Charles Francis (LGBTQ NATION) reports:
At last, there is a novel about Katharine Hepburn.
Hepburn’s director and friend, George Cukor, would hate it, as would Hepburn herself, who would despise it with her trademark imperious finality. Readers, especially gays and lesbians who love their Turner Film Classics, will savor it because it rings so true. The Original by Priya Parmar is not another Hepburn biography; it is a work of historical fiction that conveys the emotional life of a woman who was a Rubik’s Cube of masks, roles, and selves.
Who was “Kate Hep,” as she would sign her notes? Parmar has created a breathtaking novel of research, yielding the emotional terrain of this self-created and unknowable woman. Even so, after reading The Original, readers may well conclude that at her core, Hepburn was a lesbian.
Despite all the movable “cubies,” even Rubik’s Cubes have a core. So often Hepburn is described as an opaque bi-riddle or in consummate love with the bisexual and married Spencer Tracy. Still, this does not really align the cubies. She and Tracy lived cocooned on a block off Sunset Blvd. in the garden compound of Cukor, the closeted gay legendary director.
For decades, this was a gay kingdom behind walls, a place where Cary Grant swam with Randolph Scott. Why does this matter now? It matters because LGBTQ+ Americans are still excavating the erasure of our history. We must, especially in these times of total political assault. The Original rescues both our history and the dignity of an immensely popular star who re-engineered herself over decades to survive.
Hepburn was a lesbian. She had a few affairs with men but she mainly slept with women. Spencer Tracy was mainly gay and after he died she turned a brief sexual relationship into a lifelong affair. She lied because she was deep in the closet. She'd stopped sleeping with Spencer long ago but remained his friend. John Derek, for example, serviced Spencer and that's how Hepburn met him. She didn't like him.
She had affairs with Laura Harding, Claudette Colbert and many other women.
It should be known and it should be public and it should be celebrated.
Instead, too many insist upon her remaining in the closet she built for herself.
We need honesty and we need to understand the human condition.
LGBTQ+ people are part of our culture today and were part of it in the past as well.
"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
President Trump has said that the United States will charge a 20 percent fee on cargo shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, despite his own administration’s position that such fees violate international law.
He made the announcement on Monday amid an intensifying battle between Iran and the United States to control the waterway, a crucial artery for global energy supplies. The two countries have traded attacks over the strait for the past week, in effect shattering their month-old cease-fire.
A 20 percent fee on the value of a vessel’s cargo could more than double the cost of shipping oil through the strait, experts said.
For a large tanker carrying two million barrels of oil, for example, the fee could add over $30 million in costs. Consumers would likely face higher prices as a result.
Because of the high cost, some analysts said they doubted whether the fee would come into force. For ship operators in the region, the prospect of fees is less of a concern right now than an escalation of the conflict between Iran and the United States, experts said.
Except there is a judge and settling a case in a corrupt bargain does not remove the judge from that equation. Judge Kathleen Williams has now declined to accept the premise that a lawsuit between a man and himself is, to use the parties’ word, “ordinary.”
There is nothing “ordinary” about this case; it is the very definition of sui generis.
In the past, there might have been a colorable claim that the president in his personal capacity is not the same as the executive agencies he directs. It still would run head first into concerns about the level of independence any agency head could possibly have in such a case — not to mention the fact that the president in charge during the offending conduct was the same one cosplaying as a plaintiff — but Judge Williams notes that the Supreme Court just put the kibosh on that:
Indeed, just recently, the Supreme Court cited Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 133 (1926) as a “landmark decision” and “perhaps our best word on the subject” of whether the President could remove subordinates in government service at will. Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __, slip op. at 16 (2026). Finding that he could, the majority ruled that “[s]ubordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” Id. at 36. “[T]hese officers exercise the President’s power, not their own, and thus must be responsible to him.” Id. at 35 (emphasis in original).
Judge Williams, in her order, said that Trump's personal lawyers and the Department of Justice attempted to "use the Court to provide some legitimacy ... to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law."
"The Parties used the existence of federal litigation as a means of conferring legitimacy upon a course of action that they were unwilling to subject to judicial review," Williams wrote. "The context of the 'settlement,' the relationships of the people involved in negotiating and approving it, the ethical implications of their conduct, and the Parties' swift efforts to dismiss this case after the Court raised fundamental jurisdictional questions all support this conclusion. Accordingly, the Court expressly finds that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith."
Williams also directly called out acting Attorney General Todd Blanche throughout her order, and suggested he provided "misleading" testimony before Congress when probed over the Justice Department's now-defunct "Anti-Weaponization Fund."
"The Court is extremely troubled by the testimony given by Acting Attorney General Blanche on May 19, 2026," Williams said. "In response to why the 'settlement agreement' had not been submitted to this Court for review, he stated that 'there is no judge' because the case had been dismissed and, therefore, there was "no mechanism" for reviewing the agreement ... While temporally accurate, this answer is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous. The Court was available to review any pleading by any Party at any time during this lawsuit. And if Acting Attorney General Blanche had thought the dismissal was improvidently granted or thought Plaintiffs misspoke when they said, "no judicial analysis is appropriate," he only had to file an appearance and ask for relief."
Mr. Martin, a right-wing lawyer who championed the cause of the Jan. 6 rioters, had just been forced out as the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The White House then inserted him into Justice Department headquarters, in part to oversee a task force to investigate claims that the Biden administration had targeted President Trump and his allies.
Mr. Blanche, who once led Mr. Trump’s criminal defense team, did not believe that Mr. Martin, a provocateur with minimal prosecutorial experience, had the chops and know-how to do the job, according to current and former officials who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations.
“I am frustrated,” Mr. Blanche wrote to Mr. Martin, after less than a month on the job, documenting a relationship that swiftly descended from tense to testy.
He moved quickly to rein in Mr. Martin, scheduling a check-in meeting every Friday, according to a trove of internal Justice Department emails obtained by a government watchdog and provided to The New York Times in advance of Mr. Blanche’s confirmation hearing to be attorney general on Wednesday.
Mr. Blanche, a methodical former federal prosecutor, also created an organizational plan for the weaponization group that assigned key investigative lanes to some of his own deputies. That ensured, among other things, that he had tight control over one of the most sensitive issues on his plate — demands from Mr. Trump and his supporters to identify, investigate and punish those who had once pursued them.
The multifaceted portrait of Mr. Blanche that emerges from 352 pages of documents obtained by American Oversight is of a Trump loyalist who is committed to executing the president’s agenda but also intent on keeping a firm a grip on processes inside his building, perhaps because he has such limited control over forces beyond it.
When Blanche began overseeing Martin's work in attacking those who Chump wanted revenge on, he was breaking the ethics pledge he had signed about recusing himself. Senator Adam Schiff noted this pledge May 19th in a letter he wrote with Senators Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal:
We are writing to seek information regarding recent reports indicating that potentially serious ethical violations have taken place at the highest levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ). As the Designated Agency Ethics Official and most senior career official at the Department, you have a unique and important role in defending the Department’s integrity. Specifically, we are seeking prompt clarification regarding Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s potential failure to recuse himself from matters involving his former private client, President Donald Trump, even after he was advised to recuse himself by ethics officials. Furthermore, we request that you personally ensure the preservation of all existing and future records, communications, and materials related toethics advice provided by Department or external ethics officials to senior political DOJ appointees – including previous officials who have left the Department.
In a stark diversion from institutional norms, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche – as well as others appointed to lead the Justice Department – previously served as President Trump’s personal attorney. Recent public reporting revealed that in March 2025, less than two weeks after assuming the role of Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Blanche was explicitly and formally advised by the Department’s top career ethics lawyer that his recusal from legal cases involving President Trump in his personal capacity was necessary.
At Mr. Blanche’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 12, 2025, he committed to recusing himself from cases when advised to by government ethics officials. When Sen. Schiff asked Mr. Blanche about potential conflicts of interest he may face as Deputy Attorney General stemming from his private representation of President Trump in federal criminal matters, he stated under oath, “I will follow the rules as told to me by the experts, career prosecutors in the department, if it comes to ever recusing.”The unmistakable understanding from this testimony is that Mr. Blanche would recuse himself from matters where he was advised to do so by an ethics official.
Upon his confirmation as Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Blanche signed an ethics pledge – addressed to you – stating that, pursuant to the department’s impartiality regulation, he would not participate “personally and substantially in any particular matter” involving parties in which a former client – such as President Trump – is a party for a period of one year after he last provided service to that client or until the client satisfies any outstanding bill, whichever is later. Furthermore, Department regulations strictly prohibit his participation in any criminal investigation or prosecution in which he holds a relationship – including a “close personal relationship,” as an attorney, or otherwise – with anyone involved in the matter.
Instead, Mr. Blanche appears to have ignored ethics and legal advice. This misconduct would be considered extreme on its own and is even more offensive given President Trump’s unprecedented efforts to seek vast personal financial compensation from taxpayer money and use the Department to exact vengeance against his political enemies.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the following statement in response to the news that a coalition of 12 attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger:
“A Paramount-Warner Bros. megamerger would mean higher costs and fewer choices for Americans. Good news: the states are stepping up to block this antitrust nightmare. This fight isn’t over.”
###
