Trump’s Wrong-way “armada”: Strategic Lie Or Idiotic Blunder? Can It Be Both?

Here at Mother Jones, we respect a wide spectrum of views when it comes to dogs. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and that somewhere is revealing that you killed your 14-month-old wirehair pointer for acting like a puppy. That’s what South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem admitted to in graphic detail in her forthcoming book, which was obtained by the Guardian and has since sparked outrage even in Republican circles.

Known for its investigative reporting, El Faro has been referred to as “a breakthrough digital newspaper blazing an independent and ethical trail in Central America.” So when reporters at the Salvadoran news outlet noticed their cellphones acting strange all of a sudden—batteries draining, unexplained overheating—they had a weird feeling that someone was accessing their messages.

Once again, there’s not much love lost between Bill Barr and the man he accused of betraying the Oval Office, Donald Trump. When the former attorney general confirmed this week that he would support the Republican presidential ticket in November, his former boss took the opportunity to mock Barr as “slow-moving” and “lazy.” “That’s classic Trump,” Barr chuckled on Friday when CNN’s Kaitlin Collins asked about the insults.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Climate experts fear Donald Trump will follow a blueprint created by his allies to gut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), disbanding its work on climate science and tailoring its operations to business interests. Joe Biden’s presidency has increased the profile of the science-based federal agency but its future has been put in doubt if Trump wins a second term and at a time when climate impacts continue to worsen. The plan to “break up NOAA is laid out in the Project 2025 document written by more than 350 right-wingers and helmed by the Heritage Foundation.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what could end up being its most consequential abortion decision since Dobbs. In a case pitting Idaho’s extreme abortion ban against a federal law known as EMTALA—that since 1986 has required hospitals to provide emergency care—conservative justices seemed to embrace the idea that states can deny crisis medical treatment to pregnant patients, even if doing so means those patients suffer catastrophic, life-altering injuries.

This is like a beer judge taking big money from, say, Anheuser-Busch to promote “independent beer judging.”