More stories

  • in

    Democratic Florida lawmaker indicted for allegedly stealing $5m in Fema funds

    Democratic representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly funneling more than $5m worth of federal disaster funds from her company into her 2021 congressional campaign.The indictment states that Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother, Edwin Cherfilus, stole $5m in Fema overpayments that their family healthcare company received, moving the money through multiple accounts to hide its origins. The indictment alleges that the majority of the money was used for Cherfilus-McCormick’s congressional campaign, as well as for the personal benefit of the defendants.“Using disaster relief funds for self-enrichment is a particularly selfish, cynical crime,” said attorney general Pamela Bondi.“No one is above the law, least of all powerful people who rob taxpayers for personal gain. We will follow the facts in this case and deliver justice.”The indictment also alleges that Cherfilus-McCormick and one of her staffers, Nadege Leblanc, arranged additional campaign contributions through straw donors, using the money obtained from Fema under the names of friends and relatives.Additional charges are being pressed against Cherfilus-McCormick and her tax preparer, David K Spencer, of conspiring to file a false federal tax return. If convicted, Cherfilus-McCormick faces up to 53 years in prison.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Guardian has contacted Cherfilus-McCormick for comment. More

  • in

    Saudi Arabia releases US retiree jailed over critical tweets

    Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow US citizen Saad Almadi to return home to Florida, five months ahead of the scheduled lifting of travel restrictions and a day after Saudi crown prince and prime minister Mohammed bin Salman met Donald Trump at the White House.Almadi, 75, was sentenced to 19 years of incarceration in the kingdom in 2021 after he wrote 14 tweets critical of the Riyadh government. Two years later, the charges were reduced to so-called “cyber crimes” and he was sentenced to a 30-year ban on leaving Saudi Arabia.The announcement that Almadi, a dual citizen and retired engineer who had lived in the US since the 1970s, would be free to leave the country came after the US president delivered a speech touting US-Saudi ties, including arms sales and investment deals, during a second day of public events in Washington.“Our family is overjoyed that, after four long years, our father, Saad Almadi, is finally on his way home to the United States!” the Almadi family said in a statement.“This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration. We are deeply grateful to Dr Sebastian Gorka and the team at the national security council, as well as everyone at the state department,” it added.The statement by Almadi’s son, Ibrahim Almadi, also thanked various non-profit organizations, including the James Foley Fund and Hostages America, and House speaker Mike Johnson for supporting the elder Almadi’s cause. He later posted on X that his father was on his way to the US.Almadi is one of a handful of American dual citizens facing exit bans from Saudi Arabia following a crackdown on online dissent. His son has previously claimed that Almadi was pressured to sign papers renouncing his US citizenship.The case against Almadi centered on social media posts in which he was alleged to have urged Saudi citizens to seek Lebanese citizenship and faulted the kingdom’s defenses against Houthi rocket strikes.More controversially he expressed approval for the renaming of a street in the US capital after Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist and Washington Post columnist killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.US intelligence reports released by the Biden administration later assessed that the crown prince had approved of a plan to “capture or kill” Khashoggi.Asked about the killing on Tuesday, Trump said the crown prince “knew nothing” of Khashoggi’s kiling. The Saudi crown prince has denied any wrongdoing. He said at the White House that Saudi Arabia “did all the right things” to investigate Khashoggi’s death, which he called “painful” and a “huge mistake”.US pressure to release Almadi and allow him to return to the US has been building since Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia in May. Many appealed to Trump claim that he is uniquely successful in repatriating US citizens detained overseas.When asked by a reporter in May about the case, Trump said he didn’t know about it but promised to take a look. A few weeks later, one of his national security aides, Gorka, met the younger Almadi at the White House.Johnson also met Almadi’s son. Johnson said: “President Trump is the president of deals and he loves to do business with the Saudis and we will win your father back.” More

  • in

    Full grand jury didn’t see final Comey indictment, prosecutors admit

    Federal prosecutors on Wednesday said they had never presented the final version of the indictment filed against James Comey to a full federal grand jury, a concession that adds to mounting challenges in their effort to prosecute the former FBI director.Prosecutors acknowledged the omission during a Wednesday hearing in which Comey’s lawyers argued the case against him should be dismissed because it was a selective and vindictive prosecution.Comey was indicted on 26 September on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding in connection with testimony he gave in 2020 in which he said he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding Hillary Clinton.Court documents from September show that Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally installed as a top prosecutor in the case, had sought an additional false statement charge against Comey, but that grand jurors had rejected it.Once the grand jury rejected the charge, Halligan could have had the full grand jury vote again on a copy of the indictment that only included the two charges they voted to indict on, or presented the judge with a three-count indictment crossing out the count on which the grand jury had chosen not to indict on. But, pressed on Wednesday by Michael Nachmanoff, the US district judge overseeing the case, Halligan confirmed that only the foreperson and another grand juror had seen the revised indictment that had only the two charges the grand jury had voted to indict on, CNN and Lawfare reported on Wednesday.Comey’s team therefore views the indictment as null. “There is no indictment Mr Comey is facing,” Michael Dreeben, one of Comey’s lawyers said in court on Wednesday. N Tyler Lemons, an assistant US attorney handling the case, argued that there wasn’t a problem because the final version of the indictment merely removed a charge rejected by the grand jury. “The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” he said, according to the Washington Post.Andrew Tessman, a former federal prosecutor in West Virginia and Washington DC, said he saw the issue as “highly problematic” and a “fatal flaw”. “This is just not how grand jury operates,” he said.Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who presented the case to the grand jury herself despite never having previously handled a criminal case.A transcript of the hearing in which the indictment was returned in Comey’s case obtained by CBS News shows some confusion over the indictment. The magistrate judge overseeing it said she had been given two versions of the indictment.“The reason we want to cross all of our T’s and dot all of our I’s in these situations is because the court is also going to take it very seriously for the same reasons. And if you screw up one step in this process, then you’re risking the whole case going away in an embarrassing fashion,” Tessman said. “The US attorney’s office is going to take this whole process very seriously, but the court is going to take it even more seriously. And if they see one thing wrong with how the case was presented to the grand jury, they’re going to err on the side of protecting people’s constitutional rights.”“It’s understandable. You pulled a random insurance lawyer off the street and you put her into the grand jury with no training and no other experienced attorney there,” he added. “It’s not surprising at all that some big mistake was made.”Nachmanoff gave the justice department until 5pm on Wednesday to further explain what happened.Before Trump installed Halligan, it was widely reported that career prosecutors believed there was not sufficient evidence to charge Comey with a crime. On Wednesday, Lemons said the deputy attorney general’s office had instructed him not to disclose whether a memo outlining the reasons for not prosecuting the case existed.Wednesday’s hearing came days after a magistrate judge handling the case said there may have been “government misconduct” and that Halligan made at least two “fundamental and highly prejudicial” misstatements of law to the grand jury. The magistrate judge ordered the prosecutors to take the highly unusual step of turning over grand jury materials to Comey’s team. That order is on hold while an appeal is pending. More

  • in

    Is Trump’s remarkable run of fealty coming to an end?

    “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody,” Donald Trump claimed in 2016, “and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Coming two weeks before the Iowa caucus, it was an unusual message from a politician, but the last nine years have served to underscore the point.His “Make America great again” base, and the bulk of the Republican party, stood with him through (deep breath): two impeachments, children in cages, “very fine people on both sides”, 34 felony convictions, an insurrection, “shithole countries”, attempting to overturn an election, hush money payments to an adult film actor, “they’re rapists”, a brutal immigration crackdown, Four Seasons Total Landscaping, “grab ‘em by the pussy”, billions of dollars made by the Trump family, cosying up to dictators, “don’t look!”, mass pardons for his allies and friends, an unfinished wall, “liberation day”, presenting himself as a king, forcing Donald Trump Jr into the public consciousness, and more.Trump has enjoyed a remarkable run of fealty, both from his rank and file supporters and from an obsequious GOP. But nothing lasts forever. To paraphrase Batman, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself lose party support over your handling of documents related to your former friend, a convicted paedophile.Yes, it is the Jeffrey Epstein saga that has led to the biggest fissure yet between Trump and his base. Trump wanted House Republicans to vote against releasing the Epstein files this week, but as many as 100 of them were prepared to defy the president, the biggest act of disobedience Trump has faced in his second term . That forced the president into an embarrassing U-turn: after telling Republicans to vote no on releasing the files, Trump abruptly ordered them all to vote yes.There have been signs elsewhere that Trump’s iron grip over his party might be failing. Trump was desperate for Republicans in Indiana to redraw their voting map so the GOP could pick up another House seat next year, but enough Republican lawmakers resisted that the old maps remain in place.
    Trump has responded to the insubordination in the ways he knows best: pettiness and cruelty.
    He wanted Republicans in the Senate to abolish the filibuster. That didn’t happen either, while there was uproar from rightwing figures last week over a proposal to introduce 50-year mortgages.Trump has responded to the insubordination in the ways he knows best: pettiness and cruelty.Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who has defied Trump on several issues, was one of the first to feel the president’s ire. Trump, 79, responded to news that Massie had recently married by claiming that “[Massie’s] wife will soon find out that she’s stuck with a LOSER!”.Rod Bray, a Republican in the Indiana state senate, was dismissed as “weak and pathetic” in a Truth Social post, while Trump also bared his claws at Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican congresswoman who broke with him over Epstein. Greene was subjected to a lengthy and confusing analogy about how, actually, her name should be Marjorie Taylor Brown, because “Green turns to Brown where there is ROT involved!”But as Trump has flailed around looking for someone to shout at, it’s the media, his familiar old foe, which has drawn the sharpest attacks .skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenTrump shrugged off the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the White House, telling a journalist who asked about it: “You don’t have to embarrass our guest.”“Quiet piggy,” he told a female reporter on Friday, after she asked him why, if there was nothing in the Epstein files, Trump didn’t want them released. On Tuesday, after an ABC reporter asked why he won’t release the files immediately, Trump called her a “terrible person and a terrible reporter”.The president added: “People are wise to your hoax and ABC is – uh, your company, your crappy company, is one of the perpetrators. And I’ll tell you something, I’ll tell you something, I think the license should be taken away from ABC. Because your news is so fake, and it’s so wrong, and we have a great commissioner, chairman who should look at that.”In the midst of the childlike insults, this one had some real malice. Trump was never likely to shoot someone in middle of Fifth Avenue, but he has waged a war on the media: pressing CBS News and Disney into coughing up $16m through lawsuits, threatening legal action against CNN, and lobbying for late-night hosts to be kicked off air.At a time when Republicans appear less likely than ever before to submit to Trump’s demands, it’s corporate media bosses who are seeming subservient. Plenty of reporters have, so far, stood up to the president. But with Trump increasingly angry and vengeful, will an independent press be able to stand firm? We’ll see. More

  • in

    FBI worker says he was wrongfully terminated for having Pride flag at desk

    A longtime FBI employee has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was fired for displaying a Pride flag at his desk, naming FBI director Kash Patel, the justice department and attorney general Pam Bondi as defendants.According to David Maltinsky, an intelligence specialist who had served with the bureau for 16 years, his wrongful termination earlier this year was “unconstitutional and politically motivated”.The lawsuit claims the FBI violated Maltinsky’s first amendment rights and took retaliatory action against him for engaging in protected speech. Maltinsky is seeking a court order to restore his job.Maltinsky’s 18-page complaint, filed on Wednesday in the US district court for the District of Columbia, alleges that he was dismissed from the FBI academy last month for previously displaying the flag at his workstation with the support and permission of his supervisors.According to the complaint, the Pride flag, which the bureau flew from its flagpole in front of its Los Angeles building, was given to Maltinsky in recognition of his efforts to support the FBI’s diversity initiatives.“From a young age, all I have wanted to do is serve my country and ensure its security alongside the brilliant and dedicated men and women of the FBI,” said Maltinsky, who joined the bureau in 2009 and spent more than a decade supporting public corruption and cybercrime investigations including North Korea’s cyberattack on Sony Pictures in 2014.“I displayed that Pride flag – which in 2021 flew in front of the Wilshire federal building – not as a political statement, but as a symbol of inclusion, unity and equal service. These are the values that once made the FBI strong. Now it is a place where people like me are targeted. I believe I was fired not because of who I am, but what I am: a proud gay man,” he added.Earlier this year, Maltinsky was accepted into the FBI special agent training academy at Quantico, Virginia, until what he described as his “abrupt dismissal just three weeks before graduation”.Maltinsky’s lawsuit alleges that at some point after Donald Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, a co-worker reported an alleged concern to Maltinsky’s direct supervisor about the display of the Pride flag at his workstation.“Out of an abundance of caution, Maltinsky requested that the Chief Division Counsel for the LAFO [Los Angeles field office] review whether the display of the Progress Pride flag and placard was permissible,” Maltinsky’s complaint said, adding: ”The Chief Division Counsel advised Maltinsky that the display of the flag and placard did not violate any policy, rule, or regulation.”Nevertheless, on 1 October, Maltinsky was notified of his termination.In a letter cited in Maltinsky’s complaint, Patel wrote: “I have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment at the Los Angeles Field Office. Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby terminated.”In a statement released on Wednesday, Maltinsky’s lawyer Kerrie Riggs said: “This administration’s unlawfully firing him is part of a larger campaign to rid federal agencies of employees who may have different viewpoints, or are from marginalized groups, or who dare speak out against discrimination. David’s fight is not just about him, but about securing the rights and freedoms of all federal employees.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe FBI declined to comment on the lawsuit. The Guardian has also reached out to the justice department.Maltinsky’s lawsuit follows another one filed in September by three former senior FBI officials who said they were wrongfully terminated, alleging that Patel said he had been directed by the White House to fire any agent involved in an investigation into Trump.Meanwhile, the FBI fired a nearly three-decade veteran earlier this month after Patel reportedly became furious by reports that the FBI director had taken a government jet to attend a wrestling event where his girlfriend performed the national anthem.Steven Palmer, a bureau veteran since 1998, was removed as head of the FBI’s critical incident response group, which manages major security threats and the agency’s jet fleet. More

  • in

    The infidelity saga of RFK Jr, Nuzzi and her ex is unspooling: ‘It’s like they’ve opened all their trench coats’

    This week, Olivia Nuzzi – the US star political reporter known for her cozy access to top Republican figures – dropped an excerpt of her memoir, American Canto. In it, she detailed what she describes as an emotional affair with Robert F Kennedy Jr, who she calls “the politician”.Not to be outdone, Nuzzi’s ex-fiance and former Politico correspondent Ryan Lizza self-published an essay dishing on the day he found out Nuzzi was cheating on him, he claims – not with RFK Jr, as one might have expected, but with another former presidential candidate, Mark Sanford.The mudslinging between two of the more polarizing personalities in a profession filled with egos delighted a media class that revels in navel-gazing, schadenfreude and generally messy behavior. Over the course of four days it had a lot of material to work with.First came a glamorous profile of Nuzzi in the New York Times Style section on Friday, in which she mugged for the camera while driving a convertible down the Pacific Coast Highway, and was described by the writer Jacob Bernstein as “a Lana Del Rey song come to life” and the “modern iteration of a Hitchcock blonde”. The profile provided some details of her “digital affair” with RFK, according to Nuzzi: how the now US health secretary told her he would take a bullet for her, how they never slept together, how she advised him on campaign issues (most notably the dead bear carcass story).Then, on Monday, Nuzzi’s memoir excerpts were published in Vanity Fair, the glossy that appointed her west coast editor in September. She wrote about feeling anxious about Kennedy’s reported brain worm, and said the scion soothed her after a doctor who saw his brain scans told him he was fine: “Baby, don’t worry.” She mused: “I did not have to worry about the worm that was not a worm in his brain.”The latest entry into this unfurling drama came when Lizza published a “Part 1” of his side of the story on Monday night, using the metaphor of invasive bamboo growing behind the couple’s townhouse in Georgetown to describe Nuzzi’s secrecy in concealing an alleged affair with Sanford. Sanford, a former South Carolina governor and US representative who had weathered his own cheating scandal years prior, was profiled by Nuzzi for New York magazine during his short-lived 2020 election challenge to Trump. According to Lizza, Nuzzi became “infatuated” with the candidate after interviewing him.Lizza placed this piece of information as a cliffhanger; presumably we must tune into an impending “Part 2” to read Lizza’s recounting of Nuzzi’s affair with RFK Jr.Kennedy is married to actor Cheryl Hines, who has her own memoir out this month. He has denied Nuzzi’s claims of a sexual or romantic relationship, saying they only met once for an interview. He has not commented on the memoir excerpts. Nuzzi, Lizza, Kennedy and Sanford did not respond to requests for comment.All of this makes for grade-A gossip. But while Nuzzi and Lizza are not household names outside the Beltway and New York media circles, their story has wider ramifications. Trust in the US press is at an all-time low; a recent Gallup poll found that just 28% of respondents expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fairly and accurately. (That’s down from 31% in 2024 and 40% five years ago.)“Journalism has a trust problem, and the fact that all this dirty laundry is getting aired is not going to help that,” said Patrick R Johnson, an assistant professor of journalism at Marquette University. “Because two people with significant followings are behaving in this way, other people, everyday individuals, are going to make assumptions that more journalists are behaving this way, even though they aren’t. And that’s news literacy 101: people are making assumptions based on what they can see, whether or not that is what is happening.”The image of a female journalist sleeping with her source titillates Hollywood (see: House of Cards or Clint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell, which portrayed a real-life but since deceased journalist bedding an FBI agent for tips, much to the anger of the journalist’s family and colleagues), the trope is mostly the stuff of fiction. It is also a major ethical violation, for obvious reasons – it creates a conflict of interest and a too-close relationship between reporter and source. As Moira Donegan wrote for the Guardian last year, revelations like the one about Nuzzi and RFK Jr only make it “harder” for the reporter’s peers to do their jobs and “cast all female professionals under the suspicion of corruptibility and unseriousness”. (The trope apparently once bothered Nuzzi herself; in 2015, she tweeted: “Why does Hollywood think female reporters sleep with sources?”)Nuzzi, who is 32, burst on to the New York Twitterati scene as an intern in Anthony Weiner’s 2013 mayoral campaign and published an account of her experience in the New York Daily News. She parlayed this into a staff position at the Daily Beast while she was still a Fordham University undergraduate.Nuzzi covered Trump’s political rise and went on to serve as New York magazine’s first Washington DC correspondent, filing gossipy profiles of people like Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen that often co-starred herself. Ahead of the 2024 election, she wrote about Joe Biden’s cognitive state, and profiled RFK Jr when he was but a long-shot independent candidate.Nuzzi left New York magazine when their entanglement, which violated the publication’s standards around conflicts of interest and disclosures, was revealed shortly before the election. She wrote in a statement that the relationship “should have been disclosed to prevent the appearance of a conflict”, and apologized to her colleagues. She and Lizza broke up.Lizza, who is 51, has his own baggage: in 2017, he was fired from the New Yorker after a sexual misconduct allegation emerged in the early days of the #MeToo movement. He denied the claims and went on to write for Esquire and Politico. The couple were supposed to publish a book on the 2020 election together that never materialized.In the wake of their breakup, Nuzzi filed for a protective order against Lizza, claiming blackmail and harassment. Lizza denied her allegations, and Nuzzi withdrew her request for protection last November.In his essay, Lizza painted himself as a casualty of a mercurial ex’s “betrayal”. “It’s almost as if he’s hurt that he was the victim of her decisions” regarding RFK Jr and Sanford, said Johnson, the journalism professor. “It’s as if he’s on this weird tour to fix his image from before.”Mark Feldstein spent 20 years as an on-air investigative correspondent at CNN, ABC News and other local affiliates. He is now the chair of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland. He described the Nuzzi-Lizza story as “self-immolation on both their parts”.“This takes journalism self-branding to a crazy and extreme extent,” Feldstein said. “It certainly fuels the disdain that so many Americans have for journalists not being objective, not being neutral. This confirms the stereotype of journalists as self-promoting vultures wallowing in the gutter.”Feldstein recalled Geraldo Rivera’s 1991 memoir, Exposing Myself, which chronicled the journalist’s sexual exploits and was written off as unprofessional. “It was met with universal horror at the time among journalists, because it was such an outlandish, self-promoting, degrading publicity stunt,” Feldstein said.However, in the era of the attention economy, Nuzzi and Lizza’s tell-alls are all but expected. As Feldstein puts it: “It’s like they’ve opened their trench coats and exposed to all of us what they’re hiding underneath. It’s not a pretty sight.” More

  • in

    Jimmy Kimmel on Epstein files congressional vote: ‘Make no mistake – this isn’t over’

    Late-night hosts celebrated the congressional votes to release the Epstein files and decried Donald Trump’s warm meeting with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.Jimmy KimmelTuesday was “a very big day” in Washington DC, said Jimmy Kimmel on Tuesday evening, as both the House and Senate voted near unanimously to authorize the justice department to release investigative files related to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.“Ultimately even [speaker] Mike Johnson voted yes on releasing the files,” Kimmel noted, meaning that the bill now heads to the White House, where it will probably66 be signed by Trump.“The goal was to have the bill pass by such a large margin that Trump can’t put his little orange thumb on the scale and give it the old Cheeto veto,” he explained. “But make no mistake: this isn’t over. He’s not giving up. If anyone thinks he’s going to release all of the Epstein files, I’ve got a beautiful East Wing of the White House to sell you.”That’s because even after the vote, “Trump cronies” in the justice department still have the power to withhold information to “protect ongoing investigations, protect innocent people or for reasons of national security”.“But they would never do anything like that, would they?” Kimmel joked. “They’re sworn to protect the constitution of the United States!“Something is fishy,” he added. “Trump rolled over faster than that dog Ghislaine Maxwell gets to play with in her country club prison.”On that note: “It is amazing the kind of special treatment you get when half of the most powerful people from the last 30 years don’t want to see you testifying in court.”Stephen Colbert“When it comes to Congress, it’s increasingly rare that things happen,” said Stephen Colbert on Tuesday’s Late Show. Which made Tuesday, when the House voted 427-1 to release the Epstein files, all the more notable.The measure then headed to the Senate, which passed it unanimously overnight, after the Late Show taping. “Tomorrow, we might know everything he and his pervert buddies did,” said Colbert. “Meaning it’s Epstein Rockin’ Eve – stay up for a ball drop you’re gonna want to miss.”The vote marked “a huge loss for Trump, make no mistake”, he continued. “For going on four months now, Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson fought the release of the Epstein files with every congressional tool they had, and keep in mind: Congress is loaded with some major tools.”“But when it looked like Republicans were defecting en masse and they were going to lose big, they were suddenly all in, like they always were – right, Mike?”Colbert then played a clip of Johnson claiming that “Republicans support maximum transparency. We always have. The president of the United States supports maximum transparency.”“Yes, the president has always supported maximum transparency, a healthy diet of leafy greens and the understated androgynous sensuality of a flat-chested woman,” Colbert mocked. “The president would be here, but he can’t talk right now as he’s jogging to Bible study.”Colbert also criticized Trump’s chummy White House visit with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. And when a reporter brought up the murder of the journalist and regime critic Jamal Khashoggi, which US intelligence concluded was authorized by the crown prince, Trump reacted angrily. “Things happen, but he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that,” he said. “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.”“Yes, how dare you embarrass our guest!” Colbert mocked. “Now he’s going to feel all self-conscious when he tries to chop up somebody like you.”Seth MeyersAnd on Late Night, Seth Meyers returned to a meeting earlier this month between Trump and representatives from Switzerland, in which they gifted the president a special Rolex desktop clock and a 1kg personalized gold bar. “So now foreign officials are just openly giving him gold?” he wondered. “Trump’s turning into a live-action political cartoon. Next time, someone’s going to give him a big sack with a dollar sign on it.”In a new interview with a British rightwing news channel, Trump said that people will ask him: “What do you recommend for growing your children?”“I don’t know if I want advice on raising children from someone who doesn’t even know it’s called ‘raising children’,” Meyers said, laughing.In the same interview, Trump said: “I’ve never had a drink in my life, and I don’t take drugs.”“Maybe one of the best endorsements I’ve ever heard for drinking and doing drugs,” Meyers quipped. More

  • in

    ‘May I meet you?’ is just the latest in horrible dating advice from billionaires | Arwa Mahdawi

    Sit down and pay attention, because this column might change your life. I bring you tidings from the Nazi-filled wilderness that is now X, where Maga-adjacent billionaire Bill Ackman has generously decided to dispense romantic advice to the masses. Online culture, Ackman notes, has “destroyed the ability to spontaneously meet strangers”. The antidote to this, he suggests, are four simple words.“May I meet you?”That’s it. That’s the strategy. Ackman used this pickup line throughout his youth and, he says, it served him well. He didn’t even have to put “I’m a billionaire,” in front of the sentence – it was the syntax that women found sexy.“I think the combination of proper grammar and politeness was the key to its effectiveness,” Ackman mused. “You might give it a try.” And by “you”, he explains, he means everyone, not just young heterosexual men. “I think it should also work for women seeking men as well as same sex interactions,” Ackman proclaimed.View image in fullscreenA real man of the people, Ackman took time out of his busy billionaire schedule to add a little more context to his advice, which he explains is motivated by concern about the “next generation’s happiness and population replacement rates”. Per Ackman, you should try to be in motion while chatting someone up. This strategy “works much more effectively when you are moving”, he noted. “So on subways, elevators, escalators, airplanes, buses, and even walking down the street, it is most effective.”I have debased myself for numerous columns (just Google “Arwa Mahdawi accidental laxatives” or “Arwa banana”) but I do have my limits. Walking around the streets of Philadelphia asking women who set off my gaydar “may I meet you?” being one of them.But while I haven’t tried the Ackman approach myself, the advice has gone viral and various other people are giving it a whirl. It’s too early to do a quantitative assessment of its effectiveness but I hope that some enterprising social scientists are applying for funding for a future study. It’s perfect material for a future Ig Nobel prize.While we wait for a peer-reviewed analysis to come out, I must confess that I have my doubts that imposing yourself on strangers in the subway is going to do much to help “population replacement rates”. This may be a wild take but it’s possible that not supporting genocidal wars (Ackman has been a big cheerleader of Israel’s actions in Gaza) that have made prenatal care virtually nonexistent and killed an average of a child an hour, might be more effective when it comes to population replacement. That’s assuming we think all populations are equal, of course.Doing something about the exorbitant price of childcare, and the dire state of public schools in affordable areas of the US might also encourage more people to have kids. Since I’m churning out the hot takes over here, it’s also possible that young people might go out on the town more if the cost of living hadn’t become so expensive, and they had more disposable income. In short: solving underlying social issues that wealth-hoarding billionaires have exacerbated might prove more effective than a grammatically interesting pickup line.But what do I know, eh? I’m not a billionaire. Far better if plebs like me keep quiet and listen to our social and economic betters. So, in that spirit, and in the hopes of solving the population crisis, I have put together a few bits of relationship advice from the rich and infamous:1 Putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing: avoid at all costsOnce you have found your future spouse through the May-I-Meet™ method, you should try to hold on to them. According to our great leader Donald Trump that means avoiding a working relationship. “If you’re in business for yourself, I really think it’s a bad idea to put your wife working for you. I think it’s a really bad idea. I think that was the single greatest cause of what happened to my marriage with [first wife] Ivana,” Trump told ABC news in 1994. RIP Ivana, who is now dead and buried under the first hole of Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.2 Sabotage your co-worker’s carFox News host Jesse Watters is not a billionaire like Ackman or Trump, but he lives in a mansion so is still worth listening to. During a 2022 episode of the panel series The Five, Watters boasted that he “let the air out of“ now wife Emma DiGiovine’s tires when he “was trying to get [her] to date” him. “She couldn’t go anywhere. She needed a lift, I said, ‘Hey, you need a lift?’ She hopped right in the car,” Watters recalled. The Fox news host was 43 at the time, by the way, and DiGiovine, who is his second wife, was 29 and an associate producer on his show at Fox News. After some backlash about “Deflategate” he claimed this tactic, which he said “works like a charm”, was a joke.3 Cozy up to a sex offender (DO NOT REPEAT THIS INSIGHT)The latest batch of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents to be released reveal that Harvard professor and economist Larry Summers spent years discussing relationship advice with the convicted pedophile. In one 2018 email, Summers forwarded Epstein an email from a woman and asked for advice on when to write back. “Think no response for a while probably appropriate,” Summers said. Epstein agreed: “she’s already beginning to sound needy 🙂 nice.” In another email Summers complained that attitudes to dating had become too woke. The “American elite think if u murder your baby by beating and abandonment it must be irrelevant to your admission to Harvard,” he wrote to Epstein. “But hit on a few women 10 years ago and can’t work at a network or think tank. DO NOT REPEAT THIS INSIGHT.”4 Offer your sperm to strangers over supperIf one is simply concerned with increasing the population rather than meeting a life partner you can always go the Elon Musk route and donate your sperm willy-nilly. According to a 2024 New York Times report, Musk has “offered his own sperm to friends and acquaintances”. The same piece notes: “At a dinner party held at the home of a well-known Silicon Valley executive [in 2023] Mr. Musk offered to provide his sperm to a married couple he had met socially only a handful of times.” (Musk has denied this.) Or, if that sounds too exhausting, you can be like Russian-born billionaire Pavel Durov and fund free IVF treatments for women who use your sperm. Durov now has more than 100 biological children in 12 countries via sperm donation. Perhaps, in the future, one of Durov’s children will bump into one of Musk’s many children and ask: “May I meet you?” More