiced therapist is a contradiction in terms, rendering therapy itself impossible. Patients suffer when ideology derails doctors’ training. When swaths of colleagues are blacklisted and ostracized, untold possibilities for research and innovation are blithely destroyed.The permission structure is here, alive and vivid. It always is. Thousands of years of Jewish experience suggest that we will continue on this course. But Jewish experience is not universal. One revolutionary idea in Jewish tradition, articulated everywhere from the Torah to the Israeli national anthem, is hope: Nothing is inevitable; people can change. Hope and a vision for the future of Israelis and Palestinians will have to come from Israelis and Palestinians themselves. But the future that we choose here in America is up to us.American Holocaust educators often ask me what they should be teaching as the “lessons of the Holocaust.” The question itself is absurd. As one of my readers once put it, Auschwitz was not a university, and most Jews who arrived there were immediately gassed and incinerated, making it difficult for them to produce coursework in ethics for the rest of the world to enjoy.But there is indeed something we can learn from the long history of anti-Semitism and the societies it has destroyed: We’ve fallen for this before. After this terrifying year, I hope we can find the courage to say, Never again.
theatlantic.com
Supreme Court rejects ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli’s appeal of $65M in penalties
The judge cited Shkreli's "particularly heartless and coercive" tactics in monopolizing Daraprim and keeping generic rivals off the market.
nypost.com
Russian court sentences a 72-year-old American to nearly 7 years in prison for fighting in Ukraine
Stephen Hubbard of Michigan is the first American known to have been convicted on charges of fighting as a mercenary in the Ukrainian conflict.
latimes.com
Sally Field describes ‘scary’ illegal abortion in emotional video ahead of 2024 election: ‘We can’t go back’
The actress confessed to feeling "so hesitant" to share her "traumatic" story, writing that she feels "stronger" knowing other women survived the same.
nypost.com
Halle Berry Addresses Rumors She Was ‘Really F***ing’ Billy Bob Thornton in ‘Monster’s Ball’
YouTube/screengrabHalle Berry has finally cleared up long-held rumors that she and Billy Bob Thornton were “really doing it” during that explicit Monster’s Ball sex scene.“We had this very explicit love scene,” Berry said during an appearance on Dax Shepard’s Armchair Expert podcast Monday. “There’s an urban legend that we really were f---ing—I’ve heard it and it’s just not true.”Berry’s work on the film would earn her her first Oscar for Best Actress, and the first Oscar in that category ever for a Black woman. She explained in the interview her annoyance that some viewers can’t just accept that she has great acting chops, opting instead to assume that the scene just “had to be real.”Read more at The Daily Beast.
thedailybeast.com
FEMA spent all its money on migrants: Letters to the Editor — Oct. 7, 2024
The Issue: FEMA’s failure to allocate money to victims of Hurricane Helene owing to the migrant crisis. Yet another reason not to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming presidential election (“Sorry, Wrong Victims,” Editorial, Oct. 4). As second-in-command, she is directly responsible for the border disaster and the money subsequently spent on...
nypost.com
Kamala Harris says X-rated ‘Call Her Daddy’ pod talks about ‘things that people really care about’ — as Hurricane Helene effects rage on
The podcast, hosted by Alex Cooper, is usually a free-flowing -- and graphic -- discussion of sex intended for a female audience.
nypost.com
Would You Go to Therapy With Your Sibling?
The practice isn’t common—but maybe it should be.
theatlantic.com
Michigan Dem launches anti-EV ad in bid for Senate race after voting against a bipartisan pushback on mandates
Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Rep. Elissa Slotkin dropped a new ad against EV mandates after recently voting against a bill to block them.
foxnews.com
Missile intercepted after being fired at central Israel from Yemen: Israeli military
A surface-to-surface missile fired from Yemen at central Israel on Monday was intercepted, the Israeli military said.
nypost.com
Antisemitism’s rise after Oct. 7 should scare us all
A new study released on the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel finds that an astonishing 3.5 million American Jews say they have experienced some form of antisemitism in the year since.
nypost.com
North Carolina teacher still missing after Helene floodwaters pushed home into nearby river
Jessica Meidinger told Fox News that her mother, beloved North Carolina teacher Kim Ashby, is still missing days after floodwaters from Hurricane Helene washed away her home.
foxnews.com
What actually happened that caused Browns’ Deshaun Watson to exit field in stunning scene
Watson falsely came under fire after some accused him of walking off the field on a fourth-and-goal situation in Sunday's 34-13 road loss to the Commanders.
nypost.com
3 people killed in D.C. arson fire; suspect in custody, authorities say
The fatal house fire occurred early Sunday. The suspect also allegedly set two smaller fires there Saturday night that were put out, a fire department spokesman said.
washingtonpost.com
Women for Trump, Goya team up to provide relief to Hurricane Helene victims in Georgia
Women for Trump flew to Georgia to provide relief for victims of Hurricane Helene in the group’s first mission before they crisscross the country to support communities in need.
1 h
foxnews.com
TikTok star Taylor Rousseau Grigg gave fans health update 2 months before her death: ‘It feels like I have to fight for life’
The TikTok star said she "got sick" right after she and her husband, Cameron Grigg, tied the knot in August 2023.
1 h
nypost.com
SCOTUS Jumps Back Into Culture Wars With Abortion Ban, Trans Kids Care Cases
Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesThe scandal-hit U.S. Supreme Court will jump back into the culture wars this session with rulings on guns and transgender care for minors – and the specter of a potentially explosive electoral crisis.America’s highest court is under scrutiny as never before with its approval rate at a near-record low following leaks that raised concerning questions over the ethical behavior of some justices.It goes to work on Monday with the very real possibility of being called in to resolve disputes about vote counts or ballot-rigging after the polarizing November 5 presidential election.Read more at The Daily Beast.
1 h
thedailybeast.com
‘The Penguin’ Episode 3 Recap: A Shortcut to Mushrooms
Psychoactive plants have a rich Bat-history.
1 h
nypost.com
This chic cloud couch lookalike is under $500 ahead of October Prime Day
Make your old couch jealous.
1 h
nypost.com
SpaceX launches European asteroid probe as hurricane weather closes in
Despite an initially dismal forecast, SpaceX got a break in the weather to send Europe's Hera asteroid probe on its way.
1 h
cbsnews.com
This one simple habit can slash your chances of getting sick this season
The nose knows, folks. While you can't catch a cold from weather alone, temperature changes directly affect our susceptibility to sickness.
1 h
nypost.com
Circus acrobat falls 20 feet, breaks both arms
This was not part of the act. Trapeze artist Valeriya Zapashnaya, 34, plunged a perilous 20 feet to the floor — without a safety net — at a circus in Kemerovo, Russia. The nasty fall broke both of her arms, and she had to be fed by her husband, Aleksei, in the hospital. The show’s...
1 h
nypost.com
Harris responds to critics over not having biological children: "This is not the 1950s anymore"
Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on the popular "Call Her Daddy" podcast.
1 h
cbsnews.com
Nobel Prize in medicine honors 2 U.S. scientists for their discovery of microRNA
If scientists can better understand how they work and how to manipulate them, it could one day lead to powerful treatments for diseases like cancer.
1 h
latimes.com
Commanders’ defense shows what it can be when it ‘arrives violently’
Porous to start the season Washington’s ‘D’ finally clicked Sunday against the Browns, as it delivered seven sacks and consistent pressure.
1 h
washingtonpost.com
Analysis suggests deficit could increase under Harris, but would surge under Trump
No one is likely to be happy with projected higher deficits new analysis finds.
1 h
abcnews.go.com
Watch Live: President Biden, First Lady mark anniversary of Hamas attack on Israel
President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden will mark the one year anniversary of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel that left more than 1,200 people dead and 251 others kidnapped. Live coverage is scheduled for 11:45am ET.
1 h
nypost.com
Supreme Court won't hear appeal from Elon Musk’s X platform over warrant in Trump case
Prosecutors got search warrant in the election-interference case against Trump.
1 h
abcnews.go.com
Department of Justice launches evaluation of 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre
The massacre is one of the worst incidents of racist terror committed against Black Americans in U.S. history.
1 h
washingtonpost.com
Kylie Jenner chows down on junk food and more star snaps
Kylie Jenner chows down, Priyanka Chopra stuns makeup free and more snaps...
1 h
nypost.com
LeBron James on taking court with son, Bronny, as Lakers teammates for first time: ‘I will never forget'
It may have only been a preseason game, but LeBron James and Bronny James shared the same court for the first time as Los Angeles Lakers teammates.
1 h
foxnews.com
What do tickets cost for Mets-Phillies NLDS games at Citi Field?
We'll give you a dollar amount but you really can't put a price on October baseball.
1 h
nypost.com