newyorker--2020-01-30--Alan Dershowitz for the Defense: L’État, C’est Trump

An hour into the Senate trial of Donald John Trump on Wednesday , the emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz came to the floor to answer a question from a former Harvard law student , Senator Ted Cruz , of Texas .
In theory , it was a question that went to the heart of the impeachment case against Trump , about the President ’ s imposition of a quid pro quo on military aid to Ukraine and whether his motivations mattered .
Dershowitz had something larger and more profound to say , however : Donald Trump has the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do , and there ’ s nothing that the U.S. Senate can or should do about it .
For more than a week , House managers prosecuting the impeachment case against Trump have argued that the Senate ’ s failure to convict him would make Trump an unaccountable leader ; in effect , a dictator or a king .
When Dershowitz spoke , it was if he completely agreed with them .
Two days earlier , Dershowitz had told senators that Presidential “ abuse of power ” should not be considered an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , he took that further—much further .
“ If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment , ” he argued .
Dershowitz was offering Trump—and all future Presidents—a free pass .
His argument seemed unbelievable : as long as the President thinks his reëlection will benefit the country , he can do anything in pursuit of it without fear of impeachment .
Really ?
Trump has already said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II of the Constitution “ to do whatever I want.
” Video of this extraordinary moment has been played , repeatedly , by House managers in the trial .
They clearly saw it as a damning statement made by a power-grabbing President—and then the President ’ s counsel , in effect , endorsed Trump ’ s power grab on the floor of the Senate .
So long as Trump believes himself to be acting in the national interest , Dershowitz said , he can do whatever he wants .
If the past three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that Trump is a President who is comfortable conflating his own interest with the national interest .
L ’ état , c ’ est Trump .
Were the senators supposed to take this seriously ?
Was it all just a show for the loyal Trump viewers on Fox ?
( That , after all , is how Dershowitz landed his Trump gig in the first place—going on the President ’ s favorite programs night after night to defend him . )
After Dershowitz ’ s rant , his co-counsel Jay Sekulow launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrelated to the impeachment case surrounding Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme .
He mentioned the 2016 Steele dossier , about Trump ’ s alleged ties to Russia , and Fusion GPS , the opposition-research firm that funded it .
He talked about the F.B.I .
and surveillance of the Trump campaign .
The conspiracy theories Sekulow offered , though , didn ’ t really matter any more than Dershowitz ’ s outlandish constitutional theories did .
The Senate math is the Senate math : Trump ’ s side has the votes to acquit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the clock on the impeachment trial before the President ’ s inevitable acquittal by a Republican majority .
Sekulow and Dershowitz might as well have been reading the phone book .
Their arguments on Wednesday came during the first day of Question Time , a unique aspect of the Presidential impeachment proceeding in which the Senate has up to sixteen hours , divided equally among the parties , over two days , to send written questions to the duelling legal teams , to be read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Question Time turned out to be a largely partisan box-checking exercise , with Democrats asking questions of the Democratic House managers and Republicans asking questions of the President ’ s legal team .
There was no dialogue or debate between the two sides , or even a genuine effort to poke holes in each other ’ s arguments ; these were , for the most part , parallel conversations .
In the first two hours , there were only two questions that broke from the pattern of each party talking to itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and several other senators crossed the partisan divide , but only to ask House managers to confirm identifying details about the intelligence-community whistle-blower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry last fall .
The House managers refused .
The arguments on the floor , to the extent that there was a running theme , revolved around the one remaining unsettled question : Will Senators hear testimony and evidence that Trump has blocked from Congress , most notably from John Bolton , the former Trump national-security adviser who has , according to the Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitting that he was withholding millions in security aid to Ukraine on the condition of politically beneficial investigations ?
Bolton says that he is prepared to testify to the Senate about it , and there would seem to be no more relevant witness , considering that is precisely the allegation in the first article of impeachment .
But Trump and his allies in the Senate G.O.P .
are pushing ahead to vote for Trump ’ s acquittal as soon as Friday , without Bolton ’ s testimony—or anyone else ’ s not already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not surprisingly , made this the focus of many of their answers .
“ Don ’ t wait for the book , ” Adam Schiff , the lead House manager , said .
Have Bolton testify , he begged the senators .
“ You can erase all doubt.
” Before the senators ’ questions began on Wednesday , I sat down with Zoe Lofgren , one of the House managers prosecuting the case against Trump .
The California Democrat has the distinction of having participated in all three impeachment proceedings of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Nixon ’ s impeachment process ; as a House Judiciary member during Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment ; and now as a House manager during Trump ’ s .
She told me that the House managers had been working in the Capitol on Sunday when the Times story about Bolton ’ s forthcoming book was published .
“ The first words out of my mouth were ‘ yikes , ’ ” she recalled .
“ I just thought , Wow , that is a game-changer .
That ’ s like when Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ and he had to announce his resignation.
” Of course , that ’ s not what happened this time .
Not only is Trump not resigning but , in the three days since the Bolton revelations were published , the momentum appears to have shifted in the Senate Republican Conference—against hearing Bolton or any other witnesses .
In the corridors off the Senate floor , Cory Gardner , of Colorado—a Republican facing a tough race this fall , who was previously seen as a possible swing vote on the issue—said that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters that they were prepared to move quickly after a vote against witnesses on Friday to a final vote on acquittal .
“ The momentum is clearly in the direction of moving to final judgment on Friday , ” John Barrasso , of Wyoming , told reporters .
It turns out , once again , that Republican senators are more afraid of Donald Trump than of voters , who continue to strongly favor witness testimony , according to every public poll .
Just in case the vote counts weren ’ t as solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments on the floor seemed aimed at scaring any wavering Republicans back into line .
Calling Bolton , Trump ’ s lawyers warned , would not be the end of it .
They might call the former Vice-President Joe Biden , or Schiff himself , or the whistle-blower .
The Senate “ will be effectively paralyzed for months on end , ” a Trump White House lawyer , Patrick Philbin , told the senators .
“ This would drag on for months.
” But will it ?
On Thursday , the senators ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the senators will finally have to do what they have so far avoided , which is vote .
Until then , it ’ s all just talking .

An hour into the Senate trial of Donald John Trump on Wednesday, the emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz came to the floor to answer a question from a former Harvard law student, Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas. In theory, it was a question that went to the heart of the impeachment case against Trump, about the President’s imposition of a quid pro quo on military aid to Ukraine and whether his motivations mattered. Dershowitz had something larger and more profound to say, however: Donald Trump has the power to do just about anything he wants to do, and there’s nothing that the U.S. Senate can or should do about it.
For more than a week, House managers prosecuting the impeachment case against Trump have argued that the Senate’s failure to convict him would make Trump an unaccountable leader; in effect, a dictator or a king. When Dershowitz spoke, it was as if he completely agreed with them. Two days earlier, Dershowitz had told senators that Presidential “abuse of power” should not be considered an impeachable offense under the Constitution. On Wednesday, he took that further—much further. “If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he argued. Dershowitz was offering Trump—and all future Presidents—a free pass. His argument seemed unbelievable: as long as the President thinks his reëlection will benefit the country, he can do anything in pursuit of it without fear of impeachment. Really?
Trump has already said that he considers himself empowered by Article II of the Constitution “to do whatever I want.” Video of this extraordinary moment has been played, repeatedly, by House managers in the trial. They clearly saw it as a damning statement made by a power-grabbing President—and then the President’s counsel, in effect, endorsed Trump’s power grab on the floor of the Senate. So long as Trump believes himself to be acting in the national interest, Dershowitz said, he can do whatever he wants. If the past three years have taught us anything, it is that Trump is a President who is comfortable conflating his own interest with the national interest. L’état, c’est Trump.
Were the senators supposed to take this seriously? Was it all just a show for the loyal Trump viewers on Fox? (That, after all, is how Dershowitz landed his Trump gig in the first place—going on the President’s favorite programs night after night to defend him.) After Dershowitz’s rant, his co-counsel Jay Sekulow launched into a long answer that was largely unrelated to the impeachment case surrounding Trump’s Ukraine scheme. He mentioned the 2016 Steele dossier, about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, and Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that funded it. He talked about the F.B.I. and surveillance of the Trump campaign. The conspiracy theories Sekulow offered, though, didn’t really matter any more than Dershowitz’s outlandish constitutional theories did. The Senate math is the Senate math: Trump’s side has the votes to acquit him, and the Senate is running out the clock on the impeachment trial before the President’s inevitable acquittal by a Republican majority. Sekulow and Dershowitz might as well have been reading the phone book.
Their arguments on Wednesday came during the first day of Question Time, a unique aspect of the Presidential impeachment proceeding in which the Senate has up to sixteen hours, divided equally among the parties, over two days, to send written questions to the duelling legal teams, to be read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts. Like everything else about the Senate trial, Question Time turned out to be a largely partisan box-checking exercise, with Democrats asking questions of the Democratic House managers and Republicans asking questions of the President’s legal team. There was no dialogue or debate between the two sides, or even a genuine effort to poke holes in each other’s arguments; these were, for the most part, parallel conversations. In the first two hours, there were only two questions that broke from the pattern of each party talking to itself. Later in the day, Cruz and several other senators crossed the partisan divide, but only to ask House managers to confirm identifying details about the intelligence-community whistle-blower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry last fall. The House managers refused.
The arguments on the floor, to the extent that there was a running theme, revolved around the one remaining unsettled question: Will Senators hear testimony and evidence that Trump has blocked from Congress, most notably from John Bolton, the former Trump national-security adviser who has, according to the Times, written a devastating account of the President admitting that he was withholding millions in security aid to Ukraine on the condition of politically beneficial investigations? Bolton says that he is prepared to testify to the Senate about it, and there would seem to be no more relevant witness, considering that is precisely the allegation in the first article of impeachment. But Trump and his allies in the Senate G.O.P. are pushing ahead to vote for Trump’s acquittal as soon as Friday, without Bolton’s testimony—or anyone else’s not already in the House record. The managers, not surprisingly, made this the focus of many of their answers. “Don’t wait for the book,” Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, said. Have Bolton testify, he begged the senators. “You can erase all doubt.”
Before the senators’ questions began on Wednesday, I sat down with Zoe Lofgren, one of the House managers prosecuting the case against Trump. The California Democrat has the distinction of having participated in all three impeachment proceedings of our lifetime—as a House Judiciary Committee staffer during Richard Nixon’s impeachment process; as a House Judiciary member during Bill Clinton’s impeachment; and now as a House manager during Trump’s. She told me that the House managers had been working in the Capitol on Sunday when the Times story about Bolton’s forthcoming book was published. “The first words out of my mouth were ‘yikes,’ ” she recalled. “I just thought, Wow, that is a game-changer. That’s like when Nixon admitted everything,” she added, “and he had to announce his resignation.”
Of course, that’s not what happened this time. Not only is Trump not resigning but, in the three days since the Bolton revelations were published, the momentum appears to have shifted in the Senate Republican Conference—against hearing Bolton or any other witnesses. In the corridors off the Senate floor, Cory Gardner, of Colorado—a Republican facing a tough race this fall, who was previously seen as a possible swing vote on the issue—said that he was against witnesses. Republican leaders told reporters that they were prepared to move quickly after a vote against witnesses on Friday to a final vote on acquittal. “The momentum is clearly in the direction of moving to final judgment on Friday,” John Barrasso, of Wyoming, told reporters.
It turns out, once again, that Republican senators are more afraid of Donald Trump than of voters, who continue to strongly favor witness testimony, according to every public poll. Just in case the vote counts weren’t as solid as they seemed to be, the arguments on the floor seemed aimed at scaring any wavering Republicans back into line. Calling Bolton, Trump’s lawyers warned, would not be the end of it. They might call the former Vice-President Joe Biden, or Schiff himself, or the whistle-blower. The Senate “will be effectively paralyzed for months on end,” a Trump White House lawyer, Patrick Philbin, told the senators. “This would drag on for months.”
But will it? On Thursday, the senators’ questions will continue. On Friday, the senators will finally have to do what they have so far avoided, which is vote. Until then, it’s all just talking.


newyorker--2020-01-30--So, When Can We Buy a Piece of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?

In the past couple of weeks , Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ’ s fate has been sealed : it will be what the British tabloids are calling “ a hard Megxit.
” They ’ ll cease to be working royals and will no longer go by His and Her Royal Highness .
What ’ s less clear is the fate of their brand , Sussex Royal , which currently encompasses both a Web site and a very popular Instagram account .
The road to “ financial independence , ” the couple ’ s stated goal , appears to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for what kinds of goods , people have been looking for clues in the couple ’ s trademark application , which includes product categories such as stationery , toiletries , and sporting goods .
The Daily Mail , reporting on the filing , dubbed the couple “ The Royal Cash Machines !
” ( A few days later , the paper taunted Peter Phillips , Princess Anne ’ s son , for selling milk on Chinese television . )
As a Sussex Royal Instagram follower , and , if I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I asked some experts to help me visualize what the brand could become .
Michael Stone , the chairman and co-founder of a licensing agency called Beanstalk and the author of “ The Power of Licensing : Harnessing Brand Equity , ” said that the trademark filings were probably just to cover their bases , and the odds are low that the royal couple will come out of the gate hawking body lotion and sticky notes .
“ I think the British public would recoil at that , and even in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an overcommercialization of their status , ” he told me .
Rather , he said , “ I think the initial objective should be to establish their brand as a purpose-driven brand and their careers as purpose-driven careers .
That ’ s what their generation is looking for.
” They could do this through continued charity work , and the tasteful forms of cashing in exemplified by the Obamas : a book deal , speaking engagements , producing TV shows about worthy topics .
( Meghan ’ s upcoming voice-over gig with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to charity . )
Then they can get down to the business of selling stuff , which , Stone warned , isn ’ t as easy as Oprah Winfrey makes it look .
“ The history books are littered with failed celebrity brands , ” he said .
But Markle would appear to be well positioned to pull it off .
In her previous life , as an actress , she ran a life-style blog called The Tig ( named after her favorite wine , Tignanello ) , which billed itself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a hunger for food , travel , fashion & beauty.
” She did an interview series , Tig Talks , where she chatted with Serena Williams and Elizabeth Hurley , recommended books ( “ ‘ How to Be Parisian Wherever You Are ’ : Because admit it , you want to be French ” ) , and published travel guides , such as “ An Insider ’ s Guide to Aspen ” and a list of “ Favorite Facialists Around the World.
” Her Earth Day post had a natural-beauty roundup and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth .
.
.
While Earth Day may not be your birthday , per se , it is certainly a day to celebrate you , and to take extra special care of you , you hot mama .
( No global warming pun intended there ) .
” “ She ’ s pretty Goopy , ” Elise Loehnen , the chief content officer of Gwyneth Paltrow ’ s life-style brand , Goop , said , explaining that the term referred to a strain of “ L.A .
culture ” that Markle , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practically imbibed with her mother ’ s milk .
The Tig featured an ode to her Vedic-meditation coach , who goes by the single name Light .
( Markle described him as “ one of those people that have such a quiet confidence , an ease , a manner that makes you calm-the-F-down while still feeling totally light and fun.
” ) Loehnen said , “ I know she ’ s into Alejandro Junger ’ s Clean program ” —the liquid cleanse that Paltrow made famous .
( In 2014 , Markle wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my life has never been the same.
” ) Loehnen went on , “ Examining your feelings is Goopy .
Doing somatic yoga , working with a functional doctor.
” She brought up Prince Charles ’ s well-known passion for alternative medicine .
“ I wonder if any of that ’ s trickled down.
” Elizabeth Holmes , a style reporter and the author of the forthcoming book “ HRH : So Many Thoughts on Royal Style , ” brought up Markle ’ s well-documented passion for food .
The Tig featured recipes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkey Tortilla Soup .
Sussex Royal could include a cooking section .
Holmes said that , if Markle is to resume life-style blogging , “ She absolutely needs to do a post on the engagement chicken.
” The concept , which was popularized by a 2004 Glamour article , refers to a dish that is supposedly so delicious that it will inspire a wavering boyfriend to commit .
In 2017 , Harry and Markle told the BBC that Harry proposed during a “ cozy night ” at home , while the couple roasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the peak of engagement chicken , ” Holmes said .
“ When the chicken ’ s so good , you become a duchess .
If she does launch any kind of life-style effort , she ’ ll have to post the recipe.
” And then there ’ s fashion .
At first glance , Markle ’ s minimalist style—she favors items like white button-down shirts and subtle jewelry—wouldn ’ t seem to be material for a consumerist bonanza .
But Christine Ross , who runs the the popular fashion blog Meghan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Duchess ’ s fans , known as the Sussex Squad , don ’ t want just any white button-down shirt ; they want the exact one that Markle owns .
Ross , a mother of one , lives outside Washington , D.C. She and her business partner , Amanda Dishaw , who lives in Vancouver , first collaborated on a life-style blog called “ What Would Kate Do ?
” which examined Kate Middleton ’ s life choices .
“ We asked things like , ‘ What Christmas gifts would Kate give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Queen a jar of homemade chutney.
” These days , they make a living from deciphering every item of clothing that Markle wears .
When a new image appears—say , a Twitter user spots her getting off a plane in Canada—they spring into action .
They compare her outfit to “ a checklist ” of known items in Markle ’ s wardrobe , and then attempt to I.D .
new pieces .
For example , Markle recently wore a new pair of sunglasses while getting out of a car in Vancouver .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logo , because we ’ re experts at brand identification , ” Ross said .
If they ’ re stumped , they call on one of two stylists they keep on retainer , who monitor Markle ’ s favorite brands—Givenchy , for couture looks , and more casual brands like J .
Crew , Madewell , and Everlane .
No detail is too small , Ross said .
“ People will message us saying , ‘ I can see the strap of her slip in this picture .
Do you know what brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meghan will go to an event wearing natural face makeup , or a nude lip , and people will message us asking , ‘ What brand of lip gloss is she wearing ?
’ It ’ s , like , ‘ Well , I have no idea , how would I know that.
’ ” The couple ’ s move to North America has been boon to the Meghan-watching business , because it means that Markle has been dressing more casually .
“ We ’ ve seen her in jeans and a Barbour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Ross said .
Her most sought-after items remain the accessible ones : the Everlane Day Market Tote , in Cognac , and ripped skinny jeans from Mother Denim , which she wore to the 2017 Invictus Games .
“ It ’ s interesting .
We don ’ t get a bunch of clicks on her bespoke cocktail dresses , ” Ross said .
“ People want to be like Meghan in their everyday lives .
They want to feel like a duchess going to the grocery store , or picking their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little bit of that royal magic.
” ( Ross and Dishaw have an Etsy store , where they sell jewelry similar to items Markle has worn , and sweatshirts that say “ HRH .
” )

In the past couple of weeks, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s fate has been sealed: it will be what the British tabloids are calling “a hard Megxit.” They’ll cease to be working royals and will no longer go by His and Her Royal Highness. What’s less clear is the fate of their brand, Sussex Royal, which currently encompasses both a Web site and a very popular Instagram account. The road to “financial independence,” the couple’s stated goal, appears to run through the land of branded goods. As for what kinds of goods, people have been looking for clues in the couple’s trademark application, which includes product categories such as stationery, toiletries, and sporting goods. The Daily Mail, reporting on the filing, dubbed the couple “The Royal Cash Machines!” (A few days later, the paper taunted Peter Phillips, Princess Anne’s son, for selling milk on Chinese television.)
As a Sussex Royal Instagram follower, and, if I’m being honest, a likely customer, I asked some experts to help me visualize what the brand could become. Michael Stone, the chairman and co-founder of a licensing agency called Beanstalk and the author of “The Power of Licensing: Harnessing Brand Equity,” said that the trademark filings were probably just to cover their bases, and the odds are low that the royal couple will come out of the gate hawking body lotion and sticky notes. “I think the British public would recoil at that, and even in the U.S. people may see it as a sellout, an overcommercialization of their status,” he told me. Rather, he said, “I think the initial objective should be to establish their brand as a purpose-driven brand and their careers as purpose-driven careers. That’s what their generation is looking for.” They could do this through continued charity work, and the tasteful forms of cashing in exemplified by the Obamas: a book deal, speaking engagements, producing TV shows about worthy topics. (Meghan’s upcoming voice-over gig with Disney qualifies, because the proceeds will go to charity.)
Then they can get down to the business of selling stuff, which, Stone warned, isn’t as easy as Oprah Winfrey makes it look. “The history books are littered with failed celebrity brands,” he said. But Markle would appear to be well positioned to pull it off. In her previous life, as an actress, she ran a life-style blog called The Tig (named after her favorite wine, Tignanello), which billed itself as “a hub for the discerning palate—those with a hunger for food, travel, fashion & beauty.” She did an interview series, Tig Talks, where she chatted with Serena Williams and Elizabeth Hurley, recommended books (“ ‘How to Be Parisian Wherever You Are’: Because admit it, you want to be French”), and published travel guides, such as “An Insider’s Guide to Aspen” and a list of “Favorite Facialists Around the World.” Her Earth Day post had a natural-beauty roundup and a cheeky introduction: “Dear Mama Earth . . . While Earth Day may not be your birthday, per se, it is certainly a day to celebrate you, and to take extra special care of you, you hot mama. (No global warming pun intended there).”
“She’s pretty Goopy,” Elise Loehnen, the chief content officer of Gwyneth Paltrow’s life-style brand, Goop, said, explaining that the term referred to a strain of “L.A. culture” that Markle, the daughter of an L.A. yoga instructor, practically imbibed with her mother’s milk. The Tig featured an ode to her Vedic-meditation coach, who goes by the single name Light. (Markle described him as “one of those people that have such a quiet confidence, an ease, a manner that makes you calm-the-F-down while still feeling totally light and fun.”) Loehnen said, “I know she’s into Alejandro Junger’s Clean program”—the liquid cleanse that Paltrow made famous. (In 2014, Markle wrote that, since trying it, “my life has never been the same.”) Loehnen went on, “Examining your feelings is Goopy. Doing somatic yoga, working with a functional doctor.” She brought up Prince Charles’s well-known passion for alternative medicine. “I wonder if any of that’s trickled down.”
Elizabeth Holmes, a style reporter and the author of the forthcoming book “HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style,” brought up Markle’s well-documented passion for food. The Tig featured recipes for dishes like Caramel Pear Galette and Turkey Tortilla Soup. Sussex Royal could include a cooking section. Holmes said that, if Markle is to resume life-style blogging, “She absolutely needs to do a post on the engagement chicken.” The concept, which was popularized by a 2004 Glamour article, refers to a dish that is supposedly so delicious that it will inspire a wavering boyfriend to commit. In 2017, Harry and Markle told the BBC that Harry proposed during a “cozy night” at home, while the couple roasted a chicken together. “That was the peak of engagement chicken,” Holmes said. “When the chicken’s so good, you become a duchess. If she does launch any kind of life-style effort, she’ll have to post the recipe.”
And then there’s fashion. At first glance, Markle’s minimalist style—she favors items like white button-down shirts and subtle jewelry—wouldn’t seem to be material for a consumerist bonanza. But Christine Ross, who runs the the popular fashion blog Meghan’s Mirror, said that a faction of the Duchess’s fans, known as the Sussex Squad, don’t want just any white button-down shirt; they want the exact one that Markle owns.
Ross, a mother of one, lives outside Washington, D.C. She and her business partner, Amanda Dishaw, who lives in Vancouver, first collaborated on a life-style blog called “What Would Kate Do?” which examined Kate Middleton’s life choices. “We asked things like, ‘What Christmas gifts would Kate give?’ Well, Kate gave the Queen a jar of homemade chutney.” These days, they make a living from deciphering every item of clothing that Markle wears. When a new image appears—say, a Twitter user spots her getting off a plane in Canada—they spring into action. They compare her outfit to “a checklist” of known items in Markle’s wardrobe, and then attempt to I.D. new pieces. For example, Markle recently wore a new pair of sunglasses while getting out of a car in Vancouver. “We knew it was a Le Specs logo, because we’re experts at brand identification,” Ross said. If they’re stumped, they call on one of two stylists they keep on retainer, who monitor Markle’s favorite brands—Givenchy, for couture looks, and more casual brands like J. Crew, Madewell, and Everlane. No detail is too small, Ross said. “People will message us saying, ‘I can see the strap of her slip in this picture. Do you know what brand of slip it is?’ Or Meghan will go to an event wearing natural face makeup, or a nude lip, and people will message us asking, ‘What brand of lip gloss is she wearing?’ It’s, like, ‘Well, I have no idea, how would I know that.’ ”
The couple’s move to North America has been boon to the Meghan-watching business, because it means that Markle has been dressing more casually. “We’ve seen her in jeans and a Barbour jacket in Vancouver, which people love,” Ross said. Her most sought-after items remain the accessible ones: the Everlane Day Market Tote, in Cognac, and ripped skinny jeans from Mother Denim, which she wore to the 2017 Invictus Games. “It’s interesting. We don’t get a bunch of clicks on her bespoke cocktail dresses,” Ross said. “People want to be like Meghan in their everyday lives. They want to feel like a duchess going to the grocery store, or picking their kids up from school. They want a little bit of that royal magic.” (Ross and Dishaw have an Etsy store, where they sell jewelry similar to items Markle has worn, and sweatshirts that say “HRH.”)
Meghan’s Mirror has a homeware section, but much of its content dates from the early days of Markle’s relationship with Harry, when she used to post selfies from her Toronto bedroom. “We really didn’t see inside their homes after they got married,” Ross said. A notable exception occurred last year, when Daniel Martin, Markle’s former makeup artist, visited her for tea in the couple’s London home. He posted a picture of the spread—black tea and avocado toast—to Instagram, with the caption “Thank you Meghan for being the consummate hostess this weekend and still being the #avocadotoast whisperer, YUM! 🤷🏻♂ 🥑🍞☕ #foodie #foodiegram.” That was a gold mine, Ross recalled. “We were, like, ‘Oh, Wow, that’s Meghan’s tea pot and Meghan’s pewter plates.’ ” The items, by Soho Home and Oneida Silver, sold out instantly. “People in the U.K. were going to the local stores and buying them,” Ross said.


newyorker--2020-01-30--What to Do in N.Y.C. This Weekend: January 31st–February 2nd

These are our top picks for the weekend of January 31st–February 2nd .
For more event listings and reviews , check out Goings On About Town .
Few artists enjoy the pop-culture stature of Kehinde Wiley .
His past subjects include President Barack Obama and Kanye West , but most of his works portray ordinary people , whom he recognizes deserve to be as venerated as any celebrity .
One of the most popular pictures at the Brooklyn Museum is Wiley ’ s 2005 reimagining of Jacques-Louis David ’ s “ Napoleon Crossing the Alps , ” from 1801 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black man wearing Timberlands and a bandanna .
Until May 10th , the museum pairs the two canvases on its fourth floor—it ’ s the first time David ’ s painting has travelled from France to New York .
Wiley ’ s equestrian has a spiritual ancestor in an ancient terra-cotta figure excavated in Niger , in 1985 , one of the highlights of “ Sahel : Art and Empires on the Shores of the Sahara , ” at the Met .
The show , which opens Thursday , surveys sixteen centuries ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region that now encompasses Mali , Mauritania , Niger , and Senegal.—Andrea K. Scott For more art reviews , click here .
There ’ s a searching , dawn-over-the-horizon aspect to the London d.j .
Jane Fitz ’ s selections that makes her an ideal dance-festival closer , a role she ’ s taken on with increasing regularity in the past few years .
That sensibility holds whether she ’ s playing soulful , bass-heavy deep house or giddy , gibbering psytrance—two styles that typically occupy opposite ends of the dance-music taste spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hands .
On Saturday , at Nowadays , the similarly sharp-eared New Yorker Lychee plays first.—Michaelangelo Matos For more night-life listings , click here .
HK Food Court is an emblem of ease , a fast and comfortable one-stop shop for fulfilling a variety of cravings .
A couple of dozen stalls—serving regional Chinese , Thai , Vietnamese , Japanese , and Filipino cuisine—line the perimeter of a windowless but brightly lit box that used to house a pan-Asian grocery store ; in the center is cafeteria-style seating for about two hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My most pressing craving is for the hot-and-sour soup from Lao Ma Spicy.—Hannah Goldfield For more restaurant reviews , click here .
In Bess Wohl ’ s “ Grand Horizons ” ( at the Hayes ) , Bill ( James Cromwell ) and Nancy ( Jane Alexander ) are senior citizens tucked away in a gated community , yet they muster the energy to divorce .
Their sons , Ben ( Ben McKenzie ) and Brian ( Michael Urie ) , descend on the house in a confused fury—is the split the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The play , directed by Leigh Silverman for Second Stage , is a comic machine : there ’ s a laugh a minute , and the actors , especially Alexander and Urie , milk quiet moments for a few more .
But the best bit of the show is one that ’ s purely theatrical—something goes boom.—Vinson Cunningham For more theatre reviews , click here .
The revolution in style wrought by the ineffably grungy cool of Jim Jarmusch ’ s 1984 film “ Stranger Than Paradise ” is , above all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the leftover bins of downmarket culture and extracts treasures , which his distinctive mode of reserved yet canny compositions showcases .
His performers , whose inventive originality owes nothing to theatrical technique , are artists in the medium of life whom Jarmusch delights in observing in action that , throughout , is on the verge of inaction .
More than a mere time capsule , the movie helped to spark a new age of populist eclecticism that ’ s still ongoing ; it screens on Friday at 4:30 P.M. in MOMA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —Richard Brody For more movie reviews , click here .
The Swedish baritone Peter Mattei has a voice that envelops his every utterance in pillowy sound .
It gives him a warm , three-dimensional presence in operatic comedies and lends a commanding , sympathetic tone in more haunting material , such as Berg ’ s “ Wozzeck , ” which he just wrapped at the Met .
The latter quality lends itself to a rendition of Schubert ’ s desolate and disquieting song cycle “ Winterreise , ” which Mattei performs with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at Zankel Hall.—Oussama Zahr For more classical-music listings , click here .
From the moment of its première in London , in 1995 , “ Matthew Bourne ’ s Swan Lake ” struck a chord .
Bourne ’ s homoerotic twist on the story , by which its prince finds solace , and freedom , with a flock of male swans , was a vibrant manifesto of the beauty and power of male dancing , but also a liberating example of gay attraction on a ballet stage ( all too rare , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years later , the show is still on tour , and , with the popularity of “ The Crown ” and the drama of “ Megxit , ” its allusions to the machinations of palace bureaucrats—the Royal Family ’ s private secretary plays a significant role—are sure to resonate .
“ Swan Lake ” returns to City Center , January 30th–February 9th , with a few tweaks and updated sets and costumes by Lez Brotherston .
The Royal Ballet ’ s Matthew Ball alternates with Will Bozier and Max Westwell in the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the swan-men.—Marina Harss For more dance listings , click here .

These are our top picks for the weekend of March 6th-8th. For more event listings and reviews, check out Goings On About Town.
Art work by José Clemente Orozco / Courtesy ARS / SOMAAP / MOMA
The Whitney’s thumpingly great show “Vida Americana: Mexican Muralists Remake American Art, 1924-1945” picks an overdue art-historical fight. The usual story of those two decades revolves around young aesthetes striving to absorb European modernism. What to do with the mighty legacy of the era’s big three Mexican painters, Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros? As little as possible has seemed the rule, despite the seminal influence of Orozco and Siqueiros on the young Jackson Pollock. With some two hundred works by sixty artists and abundant documentary material, the curator Barbara Haskell reweaves the sense and sensations of the era to bring it alive.—Peter Schjeldahl
For more art reviews, click here.
For our Spring Art Preview, click here.
Photograph by Hanna-Katrina Jedrosz
The glamorously intelligent post-punk that was incubated in English art colleges forty years ago is reconstituted with panache in Dry Cleaning: it’s almost shocking to hear lyrics referencing not Margaret Thatcher but Meghan Markle. This young London quartet is effortlessly magnetic and impossibly British, with an ace card in Florence Shaw—a vocalist who rarely deigns to sing but, rather, presents her lyrics as if engaged in an apathetic phone conversation. After making its American début at Saint Vitus, on Friday, the band plays Union Pool the following night.—Jay Ruttenberg
For more night-life listings, click here.
For our Spring Night-Life Preview, click here.
Photograph by Heami Lee for The New Yorker
There has never been a better time to eat a meatless hamburger. The current surge of interest in plant-based diets has sparked an arms race of sorts. Since 2008, the chef Amanda Cohen has been the force behind Dirt Candy, the first vegetarian restaurant to hold its own in New York’s fine-dining landscape. Cohen had never served a veggie burger before Andrea Kerzner, a South African philanthropist looking for ways to fight climate change, cold-called her to propose that they collaborate on a restaurant built around one, but she was game to try. Last November, they opened Lekka Burger, in Tribeca.—Hannah Goldfield
For more restaurant reviews, click here.
Photograph by Sara Krulwich / NYT / Redux
In 1997, a woman named Dana Higginbotham was abducted by an ex-convict and member of the Aryan Brotherhood. He dragged her from motel to motel around the South for five months, abusing her physically and mentally. Higginbotham happens to be the mother of the playwright Lucas Hnath, who turned the story into a play. And not just any play—“Dana H.” (at the Vineyard) is a channelling, an exorcism, and a tribute. The brilliant concept is that the actress Deirdre O’Connell, alone onstage, lip-synchs—with virtuosic precision—to edited segments of interviews with the actual Dana H. Directed by Les Waters with chilling precision and his usual skill for creating an eerie atmosphere, this production is as stunning as it is harrowing.—Elisabeth Vincentelli
For more theatre reviews, click here.
For our Spring Theatre Preview, click here.
Photograph from Universal Pictures / Album / Alamy
Alfred Hitchcock depended greatly on the art and the acumen of female collaborators, including his wife, Alma Reville, a screenwriter and editor, and Joan Harrison, a writer and producer. Their work is brought into the fore in Film Forum’s series “The Women Behind Hitchcock,” which also includes movies by other directors, including Robert Siodmak, a film-noir specialist whose harsh and cynical vision of wartime New York, “Phantom Lady,” from 1944, was produced by Harrison. It screens on Saturday and four more times before the series ends, on March 19th.—Richard Brody
For more movie reviews, click here.
For our Spring Movies Preview, click here.
Photograph by Alexander Polzin
The Talea Ensemble performs the U.S. première of Toshio Hosokawa’s “Futari Shizuka,” a chamber opera based on a Noh play about a spirit that enters a woman’s body. It uses Western- and Noh-style singing to differentiate between the two characters, and it appears on a double bill with another chamber opera about possession: George Benjamin’s “Into the Little Hill,” a striking, minimalist setting of the Pied Piper legend in which two singers assume all the roles. On Saturday evening, James Baker conducts the cast and ensemble in a semi-staged concert at the 92nd Street Y.—Oussama Zahr
For more classical-music listings, click here.
For our Spring Classical-Music Preview, click here.
Photograph by Rahi Rezvani
Nederlands Dans Theatre, based in The Hague, is one of the most prestigious contemporary-dance ensembles in Europe, if not the world. Its reputation is rooted, in part, in the long artistic residency of the choreographer Jiří Kylián. The current program doesn’t include any Kylián, but the four choreographers on it are in many ways his heirs. Gabriela Carrizo, from Argentina, has created a fragmented Bergmanesque narrative, “The Missing Door,” revolving around a death and set in a bleak, hotel-like space. “Walk the Demon” is one of Marco Goecke’s twitchy, insect-like essays in movement. And, from the two in-house choreographers, Sol León and Paul Lightfoot, we get “Shut Eye,” a fantasy made of light and shadow.—Marina Harss
For more dance listings, click here.
For our Spring Dance Preview, click here.


newyorker--2020-01-30--The Donald Trump-Benjamin Netanyahu “Deal of the Century”

On Tuesday , President Donald Trump announced his Administration ’ s Middle East peace plan .
The unveiling occurred in @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial of Trump , for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , and @ @ @ @ @ Israeli Prime Minister , Benjamin Netanyahu , was indicted on charges of bribery , fraud @ @ @ @ @ , in three cases .
While nominally presenting a two-state solution , the plan heavily @ @ @ @ @ Wright joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss the Trump Administration ’ s plan in the Middle @ @ @ @ @ Trump and Netanyahu pose to the future of democracy in their countries .

Photograph by Mark Wilson / Getty
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced his Administration’s Middle East peace plan. The unveiling occurred in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial of Trump, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and on the day that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, in three cases. While nominally presenting a two-state solution, the plan heavily favors Israeli interests. Robin Wright joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss the Trump Administration’s plan in the Middle East and the dangers that Trump and Netanyahu pose to the future of democracy in their countries.


newyorker--2020-01-30--The Bleak Antarctic Saga of “The Impossible First”

If you ’ re going to traverse Antarctica on cross-country skis , it ’ s advisable to go in a group , ideally with psychologically sturdy comrades in preternaturally good shape .
You might bring kites , to harness the propulsive power of the wind , or arrange to have caches of food deposited along your route .
The continent has seen sixteen such successful crossings .
Four years ago , Henry Worsley , a retired lieutenant-colonel in the British Army , made the first attempt at an unassisted solo expedition , dragging a sled of provisions weighing more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s start .
( Worsley died ; David Grann wrote about his endeavor for this magazine . )
Not long after , Ben Saunders , another British polar explorer , set out on the ice , but he misjudged how much food he ’ d require and was forced to abandon his mission at the South Pole .
Finally , in late 2018 , a thirty-three-year-old American endurance athlete named Colin O ’ Brady pulled it off : an unsupported , nearly thousand-mile hike across one of the most unforgiving landscapes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new memoir , “ The Impossible First : From Fire to Ice—Crossing Antarctica Alone , ” he describes the undertaking less as a matter of grit than as a “ brutal math problem , ” the main variables being “ miles , calories , hours , days.
” Pack as much nutrient-dense food as you can carry—enough to sustain you but not so much that it ’ s impossible to haul—and make it to the other side before the twenty-four-hour sunshine of Antarctic summer gives way to the unbroken darkness of winter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a daily intake of seven thousand calories , but he ended up burning more than ten thousand a day—a starvation diet , unsustainable for much longer than the two months he had planned for the trek .
Even the pace at which energy is expended in subzero temperatures is a careful balancing act : too little exertion and hypothermia sets in , but too much will result in sweat-dampened clothes , which can rapidly freeze against the body .
One veteran explorer advised O ’ Brady on how to use plastic bags to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ A frozen boot never thaws in the deep cold , ” he warned .
“ That ’ s it .
Frostbite .
Toes goodbye.
” Beyond the physical perils lies an even greater danger .
Marching twelve or thirteen hours a day , often in a sensory void , O ’ Brady felt “ the quiet erosion of judgment and reason and sanity.
” His thoughts would race , descending into “ that place of obsessive what-if fears.
” He contemplated the probable outcome should a freak squall send his tent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone , in the cold , my body temperature falling .
I ’ d grow sleepy , then increasingly irrational , and finally I ’ d just lie down.
” At times , he ’ d stare absently at his compass and feel as though he were falling into it , relinquishing “ the sense that it was separate from me.
” One night , while he was setting up camp , everything went blank .
He stood there , shovel in hand , unsure of what he was doing or why , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of walked off the field.
” The obvious question is : Why do this to yourself ?
A charitable reading would credit O ’ Brady for testing the limits of human potential and furnishing us with a rich metaphor for chasing our dreams .
A cynic might see naked ambition and a competitiveness verging on the colonial .
( Louis Rudd , the second person to complete the crossing , along a parallel route , two days after O ’ Brady , had told the Telegraph : “ It ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cracks this journey first.
” ) For the last seventy-seven miles , O ’ Brady gave up on sleep entirely and trudged on for thirty-two straight hours .
“ I was a reduced man , stripped to his essence , ” he writes .
“ Everything unnecessary in the universe was gone.
” After fifty-four days of severe cold and isolation , and having lost twenty-five pounds , he reached a solitary wooden post , set into the frozen ground by the United States Geological Survey , marking the end of the continent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shelf .
In itself , O ’ Brady ’ s story is neither cautionary nor inspirational ; it ’ s a Rorschach test for one ’ s own character and aspirations .
To what extremes would you go , and how much punishment would you endure , in the service of a single goal ?
If there is a lesson , it ’ s that the path of the reduced man can lead to triumph , or madness , or both .

If you’re going to traverse Antarctica on cross-country skis, it’s advisable to go in a group, ideally with psychologically sturdy comrades in preternaturally good shape. You might bring kites, to harness the propulsive power of the wind, or arrange to have caches of food deposited along your route. The continent has seen sixteen such successful crossings. Four years ago, Henry Worsley, a retired lieutenant-colonel in the British Army, made the first attempt at an unassisted solo expedition, dragging a sled of provisions weighing more than three hundred pounds at the journey’s start. (Worsley died; David Grann wrote about his endeavor for this magazine.) Not long after, Ben Saunders, another British polar explorer, set out on the ice, but he misjudged how much food he’d require and was forced to abandon his mission at the South Pole. Finally, in late 2018, a thirty-three-year-old American endurance athlete named Colin O’Brady pulled it off: an unsupported, nearly thousand-mile hike across one of the most unforgiving landscapes on the planet.
In O’Brady’s new memoir, “The Impossible First: From Fire to Ice—Crossing Antarctica Alone,” he describes the undertaking less as a matter of grit than as a “brutal math problem,” the main variables being “miles, calories, hours, days.” Pack as much nutrient-dense food as you can carry—enough to sustain you but not so much that it’s impossible to haul—and make it to the other side before the twenty-four-hour sunshine of Antarctic summer gives way to the unbroken darkness of winter. O’Brady had budgeted for a daily intake of seven thousand calories, but he ended up burning more than ten thousand a day—a starvation diet, unsustainable for much longer than the two months he had planned for the trek. Even the pace at which energy is expended in subzero temperatures is a careful balancing act: too little exertion and hypothermia sets in, but too much will result in sweat-dampened clothes, which can rapidly freeze against the body. One veteran explorer advised O’Brady on how to use plastic bags to keep the insides of his footwear dry. “A frozen boot never thaws in the deep cold,” he warned. “That’s it. Frostbite. Toes goodbye.”
Beyond the physical perils lies an even greater danger. Marching twelve or thirteen hours a day, often in a sensory void, O’Brady felt “the quiet erosion of judgment and reason and sanity.” His thoughts would race, descending into “that place of obsessive what-if fears.” He contemplated the probable outcome should a freak squall send his tent flying: “I’d die alone, in the cold, my body temperature falling. I’d grow sleepy, then increasingly irrational, and finally I’d just lie down.” At times, he’d stare absently at his compass and feel as though he were falling into it, relinquishing “the sense that it was separate from me.” One night, while he was setting up camp, everything went blank. He stood there, shovel in hand, unsure of what he was doing or why, “as though my mind had just sort of walked off the field.”
The obvious question is: Why do this to yourself? A charitable reading would credit O’Brady for testing the limits of human potential and furnishing us with a rich metaphor for chasing our dreams. A cynic might see naked ambition and a competitiveness verging on the colonial. (Louis Rudd, the second person to complete the crossing, along a parallel route, two days after O’Brady, had told the Telegraph: “It’s really important it’s a Brit that cracks this journey first.”) For the last seventy-seven miles, O’Brady gave up on sleep entirely and trudged on for thirty-two straight hours. “I was a reduced man, stripped to his essence,” he writes. “Everything unnecessary in the universe was gone.” After fifty-four days of severe cold and isolation, and having lost twenty-five pounds, he reached a solitary wooden post, set into the frozen ground by the United States Geological Survey, marking the end of the continent and the beginning of the Ross Ice Shelf. In itself, O’Brady’s story is neither cautionary nor inspirational; it’s a Rorschach test for one’s own character and aspirations. To what extremes would you go, and how much punishment would you endure, in the service of a single goal? If there is a lesson, it’s that the path of the reduced man can lead to triumph, or madness, or both.


newyorker--2020-01-30--Watch Live: Questioning Continues in Donald Trump’s Senate Impeachment Trial

Thursday marks the second and final day for senators to submit written questions in the impeachment trial against Donald Trump , before voting , on Friday , on whether to call witnesses to testify before the Senate .
On Wednesday , senators questioned the President ’ s defense team and the House managers prosecuting the case .
Each side of the aisle took turns sending forward written queries that were read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts .
The interrogation , which was in excess of eight hours , offered few surprises ; most inquiries fell along party lines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reiterate their case against Trump and Republicans giving the President ’ s lawyers further chances to assert that Trump did no wrong .
Alan Dershowitz , the celebrity Harvard law professor serving on Trump ’ s defense team , grabbed headlines with a creative argument that , if a President believes that his reëlection is in the public interest , then anything he does to bolster his chances of being reëlected are also in the public interest and can not amount to impeachable behavior .
The issue of whether the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national interest was introduced with Wednesday ’ s first question , which Senator Susan Collins , of Maine , asked on behalf of herself and her centrist Republican colleagues Lisa Murkowski , of Alaska , and Mitt Romney , of Utah .
All three had previously expressed a willingness to consider calling additional witnesses .
Collins ’ s query raised the possibility that the President may have had “ more than one motive for alleged conduct , such as pursuit of political advantage ” and “ rooting out corruption , ” and asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s actions were motivated by a combination of goals .
Patrick Philbin , one of Trump ’ s lawyers , responded that “ it can ’ t possibly be an offense ” in such a situation .
Later in the day , Collins and Murkowski raised eyebrows again by asking about the timing of Trump ’ s interest in having Ukraine investigate the former Vice-President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
The Trump defense team did not pinpoint a time but suggested that the interest in an investigation predated Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic nomination for the Presidency .
Although Collins , Murkowski , and Romney may still offer some of the more interesting questions on Thursday , the chances that they will ultimately vote with Democrats to usher in new witnesses are slim .
One potential swing vote , the Republican Cory Gardner , of Colorado , has already announced that he won ’ t vote to call witnesses , and the Times reports that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks winning the vote is unlikely .
Most senators are expected to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday ’ s proceedings .
The main question is whether centrist Republicans will continue probing the relevance of the President ’ s motives or fall in line .
Watch the live stream above for the latest in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .

The main question of the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump on Thursday is whether centrist Republicans will continue probing the relevance of the President’s motives or fall in line.
Thursday marks the second and final day for senators to submit written questions in the impeachment trial against Donald Trump, before voting, on Friday, on whether to call witnesses to testify before the Senate. On Wednesday, senators questioned the President’s defense team and the House managers prosecuting the case. Each side of the aisle took turns sending forward written queries that were read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts. The interrogation, which was in excess of eight hours, offered few surprises; most inquiries fell along party lines, with Democrats serving House managers opportunities to reiterate their case against Trump and Republicans giving the President’s lawyers further chances to assert that Trump did no wrong. Alan Dershowitz, the celebrity Harvard law professor serving on Trump’s defense team, grabbed headlines with a creative argument that, if a President believes that his reëlection is in the public interest, then anything he does to bolster his chances of being reëlected are also in the public interest and cannot amount to impeachable behavior.
The issue of whether the President’s personal ambitions can be separated from the national interest was introduced with Wednesday’s first question, which Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, asked on behalf of herself and her centrist Republican colleagues Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, and Mitt Romney, of Utah. All three had previously expressed a willingness to consider calling additional witnesses. Collins’s query raised the possibility that the President may have had “more than one motive for alleged conduct, such as pursuit of political advantage” and “rooting out corruption,” and asked how to consider the case if the President’s actions were motivated by a combination of goals. Patrick Philbin, one of Trump’s lawyers, responded that “it can’t possibly be an offense” in such a situation. Later in the day, Collins and Murkowski raised eyebrows again by asking about the timing of Trump’s interest in having Ukraine investigate the former Vice-President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Trump defense team did not pinpoint a time but suggested that the interest in an investigation predated Biden’s announcement that he would seek the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.
Although Collins, Murkowski, and Romney may still offer some of the more interesting questions on Thursday, the chances that they will ultimately vote with Democrats to usher in new witnesses are slim. One potential swing vote, the Republican Cory Gardner, of Colorado, has already announced that he won’t vote to call witnesses, and the Times reports that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks winning the vote is unlikely. Most senators are expected to continue lobbing softballs to their respective teammates during Thursday’s proceedings. The main question is whether centrist Republicans will continue probing the relevance of the President’s motives or fall in line.
Watch the live stream above for the latest in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.


newyorker--2020-01-30--Farah Al Qasimi Brings Jubilation to New York City Bus Routes

Before she discovered photography , Qasimi ’ s focus was music , and you might guess as much from the visual rhythms of pattern , color , and texture that are her hallmark .
The uncannily vivid chromatic progression of diagonal stripes in “ Blanket Shop , ” which was shot in Jackson Heights , Queens , almost tips into abstraction .
The image might even be mistaken for a digitally generated collage , if not for the perpendicular reach of the shopkeeper ’ s arm , which grounds the scene in physical space .
That arm has a feminine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture that centers on a white cockatoo , whose home is a curtain store in Ridgewood .
Against a backdrop of drapes the bright pink and yellow of marshmallow Peeps , a woman extends her arm to offer a perch to the bird , intersecting the curtains at a right angle and obscuring the face of a little boy in the lower right-hand corner .
Concealing a subject ’ s identity within a composition is a common device of Qasimi ’ s .
It feels like a tender gesture of discretion , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives play out in public .
In the elegant portrait “ Woman in Leopard Print , ” a sylph in a disco-worthy hijab turns away from the camera and toward a mirrored compact , which reflects one eye back at the viewer—a frame within the frame .
The detail recalls the cropped , mascara-laden eye in Man Ray ’ s famous Surrealist photograph “ Tears , ” whose blatant artifice—the “ tears ” are actually beads of glass—is echoed in Qasimi ’ s photograph .
The woman stands in front of a photomural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fingernails .
You might think that the artist captured the shot in one of the countless nail salons in New York City .
But she staged it in her Brooklyn studio , based on a fleeting moment she witnessed in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brighton Beach .

Before she discovered photography, Qasimi’s focus was music, and you might guess as much from the visual rhythms of pattern, color, and texture that are her hallmark. The uncannily vivid chromatic progression of diagonal stripes in “Blanket Shop,” which was shot in Jackson Heights, Queens, almost tips into abstraction. The image might even be mistaken for a digitally generated collage, if not for the perpendicular reach of the shopkeeper’s arm, which grounds the scene in physical space. That arm has a feminine counterpart in “Coco,” a picture that centers on a white cockatoo, whose home is a curtain store in Ridgewood. Against a backdrop of drapes the bright pink and yellow of marshmallow Peeps, a woman extends her arm to offer a perch to the bird, intersecting the curtains at a right angle and obscuring the face of a little boy in the lower right-hand corner. Concealing a subject’s identity within a composition is a common device of Qasimi’s. It feels like a tender gesture of discretion, even protection, in a city where private lives play out in public.
“Bodega Chandelier,” 2019.
In the elegant portrait “Woman in Leopard Print,” a sylph in a disco-worthy hijab turns away from the camera and toward a mirrored compact, which reflects one eye back at the viewer—a frame within the frame. The detail recalls the cropped, mascara-laden eye in Man Ray’s famous Surrealist photograph “Tears,” whose blatant artifice—the “tears” are actually beads of glass—is echoed in Qasimi’s photograph. The woman stands in front of a photomural of manicured hands that conclude in silver-glitter-tipped fingernails. You might think that the artist captured the shot in one of the countless nail salons in New York City. But she staged it in her Brooklyn studio, based on a fleeting moment she witnessed in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brighton Beach.


newyorker--2020-01-30--Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, January 29th

Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, January 29th

© Do Not Sell My Personal Information may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our @ @ @ @ @ Affiliate Partnerships with retailers .
The material on this site may not be reproduced , @ @ @ @ @ or otherwise used , except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast .

“For the last time, senators—please, no more questions about remaking Season 8 of ‘Game of Thrones.’ ”


newyorker--2020-01-30--El Chapo Outraged That His Trial Included Witnesses

FLORENCE , COLORADO ( The Borowitz Report ) —The convicted drug lord known as El Chapo said on Thursday that he was “ outraged ” his 2019 trial had included witnesses .
He also revealed that he was demanding a new trial without them .
Speaking from ADX Florence , a maximum-security facility in Colorado , the former drug kingpin complained that his trial would have resulted in a speedy acquittal had it not been for the irritating presence of witnesses .
“ If I had to point to one reason why I was convicted of all of those crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ Once the decision was made to include witnesses , things really went downhill for me.
” El Chapo said that , at the time of his trial , he had been totally unaware that it was possible to have a trial without any witnesses at all .
“ I didn ’ t know that was a thing , ” he said .
“ If someone had told me that you could have a witness-free trial , that ’ s the route I would have gone , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was now actively seeking a new trial without witnesses because , in his opinion , “ witnesses ruin everything.
” “ For the good of the country , it ’ s time to move on , ” he said .

FLORENCE, Colorado (The Borowitz Report)—The convicted drug lord known as El Chapo said on Thursday that he was “outraged” his 2019 trial had included witnesses. He also revealed that he was demanding a new trial without them.
Speaking from ADX Florence, a maximum-security facility in Colorado, the former drug kingpin complained that his trial would have resulted in a speedy acquittal had it not been for the irritating presence of witnesses.
“If I had to point to one reason why I was convicted of all of those crimes, it would have to be witnesses,” he said. “Once the decision was made to include witnesses, things really went downhill for me.”
El Chapo said that, at the time of his trial, he had been totally unaware that it was possible to have a trial without any witnesses at all.
“I didn’t know that was a thing,” he said. “If someone had told me that you could have a witness-free trial, that’s the route I would have gone, for sure.”
The former criminal mastermind said that he was now actively seeking a new trial without witnesses because, in his opinion, “witnesses ruin everything.”
“For the good of the country, it’s time to move on,” he said.


newyorker--2020-01-30--Yotam Ottolenghi’s Easiest Recipes Ever

Yotam Ottolenghi’s Easiest Recipes Ever

By popular demand , powerhouse chef , columnist , and vegetable whisperer Yotam Ottolenghi shares recipes that even a simpleton like you could make , probably .
I want to assure you , dear readers , that I—award-winning , Cordon Bleu-trained chef Yotam Ottolenghi—also consume the humble staff of life almost every day .
How hard can it be to make the staple grain of half the world ?
No , no , it ’ s not hard at all , that was a rhetorical question .
Method : Combine first seven ingredients in a bowl .
Cover with muslin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appendix for sample arrangements ) .
Let set between twelve and seventy-two hours—I don ’ t care , however long you want , my recipes are so chill now .
Flour a work surface , fold the dough over itself a few times , and let it rest another hour or two .
Now , if you want to—and this is completely optional—you could certainly up the flavor profile of this loaf by dotting it with vacuum-packed capers ( Anatolian is great , but store-bought is .
.
.
fine , too ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tahini caramel ( see appendix p. 423 ) , or by spritzing the air around it with orange-blossom essence .
Or you could skip those flavor-compounding steps the way you cut corners with all my recipes and just stick it in the oven , like a troglodyte .
So , full disclosure : it ’ s actually beetroot falafel .
Oh , no , stay with me , your eyes are glazing over—keep reading , please !
For this beetroot falafel , we ’ re just swapping out one key ingredient for visual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few pantry staples to impress your guests .
( My new Ultra-Basic Non-Negotiable Staples™ are detailed in the introduction , pp .
ii-xvii . )
Ingredients : Fly to Jerusalem and try to get to Mahane Yehuda market on a weekday morning before 9 A.M .
There are great beets there , and when you ’ re making a simple recipe like this one you really do want the best ingredients .
You ’ ll also need dried chickpeas soaked overnight ( if you ’ re pressed for time , may you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ garlic , chartreuse onion ( widely available in specialty shops in major coastal cities or on Amazon through a retailer that definitely doesn ’ t offer Prime shipping ) , parsley , coriander , cumin , whole-pod cardamom , alpine salt , pepper ( any kind ! )
, warm water , cold-pressed rapeseed oil .
Method : Blitz all the ingredients in a food processor .
Shape mixture into balls and deep fry .
I can ’ t contractually ( per the book proposal I sold ) tell you exactly how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be a bad idea to pair these with charcoal-lime pita ( p. 47 ) , black garlic “ white ” sauce ( p. 743 ) , and barrel-aged watermelon radish kimchi ( p. 322 ) .
Or buy some of those ShopRite-brand pita pockets to gnaw on when you have a meltdown trying to set up the deep fryer and give up on the rest of the meal .
This has “ simple ” in its name , so at least read it to the end ?
Or are you really too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except for that one broiled eggplant you love to Instagram ?
And guess what—I know you leave out half the ingredients in that , too !
Ingredients : Butter lettuce , za ’ atar , endive , radicchio , kohlrabi , edible flowers of your choosing .
For dressing : balsamic vinegar of Modena ( aged at least sixteen years , preferably longer ) , first-press olive oil , red miso , pink miso , chopped ramps and/or garlic scapes ( you can only make this recipe in April ) , fair-trade honey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large copper bowl , whisk together dressing ingredients .
Tear up leaves and swoosh them around the bowl so they are evenly coated .
Mandoline other raw vegetables and arrange on top in a pleasing manner , leaving edible flowers for garnish .
Oops , we “ forgot ” to utilize the za ’ atar—or did we ?
!
I just wanted to check that you were paying attention ; - ) It ’ s not rocket science , it ’ s chicken .
( When making this for a dinner party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , use guinea fowl , but I sense you sweating just reading those words , so chicken it is . )
We ’ re going to baste this chicken in a very simple sauce , make it hot with fire , and serve it with a vegetable on the side .
I believe in you—you can do this !
Method : Preheat the oven to four hundred degrees .
Then do whatever feels good to you .
Stick the butter into the chicken ?
Sure !
Skin on or off ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Whatever you feel like—I ’ m flexible .
I ’ m not here to tell you how to make roast chicken .
Recipes are just .
.
.
recipes are just suggestions , is what I ’ ve been instructed to say .
So , roast your flexibly prepared chicken for forty-five to sixty minutes , until the skin is crackling or your partner threatens to leave you over an ongoing argument about how much money is too much money to devote to the pursuit of Balinese lemongrass .
I give up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recipes , you want permission to be your microwave-happy selves .
I ’ m throwing in the proverbial Turkish hand-loomed cotton towel .
If you want true baking innovation , you can visit one of my groundbreaking London establishments .
Or don ’ t !
Method : Follow the instructions on the box and then dump the can of frosting on the end product .
If it were me , at this point , I might decorate the cake with some candied rose petals that I prepared as a relaxing Sunday-morning project last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you philistines have even a single edible flower in your pantry .
Bon appétit , assholes .

By popular demand, the powerhouse chef, columnist, and vegetable whisperer Yotam Ottolenghi shares recipes that even a simpleton like you could make, probably.
Bread
I want to assure you, dear readers, that I—award-winning, Cordon Bleu-trained chef Yotam Ottolenghi—also consume the humble staff of life almost every day. How hard can it be to make the staple grain of half the world? No, no, it’s not hard at all; that was a rhetorical question.
Ingredients: Flour, water, salt, yeast, sumac, powdered olive jus, rosehip jam, einkorn bran (for dusting).
Method: Combine first seven ingredients in a bowl. Cover with muslin. Sing mixture a lullaby (see appendix for sample arrangements). Let set between twelve and seventy-two hours—I don’t care, however long you want, my recipes are so chill now. Flour a work surface, fold the dough over itself a few times, and let it rest another hour or two.
Now, if you want to—and this is completely optional—you could certainly up the flavor profile of this loaf by dotting it with vacuum-packed capers (Anatolian is great, but store-bought is . . . fine, too), or by swirling it with homemade tahini caramel (see appendix p. 423), or by spritzing the air around it with orange-blossom essence. Or you could skip those flavor-compounding steps the way you cut corners with all my recipes and just stick it in the oven, like a troglodyte.
Falafel
So, full disclosure: it’s actually beetroot falafel. Oh, no, stay with me, your eyes are glazing over—keep reading, please! For this beetroot falafel, we’re just swapping out one key ingredient for visual and nutritive effect, and then adding a few pantry staples to impress your guests. (My new Ultra-Basic Non-Negotiable Staples™ are detailed in the introduction, pp. ii-xvii.)
Ingredients: Fly to Jerusalem and try to get to Mahane Yehuda market on a weekday morning before 9 A.M. There are great beets there, and when you’re making a simple recipe like this one you really do want the best ingredients. You’ll also need dried chickpeas soaked overnight (if you’re pressed for time, may you use canned? No), purple garlic, chartreuse onion (widely available in specialty shops in major coastal cities or on Amazon through a retailer that definitely doesn’t offer Prime shipping), parsley, coriander, cumin, whole-pod cardamom, alpine salt, pepper (any kind!), warm water, cold-pressed rapeseed oil.
Method: Blitz all the ingredients in a food processor. Shape mixture into balls and deep fry. I can’t contractually (per the book proposal I sold) tell you exactly how to serve them, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to pair these with charcoal-lime pita (p. 47), black garlic “white” sauce (p. 743), and barrel-aged watermelon radish kimchi (p. 322). Or buy some of those ShopRite-brand pita pockets to gnaw on when you have a meltdown trying to set up the deep fryer and give up on the rest of the meal.
Simple Salad
This has “simple” in its name, so at least read it to the end? Or are you really too cowardly to make any of my recipes except for that one broiled eggplant you love to Instagram? And guess what—I know you leave out half the ingredients in that, too!
Ingredients: Butter lettuce, za’atar, endive, radicchio, kohlrabi, edible flowers of your choosing. For dressing: balsamic vinegar of Modena (aged at least sixteen years, preferably longer), first-press olive oil, red miso, pink miso, chopped ramps and/or garlic scapes (you can only make this recipe in April), fair-trade honey, human tears.
Method: In a large copper bowl, whisk together dressing ingredients. Tear up leaves and swoosh them around the bowl so they are evenly coated. Mandoline other raw vegetables and arrange on top in a pleasing manner, leaving edible flowers for garnish. Oops, we “forgot” to utilize the za’atar—or did we?! I just wanted to check that you were paying attention ;-)
Roast Chicken
It’s not rocket science, it’s chicken. (When making this for a dinner party of my own, I would, of course, use guinea fowl, but I sense you sweating just reading those words, so chicken it is.) We’re going to baste this chicken in a very simple sauce, make it hot with fire, and serve it with a vegetable on the side. I believe in you—you can do this!
Ingredients: One chicken, salted butter, Sicilian blood orange, fennel bulb, rosemary sprig, Grana Padano diced into cubic centimetres.
Method: Preheat the oven to four hundred degrees. Then do whatever feels good to you. Stick the butter into the chicken? Sure! Skin on or off? Yes! Fennel, raw or caramelized? Whatever you feel like—I’m flexible. I’m not here to tell you how to make roast chicken. Recipes are just . . . recipes are just suggestions, is what I’ve been instructed to say. So, roast your flexibly prepared chicken for forty-five to sixty minutes, until the skin is crackling or your partner threatens to leave you over an ongoing argument about how much money is too much money to devote to the pursuit of Balinese lemongrass.
Chocolate Cake
I give up. You people don’t want recipes, you want permission to be your microwave-happy selves. I’m throwing in the proverbial Turkish hand-loomed cotton towel. If you want true baking innovation, you can visit one of my groundbreaking London establishments. Or don’t!
Ingredients: Duncan Hines devil’s-food cake mix, canned chocolate frosting, rainbow sprinkles.
Method: Follow the instructions on the box and then dump the can of frosting on the end product. If it were me, at this point, I might decorate the cake with some candied rose petals that I prepared as a relaxing Sunday-morning project last weekend, but I highly doubt that you philistines have even a single edible flower in your pantry. Bon appétit, assholes.


newyorker--2020-02-05--Oscars 2020 Spotlight: The Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor Nominees

The first man ever to receive an Academy Award for Best Actor , in 1929 , was the silent-film star Emil Jannings .
By then , his career in Hollywood was already kaput—talkies were in , and Jannings , saddled with an accent , returned to Germany , where he wound up making Nazi propaganda films .
So it all worked out in the end , ha ha .
This year ’ s slate of nominated actors is a more likable lot , including the Nicest Man in Hollywood playing the Nicest Man in Television .
It ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s races feel juicier than the women ’ s , with a few major performances that simply got squeezed out .
Robert De Niro ’ s turn in “ The Irishman , ” which caps his lifelong collaboration with Martin Scorsese , included a guilt-choked phone-call scene that should be studied in acting schools .
Nevertheless , De Niro was denied a place in the lead-actor category , though two of his co-stars , Al Pacino and Joe Pesci , square off in the race for best supporting actor .
Adam Sandler ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murphy ( “ Dolemite Is My Name ” ) also gave career-high performances that didn ’ t get the votes .
And it would have been nice to see Song Kang-ho , of “ Parasite , ” on the list ; although that film ’ s cast won the ensemble prize at the Screen Actors Guild Awards , no single actor managed to grab momentum .
What ’ s missing , too , is a newcomer or a left-field pick .
( Remember when Viggo Mortensen was nominated for “ Captain Fantastic ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried-and-true stars in mostly beloved movies .
In other words , Academy voters will be looking at a list of familiar names , next to a list of films that are also nominated in other categories .
The exception is Tom Hanks , who has the sole nomination for “ A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood , ” but he ’ s not exactly an outlier .
The supporting-actor race , especially , feels like a victory lap : four actors who all won Oscars in the early nineties , plus some new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ categories , alas , have all white nominees .
If there ’ s any diversity in the actor races , it ’ s in the characters they played—among them a killer clown , two Popes , Jimmy Hoffa , and a theatre director getting a divorce .
Emil Jannings would be baffled , the poor Nazi bastard .
Banderas began his career with Pedro Almodóvar , who plucked him from the Spanish theatre scene and cast him in films throughout the nineteen-eighties .
It ’ s only fitting that the muse became the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the director ’ s backward-glancing autobiographical drama ( also nominated for Best International Feature Film ) .
The strapping Banderas who enticed Madonna in “ Truth or Dare ” has all but vanished , leaving a sad-eyed , shock-haired , almost frail-looking simulacrum of Almodóvar , or some half-fictionalized version of him .
Banderas has never seemed so rueful .
In Quentin Tarantino ’ s sunlit bloodbath of a film , DiCaprio seems to be in conversation with his past self , playing Rick ( Fucking ) Dalton , a hack TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a place in the groovy new Hollywood of 1969 .
Like Dalton , DiCaprio is a holdover from another age—the halcyon nineteen-nineties , when DiCaprio was the party-boy pinup who headlined “ Titanic.
” Gosh , remember the drama when he didn ’ t get nominated for “ Titanic ” and skipped the ceremony ?
And how James Cameron thanked him with a befuddled glance toward the heavens , as if his lead actor had dematerialized into stardust ?
Since then , DiCaprio has fended off a grizzly bear and won an Oscar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrestles not with wildlife but with his own squandered prospects , and the results are beautifully unhinged .
Driver , one of Hollywood ’ s most idiosyncratic finds , gives his deepest performance yet in Noah Baumbach ’ s divorce drama .
Like Banderas , Driver plays a fun-house-mirror version of his director .
His character , Charlie , is an experimental-theatre auteur and doting dad whose stability ( and egotism ) crumbles in the dehumanizing divorce proceedings .
Charlie is something of a yuppie Everyman , like his forebear from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infuses so much of himself into the role—his ex-marine rigidness , his gawky high anxiety—that it ’ s hard to imagine anyone else as the character .
The role seems to draw blood from him , literally and figuratively .
Phoenix hurtles into this anarchic role in this anarchic movie like a motorcycle without brakes .
We ’ ve come to expect an element of chaos from Phoenix , who chronicled his ( seemingly invented ) foray into hip-hop in the mockumentary “ I ’ m Still Here.
” You just never know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy , which makes him the natural choice for “ Joker , ” a gaudy parable of homicidal insanity .
He laughs , he kills , he preens , he bleeds—a Christ figure for our sour times .
Phoenix easily wins the prize for most acting , which is usually enough to please the Academy .
No matter what you think of “ Joker , ” the movie rests on his deranged rictus .
Of the two Popes in question , Pryce has the benefit of playing the more beloved : Pope Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fernando Meirelles ’ s film probes Francis ’ s reformist spirit , delving into a haunted past that undergirds his principled humility .
Pryce brings warmth and patience to the role , but also a twitch of torment .
And he ’ s funny as hell .
( Sorry , Father . )
Preparing to meet his public for the first time as Pope , he waves away the regalia and says , “ The carnival is over.
” His Pope is wonderfully fallible .
Bottom line : No one is expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his second consecutive Oscar nomination ( he was up last year , for “ BlacKkKlansman ” ) , is a formidable competitor .
This category could easily have been filled twice over .
A banner year for men—who would have thought ?
No movie star could have pulled off the role of Mister Rogers—a kind of pop-culture saint—except Tom Hanks , who radiates a pastor ’ s goodness flecked with self-awareness .
It seems , at first , like an easy gig : speak slowly and gently , smile a crinkly smile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought something else to the role : a mesmerizing hold over his disciples , child and adult alike , suggesting the work of a master hypnotist .
If Hanks seems like an Oscar mainstay , don ’ t forget that he hasn ’ t won since 1995 .
Poor , unlovable Pope Benedict XVI .
Standing robe to robe next to his successor , he comes off as an out-of-touch killjoy who , at best , ignored the Catholic Church ’ s abuses—or , worse , swept them under the rug .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jagger . )
But Hopkins is engrossing in the role , his halted delivery providing a window into Benedict ’ s darting intellect .
You likely won ’ t come away from “ The Two Popes ” with any more love for Joseph Ratzinger than you started out with , but you ’ ll understand his contradictions .
The movie , and Hopkins , does him a service .
Astoundingly , this is Pacino ’ s first collaboration with Scorsese—and in the role of Jimmy Hoffa , no less .
Aside from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what we ’ ve seen him do before : that operatic temper , that half-mad twinkle .
His delivery at times echoes back to the manic street theatre of “ Dog Day Afternoon , ” and Hoffa comes across , in his own way , as a performer .
Too bad Pacino has to share a category with Joe Pesci .

The first man ever to receive an Academy Award for Best Actor, in 1929, was the silent-film star Emil Jannings. By then, his career in Hollywood was already kaput—talkies were in, and Jannings, saddled with an accent, returned to Germany, where he wound up making Nazi propaganda films. So it all worked out in the end, ha ha.
This year’s slate of nominated actors is a more likable lot, including the Nicest Man in Hollywood playing the Nicest Man in Television. It’s the rare year in which the men’s races feel juicier than the women’s, with a few major performances that simply got squeezed out. Robert De Niro’s turn in “The Irishman,” which caps his lifelong collaboration with Martin Scorsese, included a guilt-choked phone-call scene that should be studied in acting schools. Nevertheless, De Niro was denied a place in the lead-actor category, though two of his co-stars, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci, square off in the race for best supporting actor. Adam Sandler (“Uncut Gems”) and Eddie Murphy (“Dolemite Is My Name”) also gave career-high performances that didn’t get the votes. And it would have been nice to see Song Kang-ho, of “Parasite,” on the list; although that film’s cast won the ensemble prize at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, no single actor managed to grab momentum.
What’s missing, too, is a newcomer or a left-field pick. (Remember when Viggo Mortensen was nominated for “Captain Fantastic”?) All of the contenders are tried-and-true stars in mostly beloved movies. In other words, Academy voters will be looking at a list of familiar names, next to a list of films that are also nominated in other categories. The exception is Tom Hanks, who has the sole nomination for “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” but he’s not exactly an outlier. The supporting-actor race, especially, feels like a victory lap: four actors who all won Oscars in the early nineties, plus some new guy named Brad Pitt. And both categories, alas, have all white nominees. If there’s any diversity in the actor races, it’s in the characters they played—among them a killer clown, two Popes, Jimmy Hoffa, and a theatre director getting a divorce. Emil Jannings would be baffled, the poor Nazi bastard.
Best Actor
Antonio Banderas, “Pain and Glory”
Banderas began his career with Pedro Almodóvar, who plucked him from the Spanish theatre scene and cast him in films throughout the nineteen-eighties. It’s only fitting that the muse became the maestro in “Pain and Glory,” the director’s backward-glancing autobiographical drama (also nominated for Best International Feature Film). The strapping Banderas who enticed Madonna in “Truth or Dare” has all but vanished, leaving a sad-eyed, shock-haired, almost frail-looking simulacrum of Almodóvar, or some half-fictionalized version of him. Banderas has never seemed so rueful.
Leonardo DiCaprio, “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood”
In Quentin Tarantino’s sunlit bloodbath of a film, DiCaprio seems to be in conversation with his past self, playing Rick (Fucking) Dalton, a hack TV actor whose kind doesn’t have a place in the groovy new Hollywood of 1969. Like Dalton, DiCaprio is a holdover from another age—the halcyon nineteen-nineties, when DiCaprio was the party-boy pinup who headlined “Titanic.” Gosh, remember the drama when he didn’t get nominated for “Titanic” and skipped the ceremony? And how James Cameron thanked him with a befuddled glance toward the heavens, as if his lead actor had dematerialized into stardust? Since then, DiCaprio has fended off a grizzly bear and won an Oscar for his troubles. As Dalton, he wrestles not with wildlife but with his own squandered prospects, and the results are beautifully unhinged.
Adam Driver, “Marriage Story”
Photograph from Netflix
Driver, one of Hollywood’s most idiosyncratic finds, gives his deepest performance yet in Noah Baumbach’s divorce drama. Like Banderas, Driver plays a fun-house-mirror version of his director. His character, Charlie, is an experimental-theatre auteur and doting dad whose stability (and egotism) crumbles in the dehumanizing divorce proceedings. Charlie is something of a yuppie Everyman, like his forebear from “Kramer vs. Kramer,” but Driver infuses so much of himself into the role—his ex-marine rigidness, his gawky high anxiety—that it’s hard to imagine anyone else as the character. The role seems to draw blood from him, literally and figuratively.
Joaquin Phoenix, “Joker”
Phoenix hurtles into this anarchic role in this anarchic movie like a motorcycle without brakes. We’ve come to expect an element of chaos from Phoenix, who chronicled his (seemingly invented) foray into hip-hop in the mockumentary “I’m Still Here.” You just never know where reality stops and starts with this guy, which makes him the natural choice for “Joker,” a gaudy parable of homicidal insanity. He laughs, he kills, he preens, he bleeds—a Christ figure for our sour times. Phoenix easily wins the prize for most acting, which is usually enough to please the Academy. No matter what you think of “Joker,” the movie rests on his deranged rictus.
Jonathan Pryce, “The Two Popes”
Photograph by Peter Mountain
Of the two Popes in question, Pryce has the benefit of playing the more beloved: Pope Francis, otherwise known as Jorge Bergoglio. Fernando Meirelles’s film probes Francis’s reformist spirit, delving into a haunted past that undergirds his principled humility. Pryce brings warmth and patience to the role, but also a twitch of torment. And he’s funny as hell. (Sorry, Father.) Preparing to meet his public for the first time as Pope, he waves away the regalia and says, “The carnival is over.” His Pope is wonderfully fallible.
Bottom line: No one is expected to beat Phoenix, though Driver, with his second consecutive Oscar nomination (he was up last year, for “BlacKkKlansman”), is a formidable competitor. This category could easily have been filled twice over. A banner year for men—who would have thought?
Best Supporting Actor
Tom Hanks, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”
No movie star could have pulled off the role of Mister Rogers—a kind of pop-culture saint—except Tom Hanks, who radiates a pastor’s goodness flecked with self-awareness. It seems, at first, like an easy gig: speak slowly and gently, smile a crinkly smile, and unlace your shoes. But Hanks brought something else to the role: a mesmerizing hold over his disciples, child and adult alike, suggesting the work of a master hypnotist. If Hanks seems like an Oscar mainstay, don’t forget that he hasn’t won since 1995.
Anthony Hopkins, “The Two Popes”