This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelfanone.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

A mom in Texas wanted to know which corporations were making money off Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. So she did the least dramatic thing imaginable: she started digging through public records, government contracts, and corporate filings, put it all online, and handed Americans a map of exactly who was profiting from ICE.

And then people used it. They protested. They organized. They yanked their money out of a bank financing private detention companies. Cities moved hundreds of millions of dollars. And eventually Citizens Bank announced it was cutting ties with two of the biggest private detention contractors working with ICE.

That’s how this is supposed to work. You see your government doing something you think is wrong, you find out who’s enabling it, and you use your rights to peacefully push back. It worked so well that the Department of Homeland Security took notice — and according to USA Today, circulated a secret intelligence bulletin to law enforcement that specifically flagged this woman’s website in connection with potential domestic terrorism.

So let’s line that up. Americans peacefully protested, boycotted, moved their own money, and used public information to expose who’s cashing in on the deportation machine — and the woman who helped them do it landed in a federal intelligence bulletin. Yeah. We need to talk about this.

Follow the money

Her name is Laura Berlin — a Texas mother of two who started digging after watching people get flown to a prison in El Salvador. Her question was simple: who’s making money off this?

She researched ICE contractors and built an interactive map of the companies involved in detention, transportation, surveillance, the whole apparatus. Two names sat near the top: GEO Group and CoreCivic, which per USA Today were awarded nearly a billion dollars combined by ICE in the first year of the crackdown. She kept pulling threads and found that while some major banks had pledged to stop working with private detention companies, Citizens Bank was still financing them. So she posted that too.

That’s where it gets good.

People realized they had leverage

Activists found Berlin’s research and did the math: if Citizens Bank wanted to bankroll companies profiting from the crackdown, its customers could decide they didn’t want Citizens holding their money. A coalition started organizing. What began as an obscure campaign exploded after two fatal shootings involving federal immigration officers poured fuel on the anger — Berlin’s site went from a few thousand visits to nearly 10 million hits.

By March, activists had 70 protests planned at Citizens Bank branches. By June, 140 protests across 17 states. Individual customers pledged to pull $25 million. Then local governments joined in — Jersey City announced it would move $265 million out of Citizens Bank; Montclair, New Jersey voted to pull another $90 million.

Now we’re talking real money. And then Citizens announced it would stop financing GEO Group and CoreCivic. The bank insists this was purely a business decision, “changing commercial circumstances,” nothing to do with the pressure. Sure. Maybe hundreds of millions of dollars strolling toward the exit was just a happy coincidence. Either way the result’s the same: people found where the money went, organized peacefully, applied economic pressure, and the bank walked.

This is what fighting back is supposed to look like

I want to sit on that, because there’s been so much rage around ICE — and this is the model. Nobody has to attack an agent. Nobody has to burn down a building. You investigate. You organize. You protest. You boycott. You vote. You expose where the money goes. You use your constitutional rights.

That’s not terrorism. That’s democracy. And you’d think the United States government would know the difference.

Apparently not.

DHS knew — and did it anyway

Per USA Today, DHS circulated an intelligence bulletin in February that specifically singled out Berlin’s website, warning that anti-ICE actors — including what it called “local anarchist extremists” — could escalate peaceful action into vandalism or violence.

I’m a former cop, so let me be precise about where the line is. If there’s credible intelligence someone’s planning violence, investigate it. If someone threatens an agent, investigate it. If someone’s plotting an attack, stop them. That’s the job. But there’s a canyon between investigating a specific person because you have evidence of a crime, and hoovering up intelligence around lawful political activity because somebody adjacent to the broader movement might, someday, turn violent.

And here’s the genuinely disturbing part: the bulletin reportedly acknowledges — in red letters — that some of what it describes involves First Amendment-protected activity. They knew.

Publishing public records isn’t terrorism. Protesting outside a bank isn’t terrorism. Boycotting a company isn’t terrorism. Taking your own money out of your own account is definitely not terrorism. You don’t have to agree with a single one of these protesters — support ICE, support Trump’s policies, think everyone outside Citizens Bank is full of it. They still have rights. That’s the entire point of rights. The First Amendment was never built to protect people saying what the government likes. You don’t need protection when you’re agreeing with the government. You need it when you’re pissing it off.

Intelligence resources aren’t Trump’s security detail

This is where my old job makes it especially infuriating. Law enforcement intelligence exists to protect the public from real threats — not to shield Donald Trump from opposition, not to shield ICE from criticism, and sure as hell not to shield private corporations from Americans finding out who they do business with. Peaceful protesters don’t become violent extremists just because they’re mad at the same agency. Once you start treating a movement or an ideology as inherently suspicious instead of focusing on actual criminal conduct, you’ve crossed a very dangerous line.

And it’s not a one-off. USA Today points to a pattern — pressure on Apple over an ICE-tracking app, DHS scrutiny of left-leaning labor and climate groups, an investigation into a man who emailed the ICE director. Over and over, opposition to this administration’s immigration policy keeps getting translated into the language of threats and extremism.

She followed the political money too — and named her own side

Berlin didn’t stop at the contractors. She followed the campaign cash, and her database found more than 450 candidates around the country who’d taken contributions from the biggest ICE contractors. And here’s where she earns real respect: she didn’t make it a partisan hit list. There are Republicans on it — Trump, Greg Abbott, Katie Britt. There are Democrats on it too.

Good. Expose all of them. If you’re an elected official taking money from corporations that profit off government policy, the public has every right to know. Don’t want people finding out who funded you? Don’t take the money.

There’s a word for people who oppose the government without committing crimes

That’s what gets me most. Laura Berlin didn’t have a giant organization behind her. She was one mom with a laptop asking where the money was going. Then Americans saw it and realized they had power — not imaginary internet power, actual power. They protested. They organized. They moved their money. They leaned on their local governments. They made doing business with ICE contractors more expensive and more toxic. And it worked.

Then her website turned up in a federal terrorism bulletin. Maybe that’s a coincidence too. But this part isn’t up for debate: the government should be extraordinarily careful before it collects or circulates intelligence on Americans engaged in lawful political activity. Because there’s already a name for people who oppose government policy without breaking the law.

Citizens.

And if the administration thinks dragging peaceful activism under this kind of scrutiny will scare everyone quiet, this story says the opposite. Berlin says she’s not stopping — she’s still digging, now into the companies that gather the data used to find and locate immigrants. Good. Keep following the money. Keep publishing public information. Keep protesting peacefully. Keep voting. And if corporations decide profiting off the crackdown isn’t worth losing customers and watching hundreds of millions walk out the door — that’s not intimidation. That’s the free market.

They found out who was profiting from ICE. They followed the money. They fought back peacefully. And it worked.

Maybe that’s exactly why the government is so nervous.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

I’ve heard a lot of things come out of people’s mouths mid-arrest. Two decades on the job will do that. But “I am a single white female” — screamed like it’s a legal defense — that one’s new.

Here’s how it got there. Police say a grocery delivery driver reported that a woman grabbed her face, damaged her glasses, followed her back to her car, threw things at it, and hit the vehicle. So officers go to the woman’s house to hear her side. And almost immediately, she starts telling them exactly what happened — just not on purpose.

“She should speak English”

Watch what the cops actually do here, because it matters. They’re not screaming. They’re not throwing anyone to the ground. They’re investigating a reported assault and trying to get the suspect’s version of events.

That’s most of the job, honestly. When you roll up on something like this, you usually didn’t see it happen. You’ve got a complainant saying one thing and a suspect saying another, so you ask questions, compare the stories, look for physical evidence, talk to witnesses — and you pay close attention to what the suspect volunteers.

And this woman cannot stop volunteering. The officer asks whether she grabbed the driver’s glasses. No. He asks whether she asked the driver if she spoke English. And out it comes: “She should speak English.” The officer, calmly: it’s not illegal to drive without speaking English. Doesn’t matter — she’s already told him where her head is.

Telling on yourself, in real time

Then comes the moment that makes any cop’s ears perk up. She blurts, “Number one, I did not chase her.” And the officer says the most damning thing he can say: “Who said anything about chasing?”

That’s the tell. If I haven’t laid out the allegation yet and you start denying specific pieces of it, I’m filing that away. And a beat later he asks, “Did you jump on her car?” Her answer isn’t “No.” It’s “Do you have video of that?” Look — you have the right to remain silent. Sometimes you really should use it.

From there she keeps trying to reframe what’s happening. In her telling, four cops showed up because she was sleeping. No. They showed up because someone said they’d been assaulted. Then she tries to make it about the driver’s English again. No, lady — it’s about whether you put your hands on somebody.

What normal policing actually looks like

Here’s the part people miss when they’ve been trained to see any police contact as a beating waiting to happen. Before the arrest, the officer asks if she wants to put on shoes. She says no. He offers to go inside and get them for her. That’s it. You can arrest a person and still treat them like a human being — that’s the job done right.

But once he tells her she’s under arrest, the negotiation is over. And this is where she makes everything dramatically worse for herself. An arrest requires physical control, and before anyone goes in a patrol car, they get searched — that’s not excessive force, that’s procedure. When she says “thanks for feeling me up,” the officer’s response is exactly right: “I’m not feeling you up, I’m searching you.” The contact still has to be reasonable for what she’s doing — and watching the whole thing, it is.

The victim she invented

By the end, she’s completed a full transformation. She’s the one accused of attacking a delivery driver who doesn’t speak English. She’s made that driver’s English the centerpiece of her whole “explanation.” She’s resisting the officers trying to get her into the car. And somehow she’s the victim now — because she is, in her words, “a single white female,” and apparently the mayor and the whole “progressive city” need to hear about this injustice immediately.

Lady. They offered to get your shoes.

Why the full tape matters

She ended up charged with battery, resisting an officer, and aggravated assault on a police officer, and was later released pending her first court date. But the reason the whole encounter is worth watching isn’t the meltdown. It’s the process.

The cops didn’t show up and cuff her on sight. They knocked. They asked what happened. They listened. They pushed on the holes in her story. They gave her chance after chance to explain herself. And then, once they’d built probable cause and made the arrest, she’s the one who turned a battery charge into a prolonged physical fight.

That’s exactly why bodycam is valuable — and exactly why you should never let somebody hand you an edited five-second clip and call it the story. Give me the whole interaction. Because context is everything. Sometimes the context is a misunderstanding that good, patient policing untangles without anyone getting hurt. And sometimes the context is a woman screaming “I’m a white girl” from the back of a squad car after the officers offered to grab her shoes.

I’ll let you decide which one this is.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

We’re a little over two months from the midterms, and the Trump administration is trying to rewrite the rules for voting by mail. Not for 2028. Not for next year. Now.

The Postal Service has finalized a sweeping new rule on mail-in ballots that could make voting by mail meaningfully harder for millions of Americans. A federal judge has temporarily blocked it, and the administration is appealing — so nothing I’m about to describe is currently in effect. But you need to understand what they’re reaching for.

What the rule actually does

Under it, states would have to push voter information through a new federal Postal Service portal. Ballot envelopes would have to meet new federal requirements. And here’s the kicker: states that refuse to hand over the required voter data could lose USPS handling of their election mail altogether. Translation — cross this new federal system and your citizens’ ballots might not get mailed at all.

There’s a small problem with the timing: that federal portal reportedly isn’t even up and running yet. So election officials would be asked to tear down and rebuild systems that took years to construct, with a few weeks left on the clock. Officials from both parties are warning that trying to do that could create chaos — and they’re right.

This hits more people than they realize

This isn’t a minor bureaucratic tweak. More than 30 percent of Americans voted by mail in 2024. Older voters lean on it heavily. So do rural voters. And in several of the states that will decide control of Congress, mail voting is woven into how people actually participate.

Michigan’s a clean example: in the 2022 midterms, 57 percent of ballots for Democratic candidates arrived by mail, versus 37 percent of Republican ballots. California mails a ballot to every voter. Washington has scrapped traditional Election Day polling places entirely. And Arizona — about 80 percent of voters there got mail ballots last midterm, and it is not a partisan thing: an estimated 62 percent of Arizona Republicans voted by mail in 2024.

So start yanking on the mail-voting machinery this close to Election Day and you don’t even fully know whose votes you’re going to screw up. This isn’t swapping a menu item. It’s tampering with the infrastructure millions of people use to exercise a constitutional right. And it’s worth noting the president has spent years trashing mail voting and pushing bogus fraud claims — while, this month, voting by mail himself in Florida’s primary.

Don’t take the bait

Here’s the part I most want to land. Yes — Republicans are going to try to make voting harder. Trump and his allies will keep floating whatever scheme they think helps them hold power. We’ve all seen what he does when he loses a free and fair election and refuses to accept it. I was on those Capitol steps. I don’t need to be convinced this is serious.

But there’s a real danger in narrating every new attack as though the outcome is already decided. It isn’t. An obstacle is not a locked door. An inconvenience only becomes disenfranchisement if you let it stop you from voting.

So don’t.

Make your plan now — not November 2nd

If you’re eligible to vote in November, start now. Today. Find out exactly how voting works where you live. Check your registration. Know your deadlines. If your state offers early voting and that’s your comfort zone, use it. If you vote by mail, learn your state’s rules and don’t sit on your ballot until the last minute. If you’d rather vote in person on Election Day, know your polling place and have a plan to get there.

Because if the goal is to manufacture uncertainty around voting, the worst possible response is procrastination. Make voting top of mind and keep it there.

What happens at the polls — a cop’s concern

Something else worries me from twenty years in law enforcement: don’t assume every local department in this country has a tidy, coordinated plan sitting in a binder for what happens if people show up at polling places to threaten or intimidate voters. Real election security takes coordination — between election officials, state and local government, prosecutors, and police. Officers need clear guidance on what counts as voter intimidation, what their authority actually is, who owns what, and how to respond without themselves trampling someone’s right to vote. And the message has to be unmistakable: intimidate voters, threaten election workers, or illegally interfere with an election, and there are consequences. Ambiguity is exactly what people looking to cause chaos will exploit.

We also need to be thinking now — not after the fact — about what happens if this administration tries to interfere with the election itself in some illegal or unconstitutional way. What do state officials do? Election officials? Prosecutors? Local law enforcement? Hoping everybody improvises it in real time is not a plan.

Show up while we still can

So what do you do if you actually give a damn about keeping free and fair elections in this country? You show up while we still have them. And voting is just the start. Got legal expertise? Find a legitimate voting-rights group that needs pro bono help. Got time? Volunteer. Got money? Fund the people doing the work. Got a car and a neighbor who can’t get to the polls? Give them a ride. Got some other skill that helps people participate? Use it. You don’t have to be a lawyer, a cop, or a political operative. You have to be a citizen who gives a s**t.

And then vote for people who are actually willing to hold public officials accountable when they abuse their power. I don’t want to hear that we should let bygones be bygones. We tried that with Merrick Garland. We tried it after Reconstruction. We tried it with Nixon after Watergate. Accountability isn’t vengeance — if someone used the power the American people handed them to break the law or the Constitution, investigate it; if the evidence supports charges, bring them; if they’re convicted, hold them accountable like anyone else.

Because people love to file “democracy” in one drawer and “kitchen-table issues” in another. They’re the same drawer. You cannot seriously fix affordability, corruption, health care, or housing if the people running the government can abuse their authority without consequences.

So take what Trump’s administration is trying to do with this election seriously. But don’t let it freeze you. Make your plan. Help somebody else make theirs. Show up. Vote. And make it really, really hard for anyone who wants to take that right away from you.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Here’s how the justice system is supposed to work: you bring your case, you get a judge, the judge applies the law, you win or you lose.

Here’s how Trump’s Justice Department apparently thinks it should work: you bring your case and you lose. You bring it somewhere else and you lose again. You keep losing. And then you find a courthouse in Texas where you’ve got a pretty good idea which judge is going to be sitting on the bench before you ever file the paperwork.

Welcome to the Northern District of Texas. According to new reporting from the New York Times, the DOJ has been steering major pieces of its agenda into this one district, where an unusual case-assignment system lets litigants effectively predict who’ll hear them. And one name keeps coming up: Judge Reed O’Connor.

How you pick your own judge

O’Connor is a George W. Bush appointee, the district’s chief judge, and one of the most reliably conservative jurists on the federal bench. That alone isn’t the story — plenty of judges have strong views. The story is the plumbing.

Most federal district courts spread cases randomly across their judges. Northern Texas doesn’t always. Cases get assigned by the courthouse where they’re filed, and several of those courthouses have exactly one judge. So if you know who the only judge in a given courthouse is, and you file there — congratulations, you just picked your judge. Four of the district’s seven courthouses funnel every case to a single Trump-appointed judge. Another sends everything to O’Connor. And in Fort Worth, 90 percent of cases split between O’Connor and Trump appointee Mark Pittman.

That’s not “find a conservative jurisdiction and hope.” That’s knowing the name before you print the cover sheet.

They lost five times, then went to Texas

Watch how DOJ actually used it. The administration has been trying to pry loose medical records tied to transgender care for minors. Federal judges in Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Seattle either rejected or sharply limited those demands. Five cities, five walls.

So they went to Fort Worth. Never mind that the hospital whose records they wanted was in Rhode Island, or that Texas had already banned the very care being investigated. DOJ argued its nationwide investigation was being run out of Northern Texas — which put the case in front of O’Connor, who granted the request, clearing the way for Rhode Island Hospital to hand over personal information including the names and Social Security numbers of minors who’d received treatment.

Sit with that sequence. Courts all over the country tell you no. You relocate to a courthouse where you have a strong hunch who’ll hear you. Suddenly it’s yes.

A judge in Rhode Island called it “dirty pool”

A federal judge in Rhode Island, Mary McElroy, saw exactly what was happening. She accused DOJ lawyers of running a “crusade to obtain transgender children’s medical records” and bolting from her court for a distant venue they considered friendly. In a hearing she called the tactic “dirty pool,” and told a Justice Department lawyer to his face: “You chose Judge O’Connor in Texas. Let’s just admit that.”

That’s a federal judge saying that to the United States Department of Justice.

And they were warned about this exact thing

Here’s the part that really gets me: the judiciary already saw this coming. In 2024 the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended that big cases challenging federal or state policy be assigned randomly across judges — specifically to deter judge shopping and protect public confidence in an impartial court. Reasonable.

The Northern District of Texas refused to adopt it. Later that year, O’Connor personally went after the policy in a speech to the Federalist Society, framing critics of his district as trying to undermine the judiciary. So this was never some hidden loophole. The system flagged the problem, proposed a fix, Northern Texas said no — and now the DOJ is exploiting the precise mechanism everyone was warned about.

You don’t get to have it both ways

There’s a rich hypocrisy underneath all of this. Trump and his allies never stop howling about “rogue judges.” Any federal judge who blocks him becomes an activist, a radical, an enemy of democracy. But a single district judge wielding enormous power is apparently only a threat when the judge tells Trump no. When the judge hands him what he wants, suddenly everyone’s a champion of judicial independence.

And O’Connor has a record worth knowing. He struck down the entire Affordable Care Act in 2018 — a ruling the Supreme Court later reversed 7-2. The Court has tossed other decisions of his on gun regulation and Native American adoption law. Holding conservative legal views doesn’t disqualify anyone from the bench; that’s not the point. The point is what happens when litigants know those views and can choose where to file to all but guarantee that particular judge hears the case.

This isn’t a Republican problem — it’s a power problem

Let’s be honest about something: judge shopping isn’t exclusively a GOP move. Democratic administrations and liberal groups have gone looking for friendly ground too. But there’s a real difference between choosing a jurisdiction where the pool of judges might lean your way, and choosing a courthouse where you can name the individual judge in advance. One is forum shopping. The other starts to look a hell of a lot like picking the referee.

That’s why this should bother you no matter your politics — because eventually the judge being handpicked won’t share yours. If Democrats retake power and start deliberately routing major cases into courthouses where they know they’ll draw one specific progressive judge, Republicans will lose their minds. And they’d have a point.

The whole thing only works if people trust it

I’ve spent most of my adult life around the justice system, and it only functions if people believe the rules apply the same regardless of who walks through the door. You don’t get to choose the cop who investigates you. You don’t get to choose your jury. And you shouldn’t effectively get to choose your judge just because you know which courthouse to walk into. Justice can’t mean shopping for the government official most likely to agree with you.

That’s what makes this bigger than one judge in Texas. Trump doesn’t need to abolish institutions to break them. You hollow them out. You exploit the loopholes. You smear the judges who rule against you as corrupt while quietly seeking out the ones who keep ruling in your favor. Do that long enough and people stop believing any of it is impartial — and a justice system the public believes is rigged isn’t much of a justice system at all.

If we want these institutions to outlast Trump, and whoever comes after him, the rules can’t bend to whoever happens to hold power. So assign the cases at random. Because you shouldn’t get to pick your judge. Period.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Trump has apparently decided the thing America needs most right now is a nationwide sales pitch for Donald Trump.

The plan: with the midterms bearing down and his numbers in the basement, send Cabinet officials out to promote his “accomplishments,” farm some friendly local coverage, and remind voters how great everything supposedly is.

I love this strategy. Genuinely. Please keep doing it. Because every time one of these people leaves Washington to explain how successful the administration has been, they run smack into actual Americans who’d like to know why their own lives feel so much worse than the press release.

The roadshow keeps hitting potholes

Energy Secretary Chris Wright went to New Hampshire to talk up natural gas pipelines and got peppered about four-dollar gasoline. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins went to Iowa to rally farmers and wound up defending Trump’s plan to import hundreds of thousands of tons of foreign beef while American ranchers are furious about it. RFK Jr. went to Florida to talk school nutrition and ended up in a fight with Governor Josh Shapiro over a Pennsylvania measles outbreak and whether it killed two people. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reportedly catching skepticism from his old Wall Street crowd about pieces of the agenda.

See the pattern? They show up with a slideshow about how great Trump is, and somebody in the room raises a hand: okay, but what about this disaster?

America First — except for the beef

The Rollins trip might be the funniest of the bunch. Trump spent a decade branding himself on “America First”: American workers, American products, American farmers, stop letting foreign countries screw us. Then he decides the way to bring down grocery prices is to import 300,000 metric tons of foreign beef and sell it at a discount. And American cattle ranchers, reasonably, want to know what the hell happened to America First.

So the America First president’s own Agriculture Secretary gets sent to Iowa to fire up farmers — and has to explain why the boss is flooding the market with foreign beef while the people who raise American cattle are livid. And Rollins didn’t exactly bear-hug the policy: she defended the goal of lower prices but admitted she hadn’t actually discussed the specific plan with the president. Hell of an endorsement.

And the base still isn’t satisfied

Here’s the kicker. Trump’s also getting hammered by the people who think he isn’t going far enough. The White House keeps bragging about record ICE arrests — you’d figure immigration hard-liners were the one group he didn’t have to sell. Nope. Some are reportedly furious with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin because deportations and raids aren’t fast enough for them; Steve Bannon called Mullin a “squish” and said the administration should hide him.

So take inventory. Ranchers angry that America First now includes foreign beef. Consumers still angry about prices. Wall Street guys skeptical of the economics. And immigration hard-liners angry that the most aggressive deportation push in modern history still isn’t aggressive enough. Good luck with the bus tour.

You can’t b******t somebody about their own life

This is the thing Trump has always been elite at: building his own reality. Everything’s the greatest, the biggest, the most successful. Anything that goes wrong was somebody else’s fault. Bad numbers are fake numbers. Critics are losers or RINOs or whatever the word is this week. And it works beautifully — behind a podium, into a camera.

It works a lot worse when your Cabinet secretary is standing in a field in front of a cattle rancher. You can tell that man he’s living in the greatest economy in the history of the universe, but he knows exactly what he’s getting per head. You can call energy policy a triumph, but he can read the number on the pump. You can insist everything’s affordable, and then people go buy groceries. You cannot b******t somebody about their own life.

And remember — this is on purpose. These aren’t rogue officials who wandered into Iowa. It’s the actual midterm strategy. One Republican strategist from Trump’s own first term told Politico he’s not sure blanketing the country with Cabinet members helps at all — that instead of reassuring anyone, they keep surfacing the administration’s problems and creating new divisions.

I’m with him. Keep sending them. Send everybody. Matching jackets, a fleet of buses, get Eric and Don Jr. in the rotation. Let’s see how many states we can hit before Election Day.

He wanted a victory tour and booked a reality tour

That’s the joke at the center of this. Trump wanted his Cabinet crisscrossing the country telling people what he’s accomplished — and instead they’re getting a firsthand tour of what he’s accomplished.

Sure, some stops go fine. Hegseth got good reviews at a GOP event in Iowa. RFK still has his devotees. Strategists still like Bessent as a messenger. But that was never the problem. The problem is that no messenger, however slick, can make the contradictions vanish. You can’t run on America First and expect ranchers to cheer foreign beef. You can’t claim you fixed affordability while your Energy Secretary is getting grilled about gas prices. And you can’t build the harshest immigration regime in memory without discovering there’s a wing of your own movement that will always demand more.

Trump built a movement on anger. Now a good chunk of that anger is swinging back around at him.

So please, fellas — keep talking. Keep walking Cabinet secretaries into rooms full of people who can ask about prices, about ruined farms, about the America First promises that didn’t survive contact with reality. Because reality is the one thing Trump has never managed to control. He can call the polls fake, blame the Democrats, blame the media, fire off another list of his own accomplishments — but eventually people just look around at their own lives and decide whether they believe him.

And Trump has apparently concluded the smartest way to win the midterms is to send his Cabinet out and hand voters the chance to do exactly that.

Go with God, Donald.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Nancy Smith spent fifteen years in prison for a crime she always said she never committed. And when you look at how the investigation was built, this case should rattle anyone who claims to believe in the system.

There was no physical evidence. Her school bus wasn’t late. The mileage showed no mystery trip. The kids initially told investigators nothing happened. And one of the central figures in the accusations — a bus aide named Joseph — didn’t exist.

She was convicted anyway. Thirty to ninety years.

How you convict an innocent person

Smith was a school bus driver in Lorain, Ohio, accused in 1993 of taking preschoolers somewhere and abusing them. These were horrific allegations — and that’s exactly the moment investigators are supposed to be at their absolute best, because the pressure to find a monster is overwhelming.

They weren’t at their best. A medical exam found no signs of abuse. Records showed no late runs, no unexplained mileage, no suspicious absences. When there turned out to be no aide named Joseph, police arrested a man named Joseph Allen — who had a prior record but had never worked Smith’s bus. She said she’d never laid eyes on him.

As the panic spread, small children were interviewed over and over with techniques experts later called coercive — capable of manufacturing not just false answers but false memories. Parents were allowed to coach and contradict them. One boy denied anything happened for nine months before his story changed. Another described something that plainly couldn’t have occurred.

Every one of those red flags should have stopped the train. As a former cop, that’s what makes me furious: your job isn’t to prove your theory. Your job is to find out what happened. Those are not the same thing. Decide who’s guilty first, and every new fact just gets bent to fit the answer you already picked. When cops and prosecutors do that, somebody loses their life. Nancy Smith lost fifteen years of hers.

The system admitted it — then some people refused to accept the admission

Eventually it fell apart. The Ohio Innocence Project took the case, and the jury turned out to have never heard the half of it: that the children’s first accounts contradicted their testimony, that most of them failed to pick Allen out of a lineup video, that Smith’s own lawyer never presented the mileage and attendance records or called the actual bus aides who said she’d done nothing wrong.

In 2022 a judge granted new trials. The Lorain County prosecutor at the time, J.D. Tomlinson, backed the decision, dismissed the charges, and apologized for what he called an “ill-conceived prosecution.” After nearly three decades, Nancy Smith was exonerated.

That should have been the end — the rare moment a system says we got this wrong, we can’t give the years back, but we can tell the truth. Instead the fight kept going. Tomlinson, a Democrat, lost reelection to Republican Tony Cillo, who calls Smith’s exoneration “one of the most flagrant frauds upon the entire state of Ohio.” Ohio’s Republican Attorney General, Dave Yost, is fighting her bid for wrongful-imprisonment compensation. Some of the people she’s suing are trying to unwind the exoneration itself.

She’s 69. She lives on less than $500 a month. And she’s still fighting.

So let’s actually talk about “law and order”

I’m a former cop, so let’s have this conversation honestly. If you demand accountability when a person commits a crime, you have to demand it when the government gets the wrong person. You don’t get to pick one.

Backing the blue can’t mean defending every investigation forever. Supporting prosecutors can’t mean a prosecutor is never allowed to say another prosecutor blew it. And accountability can’t be something that only ever happens to the defendant. We can take your freedom, put your face on the news, tell your whole town you did something monstrous, and lock you in a cage for decades. That power comes with one obligation above all others: get it right. And when we don’t, the accountability has to point back at us too.

The hard part is that the system is wired against admitting error. A prosecutor gets credit for the big conviction. Police get credit for closing the horrible case. Then twenty years later the evidence curdles — and now admitting it means lawsuits, compensation, wrecked reputations, and uncomfortable questions about every other case those people touched. So an institution built to find the truth suddenly has every incentive to defend the past instead. That’s the whole reason independent review and innocence work exist. The question can never be “how do we protect the conviction?” It has to stay “did we convict the right person?”

This keeps happening

Smith was swept up in the daycare-abuse hysteria of the ‘80s and ‘90s — a moral panic that has since produced more than 60 exonerations across 13 states. Once a society convinces itself that hidden monsters are everywhere, asking for evidence starts to look like defending the monster. We’ve seen that pattern over and over in American history, and we’re watching versions of it in our politics right now. Fear and outrage are powerful, and politicians and social media both know it. The most important question — is this actually true? — is the first one to get drowned out.

That’s the job. A cop isn’t there to validate what the public desperately wants to believe. He’s there to establish what the evidence actually proves.

What accountability really means

Nancy Smith missed weddings, graduations, births. Her daughter had a miscarriage while she was locked up and called her saying “I need you.” She couldn’t go. You don’t hand those years back.

So when a politician waves “law and order” around like a slogan, understand what it should actually mean. Not automatically believing cops. Not automatically believing prosecutors. And definitely not shielding the government from embarrassment. It means following the evidence wherever it goes, holding people accountable when the proof is there — and having the guts to admit it when the government destroyed the wrong life.

Because if accountability only ever applies to the people the government prosecutes, that isn’t accountability. That’s just power. The goal was never to protect the system. It was to make the system worth protecting.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Let me get the cheap shot off the table first, because I’m not interested in it.

Donald Trump has put on a good bit of weight. And no — I don’t think being overweight makes anybody a bad person, and I’ve got zero interest in fat-shaming an 80-year-old man. If Trump wants to eat McDonald’s three meals a day and never set foot in a gym, honestly, that’s his business.

Except for the one detail that changes everything: he’s the President of the United States.

The numbers, and the caveat that comes with them

A new Washington Post report says doctors are increasingly uneasy about Trump’s weight — not on its own, but as one piece of a bigger picture around the health of the oldest man ever to hold the office. At his May physical he weighed 238 pounds. His 2023 Georgia booking record listed him at 215. That’s a 23-pound jump, though it’s worth being honest that the reliability of that original booking number is genuinely in question. The administration’s own account is cleaner and still notable: 14 pounds gained between his two most recent annual physicals.

At six-foot-three, 238 puts him right at the edge of the clinical obesity line.

And again — so what? If this were some anonymous retiree in Florida, nobody outside his family should give it a second thought. But Trump isn’t anonymous, and he isn’t retired. He’s got the nuclear codes.

The weight is a symptom of the real question, not the story itself

Here’s why this actually lands. The weight isn’t happening in a vacuum. We’ve already had questions about the bruising on his hands. The swelling around his ankles. Moments of apparent drowsiness. And now his own White House physicians have reportedly told him to drop weight, fix his diet, and start moving.

Let me be clear about what that does and doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean the man is dying. It doesn’t mean he’s secretly incapacitated. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean I can sit here squinting at photos and news clippings and diagnose the president with anything. I can’t, and neither can you.

What it means is there are legitimate questions — and I want to be careful here, because we just spent four years watching the entire country lose its mind over Joe Biden’s age. Some of those questions turned out to be completely fair. Others turned into unhinged internet theater every time the guy stumbled on a word or walked stiff for three seconds. We shouldn’t now run that exact same play in reverse just because the party in the White House flipped.

The standard ought to be simple and it ought to be blind to party: if you’re asking Americans to hand you command of the military and the most powerful office on earth, they’re owed honest information about whether you can physically and mentally do the job. That was true for Biden. It’s true for Trump. It’s true for whoever comes next.

The tell is in how the White House answers

The White House says Trump’s doing great — points to his schedule, the public appearances, the golf, what they call extraordinary stamina, plus positive markers on cognition and overall functioning. Fine. That’s real evidence and it belongs in the conversation.

But when the Post asked specifically about the weight, the White House didn’t actually answer. Instead it put out a statement praising Trump’s energy and — because apparently no one in that building can discuss Trump’s health for ten consecutive seconds without pivoting — accused Democrats and the media of covering up Biden’s decline.

That’s where I get off the bus. “Joe Biden was old” is not a response to a question about Donald Trump. Biden isn’t the president. Trump is. When the answer to “how’s his health?” is “well, the other guy was worse,” that’s not an answer. That’s a dodge wearing a flag pin.

They also wouldn’t say whether Trump’s ever used a GLP-1 weight-loss drug. Trump says he hasn’t. The White House previously denied he was the unnamed older patient the administration reportedly helped fast-track access to an experimental Eli Lilly weight-loss medication. There’s no evidence he received it — so don’t spin that into a conspiracy. We don’t know. That’s the whole point: we keep landing on “we don’t know.”

Do I feel bad for him? Not entirely.

There’s one part of this I’ve got limited sympathy for. This is a man who has spent years using other people’s bodies as punchlines — Chris Christie, JB Pritzker, Jerry Nadler. Just last month he was cracking jokes about Christie and Nadler fighting over a cheesecake.

So am I going to clutch my pearls now that the conversation has swung around to him? No. You don’t get to spend years mocking people for their weight and then demand everyone suddenly mind their manners the moment it’s your turn.

But here’s the distinction that actually matters, and I want it on the record: I don’t care that Trump gained weight because I want to dunk on how he looks. I care because he’s 80 years old and he’s running the country. This was never about appearance. It’s about fitness for office.

Why “he’s fat” is the wrong frame

One of the doctors the Post talked to made the smart point: BMI isn’t the whole story, especially for someone that age. Body composition, cardiovascular health, mobility, metabolic health, day-to-day function — any of those can matter more than an arbitrary number on a scale. Which is exactly why turning this into “Trump is fat” is both cruel and dumb. It misses the actual question, which is whether we’re getting an accurate picture of the president’s health at all.

Because every president has enormous incentive to project strength. Every White House staff has enormous incentive to shield the boss. Every political party has enormous incentive to insist everything’s fine. We have watched this exact movie, recently, with the last guy. And I don’t care whether there’s a D or an R after the name — real questions about the health of the person in the Oval Office deserve real answers. Not memes. Not living-room diagnoses. And not a press release ranking your guy against the previous one.

Just tell us the truth

For what it’s worth, Trump has admitted for years that his weight is something he ought to watch — back in 2016 he talked about wanting to drop 15 or 20 pounds, his first-term doctor recommended weight loss, and his weight later climbed to 243, then 244, before coming down ahead of the 2024 campaign. Now it’s headed back up.

Maybe that’s all this is. Maybe he’s just an 80-year-old who likes cheeseburgers, hates the treadmill, and put some weight back on. Could be that simple.

But given everything else stacked next to it, the American people shouldn’t have to guess. Release accurate medical information. Answer reasonable questions. Stop treating the president’s health like proprietary political property.

Because after what this country just went through with an aging president, we should have learned the lesson by now: the health of the President of the United States isn’t a partisan issue, it isn’t a punchline, and it isn’t something the White House gets to wave off just because they’ve decided, on our behalf, that everything’s fine.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Trump’s entire strategy depends on you folding. Canada didn’t.

For years, his whole political identity has run on one idea: make the threat big enough and eventually the other guy caves. Countries cave. Companies cave. Republicans sure as hell cave. His second-term trade playbook is exactly that — threaten massive tariffs, spook everyone’s businesses, then offer a way out, provided you take the terms he puts in front of you.

Then, with less than an hour before a midnight deadline, Prime Minister Mark Carney told his negotiators to walk away rather than sign a deal he considered bad — a deal Trump had already announced was basically done. Apparently nobody told Canada. When Trump’s new 50 percent tariffs hit roughly $20 billion of Canadian goods, Carney said Canada would retaliate dollar for dollar starting September 8, and told his country, bluntly, that America was trying to break them so it could own them.

Americans should pay attention to this — not because it’s a story about Canada, but because it’s a story about how you deal with a bully.

Understand first that Canada didn’t walk away from some obviously insane offer. There was a real deal on the table. Days earlier, the two sides looked close; Reuters reported the U.S. was weighing cutting tariffs on Canadian cars and trucks from 25 to 15 percent, and steel and aluminum from 50 to 25 under a quota. Canada was still pushing for more. Then, according to Carney, the U.S. dropped in last-minute demands — including restrictions on Canada’s ability to set its own tariffs in trade with other countries. His answer was essentially: no.

And this is a genuinely consequential call, because Canada leans hard on the United States. These aren’t two countries that occasionally sell each other things — their supply chains are fused, with parts crossing the border several times before a finished product rolls off the line. The new tariffs hit about $20 billion in goods, roughly 5 percent of Canada’s annual exports to the U.S., everything from food and furniture to clothing and hockey gear. Carney isn’t pretending it won’t hurt. It will. Canadian businesses and workers take a hit, and when Canada retaliates — on American steel, dairy, electronics, farm equipment, pulp and paper, appliances — Canadians pay some of that too.

That’s how tariffs work. They’re taxes on imports. When Trump slaps 50 percent on Canadian products, Canada doesn’t cut him a check — American importers pay, and the cost rides the supply chain to American consumers and businesses. That’s why trade wars are so stupid. You can use tariffs strategically; governments always have. But when tariffs become your answer to every disagreement, you end up taxing your own economy to prove you’re tough. Canada’s response is simply: if you’re willing to make us hurt, we’re willing to make you feel some of it.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Trump’s style needs the other side to believe two things: that he’s willing to hurt you, and that you’re not willing to hurt him back. That’s the whole game. He’s spent years treating Canada like an economic dependent — floating the “51st state” line, describing the country as basically living because America lets it. Think about how insane that is to say about one of your closest allies, a neighbor you share the longest border on earth with, whose economy and communities and families are woven into ours. Trump looked at that relationship and saw leverage. So now Canada is starting to treat that much dependence on the U.S. as a national security problem in itself.

And Carney didn’t dream this up last week. At Davos he argued the international order has fundamentally shifted — that countries like Canada can no longer assume the U.S. will always be the stable center of the Western alliance. Since taking office he’s been diversifying, chasing deeper ties in Europe and Asia and striking a trade deal with China; the Associated Press reports Canada has signed more than 20 new agreements over the past year to cut its exposure to American pressure. That’s the part Trump ought to sit with. You can bully allies into concessions, but eventually they start building a future where they don’t need you — and once they do, the leverage doesn’t just come back.

Look at who folded elsewhere. The European Union accepted a framework with a 15 percent U.S. tariff across a wide range of goods, selling it as better than an escalating war even while admitting it wasn’t what they wanted. Canada looked at that model and ran a different math: maybe eating the bad deal buys stability today, but what happens the next time Trump wants something? That’s the trouble with paying a bully — you don’t buy peace, you just set the price of the next threat.

And Trump may have badly misjudged one more thing: he’s handed Canada a common enemy. Carney’s move drew support across the spectrum — Ontario’s conservative premier Doug Ford backed him, British Columbia’s progressive premier David Eby backed him, and plenty of people who never voted for him rallied around not being dictated to by Washington. Trump thinks pressure produces submission. Sometimes it produces solidarity.

I won’t oversell it. I don’t know if Carney’s gamble works, and anybody promising you it’s a guaranteed win is lying. Canada could get hurt badly — the U.S. has the bigger economy, and Canada needs American trade more than the reverse. That’s reality. But leadership sometimes means seeing that the cheapest option today becomes the most expensive one tomorrow. Carney decided there was a line past which keeping the relationship on Trump’s terms was worse than absorbing the cost of saying no. Whatever the economics, I respect the principle — because I’ve watched a decade of people deal with this man. Republicans humiliating themselves for him. People he personally insulted turning around to flatter him. Institutions convincing themselves that if they just give him this one thing, he’ll finally be satisfied. He never is.

So maybe the lesson runs past tariffs. Trump’s power has always leaned on the belief that resisting him costs more than giving in. Carney just decided to test that. Maybe Canada wins this fight, maybe Trump does, maybe — as usual — ordinary people on both sides pay for politicians measuring themselves against each other. But something bigger is happening: one of America’s closest allies is restructuring its future because it no longer believes it can count on us. That doesn’t make America stronger. It gives away one of the greatest advantages we’ve had for generations — allies who actually trusted us. And if the answer to that is another tariff, another threat, another joke about annexation, we’re going to learn something Trump apparently hasn’t: you can only weaponize a relationship for so long before the other side decides they’d rather not have it at all.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Nobody disputes that Lindsay Clancy killed her three children.

Cora was five. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. She strangled them inside their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, then tried to take her own life by jumping from a second-story window. Her lawyers aren’t claiming someone else was in that house. So you might wonder why there’s a trial at all.

The reason is that the question in front of this jury isn’t whether she killed her children. It’s whether she was legally responsible when she did. The defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and couldn’t appreciate the criminality of her actions or conform her behavior to the law. Prosecutors agree she was mentally ill — but say she wasn’t psychotic, and knew exactly what she was doing. Under the law, that distinction is everything.

I spent twenty years as a cop. I’ve dealt with people in mental-health crises and people who’ve done horrific things, and one thing you learn fast is that figuring out what someone did isn’t the same as figuring out why. Here we know what happened. The hard question is what was happening inside her mind when it did.

On January 24, 2023, Lindsay was home with the kids when her husband, Patrick, left to pick up dinner and medication. When he came back, he found her outside, then found the children. All three eventually died. Lindsay survived, paralyzed. Under Massachusetts law, once criminal responsibility is properly raised, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was responsible — because being mentally ill doesn’t automatically make you legally insane. You can be severely depressed, or suicidal, or carry a psychiatric diagnosis and still understand what you’re doing and that it’s wrong. The question is whether Lindsay crossed that much higher legal line.

There’s a lot for the jury to weigh, and it cuts both ways.

For months beforehand, she was telling people something was wrong. Debilitating insomnia. Intrusive thoughts. Suicidal thoughts. She sought therapy, went to emergency rooms twice, attended a day program, entered a residential psychiatric program, called a suicide hotline. According to the Times, she was given 30 prescriptions involving 13 medications. At one point she messaged her psychiatric nurse practitioner three words that are hard to read now: “I really need help.” Patrick testified that months earlier, she had disclosed thoughts about harming the children. None of that proves she was legally insane on January 24th. But as an investigator, you can’t ignore it — this isn’t a case where a perfectly healthy woman suddenly killed her kids out of nowhere. There’s a documented trail of a woman repeatedly telling people something was seriously wrong.

Then there’s the prosecution’s case, and it’s substantial. They argue she deliberately created the chance to be alone with the children — sending Patrick out for food and medicine. People who spoke with her around that time didn’t describe someone obviously detached from reality. Prosecutors introduced digital evidence — phone activity, searches, Apple Watch data — to reconstruct what she was doing in the house. Patrick testified he spoke with her from the pharmacy and thought she sounded like she might be in the middle of something but otherwise normal; prosecutors say that call happened during the window the children were being killed. Their argument is simple: she could communicate, she could plan, she waited until he left, she moved through the house, she interacted normally. Those facts matter.

But they don’t necessarily settle the question — and this is where a lot of people watching go wrong. We carry a Hollywood picture of psychosis: someone screaming at the walls, incoherent, incapable of ordering dinner. That’s not always how it works. Defense experts testified that a person in psychosis can still perform ordinary tasks. Psychologist Paul Zeizel testified she suffered from bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis and wasn’t criminally responsible; forensic psychiatrist Phillip Resnick reportedly described her as “frankly psychotic.” The prosecution’s psychiatrist, Avram Mack, testified he believed she had major depression but wasn’t psychotic and retained criminal responsibility. Qualified experts, same woman, opposite conclusions. Welcome to an insanity case.

And there’s something I can’t get past. Lindsay Clancy repeatedly asked for help. That doesn’t absolve her, and it doesn’t prove she was psychotic — and three dead children should never become footnotes in a conversation about their mother. But we can hold two things at once. Cora, Dawson, and Callan were the victims of a horrific act. And before that act, their mother moved through a mental-health system telling people something was badly wrong — hospitals, treatment, a suicide hotline, intrusive thoughts, I need help — and no one diagnosed postpartum psychosis before those children died. From a public-safety standpoint, that should scare the hell out of us. Cops usually arrive at the end of these stories: something terrible has already happened, someone calls 911, and we show up to piece together what occurred. But work backward through a tragedy like this and you often find warning after warning — and the real question becomes how many chances there were to keep anyone from ever making that call.

This has since become a culture war. Hundreds of women in pink have gathered outside the courthouse in support; others are furious that anyone could sympathize with a woman who killed her children. I understand both reactions, but neither one tells you whether she’s criminally responsible. She doesn’t need to become a feminist symbol, or a symbol of everything wrong with modern medicine, or a monster. She’s a defendant, and that’s how a jury has to see her. Criminal trials aren’t decided by online polls for a reason.

We’ve been here before. In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a Texas bathtub. She had a history of severe psychiatric illness and psychosis; she was convicted, the conviction was overturned, and at her second trial she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. One of the psychiatrists who supported the Yates insanity defense, Dr. Phillip Resnick, is now testifying for Clancy. Cases like these force an almost impossible question: is an act this horrific proof someone deserves the harshest punishment possible — or can an act become so incomprehensible that severe mental illness becomes part of how it happened at all? The law doesn’t ask you to answer that philosophically. It hands twelve people a standard and tells them to apply the evidence.

With my law-enforcement hat on, I’d be looking for intent, planning, concealment, awareness, cognition — why Patrick left, what she did before he did, what she searched, what she said to people, what she did afterward, whether her statements matched the physical and digital evidence. But here’s the thing planning can’t do by itself: it doesn’t disprove psychosis. A person in the grip of a delusion can plan and carry out a series of steps. The question is what they believed those steps were accomplishing. That’s what makes this so hard.

I’m not going to tell twelve jurors what verdict to reach before they’ve heard the case — that’s their job. But this trial exposes something our debates are terrible at holding: two things can be true at once. We have to take mental illness seriously without turning it into an excuse for every crime, and we have to face the horror of a crime without pretending mental illness doesn’t exist.

Three children were killed. No diagnosis and no verdict changes that. Cora was five. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. They should be alive. The jury’s question isn’t whether what happened to them was horrific — everyone knows it was. It’s whether their mother committed murder in the legal sense, or was so profoundly ill that the law says she can’t be held responsible. And after the verdict, the rest of us are left with another one: how does a person tell the people treating her, over and over, that something is terribly wrong — and no one understands how wrong until three children are dead?

Because by the time cops are called to a scene like that, prevention is already over. All that’s left is figuring out what happened, and living with it.

This piece discusses suicide and severe mental illness. If you or someone you know is struggling, you can reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988 in the U.S. For pregnancy- and postpartum-related mental health, Postpartum Support International’s helpline is 1-800-944-4773.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!