newyorker--2020-01-24--The 2020 Grammys Fiasco

The 2020 Grammys Fiasco

It ’ s been a particularly awkward run-up to this year ’ s Grammy Awards , which will be broadcast on Sunday night , from the Staples Center , in Los Angeles .
Last Thursday , Deborah Dugan , the president and chief executive of the Recording Academy , the organization that hosts the show , was placed on administrative leave following accusations of misconduct , setting off a series of claims and counterclaims .
The board of trustees initially cited an allegation from “ a senior female member of the Recording Academy team ” as the reason for Dugan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in the position for five months .
Yet the timing of the board ’ s decision immediately felt retaliatory , coming just weeks after Dugan had sent a memo to human resources claiming “ something was seriously amiss at the Academy.
” The memo outlined various conflicts of interest , voting irregularities , and significant financial mismanagement , including the amassing of “ exorbitant and unnecessary ” legal bills .
It also called the organization a “ boys ’ club.
” On Wednesday afternoon , members of the Recording Academy received an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From The Women On The Executive Committee Of The Recording Academy.
” Four high-ranking women within the organization—Tammy Hurt , Christine Albert , Leslie Ann Jones , and Terry Jones—had written and distributed a letter gently disputing the notion that the Academy is sexist .
“ We would not have taken precious time away from our families and careers if we felt that it was a ‘ boys ’ club , ’ ” the women wrote .
It was difficult to discern the authors ’ intentions , beyond a kind of hasty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt rash and underconsidered , presuming , as it did , that these four women might be able to accurately speak to the experiences of all women within the Academy , or that it is ever that easy for a woman to extricate herself from a virulent work environment .
Ultimately , the e-mail did little to neutralize anxieties .
If an organization needs to corral a group of women to publicly vouch for a safe and fair working environment—well , by then the situation has perhaps already grown untenable .
The Academy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexism since at least 2018 , when the 60th annual Grammy Awards were held at Madison Square Garden , in New York City .
I watched the show from the press room , a dim and unglamorous holding pen located somewhere in the bowels of the arena .
The Academy requests that journalists reporting on the show arrive for the pre-telecast , which usually begins around noon , and stay until the broadcast is over .
It ’ s a long journey .
I recall eating several gratis sandwiches featuring room-temperature ham and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was after 11 P.M. when Neil Portnow , then the president of the Recording Academy , appeared to field questions from reporters .
Nothing especially disastrous had occurred during the broadcast , at least from a production standpoint—no one had gone truly rogue , nothing had exploded—so the visit had the vaguely triumphant tenor of a victory lap .
Portnow was wearing a tuxedo with a white rose pinned to the lapel , a symbolic but nonetheless small-feeling nod to solidarity with the # MeToo movement .
A journalist asked Portnow about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pop singer Alessia Cara , had won a solo award during the telecast .
He responded with the suggestion that “ women who have the creativity in their hearts and souls , who want to be musicians , who want to be engineers , producers , and want to be part of the industry on the executive level ” simply needed to “ step up.
” The energy in the press room shifted , instantaneously , from haggard to stone-faced .
The pop star Pink quickly posted a handwritten response to her Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honor the talent and accomplishments of women , and how much women STEP UP every year , against all odds , we show the next generation of women and girls and boys and men what it means to be equal , and what it looks like to be fair , ” she wrote .
Many other women within the industry expressed comparable outrage .
Perhaps if the Academy hadn ’ t seemed so resolutely fusty and unwilling to evolve , or if it had a better pedigree with regards to inclusivity , Portnow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a couple days .
( White men in tuxedos , after all , have been given the benefit of the doubt for eons . )
But his statement felt emblematic of a deeper , more systemic flaw within the organization .
A few months after Portnow made his comments , Dana Tomarken , the former vice-president of the MusiCares foundation—a nonprofit run by the Academy to raise funds for musicians in need—had been suddenly fired .
Each year , MusiCares names a Person of the Year , an award intended to honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievements and philanthropy .
Because the Grammys were being held in New York City that year , the MusiCares Person of the Year ceremony and tribute concert ( the award was going to Fleetwood Mac ) would also be held in New York .
Tomarken said that she was pressured into holding the event at Radio City Music Hall ( rather than the Barclays Center , a basketball stadium in Brooklyn ) , because Portnow had signed a deal with Madison Square Garden , which also operates Radio City .
She received a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then involved in a joint venture with Madison Square Garden—incidentally , while Azoff was managing Fleetwood Mac—demanding that she agree to stage the show there .
But Tomarken believed that the terms of the Radio City contract were unfair and that the organization would lose money as a result .
She pushed back against the decision .
Following her firing , Tomarken filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit , in which she , too , alleged that the Academy operates as a “ boys club.
” She claimed that women were often denied promotions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture , ” exhibiting open and sustained hostility toward the women within the organization .
In a letter to the Academy , Tomarken claimed that she had spent “ a painful year of trying to protect MusiCares from being exploited ” while “ enduring ongoing instances of workplace abuse and harassment.
” The case was eventually settled , but not before a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the employment agreement Tomarken had signed was “ unconscionable.
” After the “ step up ” debacle , Portnow eventually apologized .
His contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July , 2019 , and he said that he would leave his position then .
He did and was replaced by Dugan , who was then the C.E.O .
of ( RED ) , a charitable organization co-founded by Bono .
( It was later revealed by the Times that the original allegation of misconduct by Dugan came from Portnow ’ s former assistant . )
After Dugan was placed on leave , she filed a forty-four page complaint—officially , a charge of discrimination—with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Los Angeles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rape by a “ foreign ” artist during an event at Carnegie Hall and that Dugan herself had been forced to fend off unwelcome sexual advances from Joel Katz , an attorney representing the Grammys .
The complaint also said that one of the 2019 nominees for Song of the Year had sat on the nominating committee , and that the committee member ’ s song had earned a nomination despite originally being ranked eighteenth on a shortlist of twenty songs .
Nominating committees have the power to add artists to the shortlists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy members ; Dugan ’ s complaint alleges that thirty artists were added to the possible nominations list this way .

It’s been a particularly awkward run-up to this year’s Grammy Awards, which will be broadcast on Sunday night, from the Staples Center, in Los Angeles. Last Thursday, Deborah Dugan, the president and chief executive of the Recording Academy, the organization that hosts the show, was placed on administrative leave following accusations of misconduct, setting off a series of claims and counterclaims. The board of trustees initially cited an allegation from “a senior female member of the Recording Academy team” as the reason for Dugan’s leave. Dugan had only been in the position for five months.
Yet the timing of the board’s decision immediately felt retaliatory, coming just weeks after Dugan had sent a memo to human resources claiming “something was seriously amiss at the Academy.” The memo outlined various conflicts of interest, voting irregularities, and significant financial mismanagement, including the amassing of “exorbitant and unnecessary” legal bills. It also called the organization a “boys’ club.”
On Wednesday afternoon, members of the Recording Academy received an e-mail with the subject line “Statement From The Women On The Executive Committee Of The Recording Academy.” Four high-ranking women within the organization—Tammy Hurt, Christine Albert, Leslie Ann Jones, and Terry Jones—had written and distributed a letter gently disputing the notion that the Academy is sexist. “We would not have taken precious time away from our families and careers if we felt that it was a ‘boys’ club,’ ” the women wrote.
It was difficult to discern the authors’ intentions, beyond a kind of hasty, hazy peacekeeping. Mostly, the note felt rash and underconsidered, presuming, as it did, that these four women might be able to accurately speak to the experiences of all women within the Academy, or that it is ever that easy for a woman to extricate herself from a virulent work environment. Ultimately, the e-mail did little to neutralize anxieties. If an organization needs to corral a group of women to publicly vouch for a safe and fair working environment—well, by then the situation has perhaps already grown untenable.
The Academy has been struggling with serious allegations of sexism since at least 2018, when the 60th annual Grammy Awards were held at Madison Square Garden, in New York City. I watched the show from the press room, a dim and unglamorous holding pen located somewhere in the bowels of the arena. The Academy requests that journalists reporting on the show arrive for the pre-telecast, which usually begins around noon, and stay until the broadcast is over. It’s a long journey. I recall eating several gratis sandwiches featuring room-temperature ham and daydreaming about a sleeping bag. It was after 11 P.M. when Neil Portnow, then the president of the Recording Academy, appeared to field questions from reporters. Nothing especially disastrous had occurred during the broadcast, at least from a production standpoint—no one had gone truly rogue, nothing had exploded—so the visit had the vaguely triumphant tenor of a victory lap. Portnow was wearing a tuxedo with a white rose pinned to the lapel, a symbolic but nonetheless small-feeling nod to solidarity with the #MeToo movement.
A journalist asked Portnow about the fact that only one woman, the pop singer Alessia Cara, had won a solo award during the telecast. He responded with the suggestion that “women who have the creativity in their hearts and souls, who want to be musicians, who want to be engineers, producers, and want to be part of the industry on the executive level” simply needed to “step up.” The energy in the press room shifted, instantaneously, from haggard to stone-faced. The pop star Pink quickly posted a handwritten response to her Twitter feed: “When we celebrate and honor the talent and accomplishments of women, and how much women STEP UP every year, against all odds, we show the next generation of women and girls and boys and men what it means to be equal, and what it looks like to be fair,” she wrote. Many other women within the industry expressed comparable outrage.
Perhaps if the Academy hadn’t seemed so resolutely fusty and unwilling to evolve, or if it had a better pedigree with regards to inclusivity, Portnow’s comments might have been forgotten after a couple days. (White men in tuxedos, after all, have been given the benefit of the doubt for eons.) But his statement felt emblematic of a deeper, more systemic flaw within the organization.
A few months after Portnow made his comments, Dana Tomarken, the former vice-president of the MusiCares foundation—a nonprofit run by the Academy to raise funds for musicians in need—had been suddenly fired. Each year, MusiCares names a Person of the Year, an award intended to honor an artist or band for their creative achievements and philanthropy. Because the Grammys were being held in New York City that year, the MusiCares Person of the Year ceremony and tribute concert (the award was going to Fleetwood Mac) would also be held in New York. Tomarken said that she was pressured into holding the event at Radio City Music Hall (rather than the Barclays Center, a basketball stadium in Brooklyn), because Portnow had signed a deal with Madison Square Garden, which also operates Radio City. She received a call from Irving Azoff, who was then involved in a joint venture with Madison Square Garden—incidentally, while Azoff was managing Fleetwood Mac—demanding that she agree to stage the show there. But Tomarken believed that the terms of the Radio City contract were unfair and that the organization would lose money as a result. She pushed back against the decision.
Following her firing, Tomarken filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit, in which she, too, alleged that the Academy operates as a “boys club.” She claimed that women were often denied promotions, and that Portnow nurtured a “sexist culture,” exhibiting open and sustained hostility toward the women within the organization. In a letter to the Academy, Tomarken claimed that she had spent “a painful year of trying to protect MusiCares from being exploited” while “enduring ongoing instances of workplace abuse and harassment.” The case was eventually settled, but not before a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the employment agreement Tomarken had signed was “unconscionable.”
After the “step up” debacle, Portnow eventually apologized. His contract was ending a year later, in July, 2019, and he said that he would leave his position then. He did and was replaced by Dugan, who was then the C.E.O. of (RED), a charitable organization co-founded by Bono. (It was later revealed by the Times that the original allegation of misconduct by Dugan came from Portnow’s former assistant.)
After Dugan was placed on leave, she filed a forty-four page complaint—officially, a charge of discrimination—with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Los Angeles. It alleges that Portnow was accused of rape by a “foreign” artist during an event at Carnegie Hall and that Dugan herself had been forced to fend off unwelcome sexual advances from Joel Katz, an attorney representing the Grammys. The complaint also said that one of the 2019 nominees for Song of the Year had sat on the nominating committee, and that the committee member’s song had earned a nomination despite originally being ranked eighteenth on a shortlist of twenty songs. Nominating committees have the power to add artists to the shortlists who were not necessarily voted in by Academy members; Dugan’s complaint alleges that thirty artists were added to the possible nominations list this way.


newyorker--2020-01-24--The Alternative Oscars, 2020 Edition

The Alternative Oscars, 2020 Edition

The Oscar nominations have disappointed many observers once again .
So it ’ s time for the Brodys—where the film @ @ @ @ @ own picks for the best actor , actress , director , and film of 2019 @ @ @ @ @ s Kai Wright talks with two prison abolitionists about the failures of the criminal-justice system @ @ @ @ @ decarceration would mean .
And Ezra Klein explains how political beliefs have collapsed into a @ @ @ @ @ Richard Brody shares his favorite films from what he calls “ a year of unbelievably @ @ @ @ @ a World Without Prisons Be Like ?
Kai Wright sits down with two advocates of @ @ @ @ @ why and the how of decarceration .
The political commentator ’ s new book tries @ @ @ @ @ political question of the day .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
The Oscar nominations have disappointed many observers once again. So it’s time for the Brodys—where the film critic Richard Brody makes his own picks for the best actor, actress, director, and film of 2019. Plus, WNYC’s Kai Wright talks with two prison abolitionists about the failures of the criminal-justice system and what a future of decarceration would mean. And Ezra Klein explains how political beliefs have collapsed into a kind of identity politics.
The Brody Awards
Richard Brody shares his favorite films from what he calls “a year of unbelievably audacious filmmaking.”
What Would a World Without Prisons Be Like?
Kai Wright sits down with two advocates of prison abolition to discuss the why and the how of decarceration.
Ezra Klein on Why We’re Polarized
The political commentator’s new book tries to answer the most pressing political question of the day.


newyorker--2020-01-24--The Still Astonishing “Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.”

Many of the best black American filmmakers of recent times—including Julie Dash , Zeinabu irene Davis , Wendell B. Harris , Jr. , and Leslie Harris—burst into the cinemasphere with a first film of startling originality and have been denied the chance to make a second feature ever since .
This Saturday , Leslie Harris ’ s only feature to date , “ Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.
, ” from 1992 , will be screening at Film Forum , in the series “ Black Women : Trailblazing African American Actresses & Images , 1920–2001 , ” introduced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also available to stream on several sites , including Amazon and iTunes . )
The film ’ s artistry opens new paths that the industry at large , both mainstream and independent , thought best to leave unpursued .
This stopped Harris ’ s directorial career cold , depriving viewers of her further imaginative insights and stifling in advance the actors and collaborators who ’ d have been launched along the way .
From the start , “ Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.
, ” an independent film made on a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thirty thousand dollars ) , is a polyphonic work of multiple voices and consciousnesses .
Its protagonist , Chantel ( Ariyan A. Johnson ) , is a junior in a Brooklyn high school—a black student in a school and a neighborhood where all of her classmates and all of her friends and acquaintances are black .
She lives in a housing project with her parents and two younger brothers .
Chantel ’ s parents work long hours—her mother ’ s on the day shift , her father on the night shift—so she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and off to school in the morning .
Chantel herself works part-time at a food store ( the scenes were filmed at the famous Zabar ’ s ) , and , noting the absurd luxuries that a high-handed and contemptuous white woman takes for granted , she accepts no guff from this customer and risks her job to push back at her .
Chantel ’ s parents fight over money and struggle bitterly for it ; her mother is denied a long-awaited promotion .
Chantel is also an excellent student whose plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s depicted as atypical in her circle of peers—has two motivations : for her to be of service to the community , and to make a good living without a “ boss.
” Chantel ’ s intense practicality and focus is still that of a high-school junior—one who ’ s in a hurry in all sorts of ways .
She wants to graduate a year early and get to college ( and leave the neighborhood ) all the faster ; she also wants a social life , and struggles against her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of freedom .
The pressures of her conflicts with her parents and also the stresses of her daily life break into drama when Chantel begins a relationship with a suave young man named Tyrone ( Kevin Thigpen ) .
She becomes pregnant and must decide whether to have an abortion .
She also has to face the crisis of letting her parents , her peers , and her school know that she ’ s pregnant—and how she does so is the dramatic crux of the movie .
In the span of just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complexities of teen-age life , and of the specifics of Chantel ’ s own life and states of mind .
Chantel is bold , courageous , boastful , fragile , lucid , bewildered , brash , funny , vulnerable , exuberant , playful , and earnest—all in a handful of scenes that are marked by her direct address , her punctuation of dramatic sequences with first-person monologues into the camera .
Her intense and serious emotion and breezy comedy , freewheeling excitement and acerbic cruelty , self-awareness and self-delusion tumble upon one another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evokes the whirling spectrum of Chantel ’ s emotional world .
So too does Johnson ’ s performance , which ranges from skitlike and comedic to sharp-edged and smooth and furiously dramatic .
Yet Harris boldly displaces Chantel ’ s psychology from explanations to displays that find their correlates not only in Chantel ’ s own actions but in her experiences and observations .
Whether it ’ s in Chantel ’ s confrontations with a white teacher who responds with hostility to her challenge to an educational system that has little to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a sympathetic clinic counsellor ( Chequita Jackson ) who ’ s legally barred from discussing abortion , her reckoning with violence in the streets , or her clash with the school ’ s principal ( Wendell Moore ) , society at large is an active participant in the movie ’ s drama and , above all , in the formation of Chantel ’ s inner life .
The characters she encounters in her dealings with institutions small and large are themselves double presences , displaying personal authority while also equally representing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they work .
Though they ’ re plausible characters in realistic situations , they ’ re above all emblematic—reflections of Chantel ’ s inner life , amplifications and ramifications of her conflicts and confusions .
Chantel ’ s knowledge is inseparable from power , as seen in school scenes or another sequence , both comedic and painful , in which she and two female friends discuss sexual matters with a misguided , or , rather , unguided confidence that reflects hearsay rather than education ; it reflects all that they aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the media .
In effect , “ Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.
” is a documentary of subjectivity , an outward view of the inner life of a young black woman—of a person who , by the sheer fact of those three descriptors , is subjected to relations of power and of control , and faces conflicts of a political nature in the course of her daily life .
Harris brings to the fore a character who ’ s no abstraction but has abstraction forced upon her , who , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , is born into conflict , is thrust into a public life and a symbolic role that reflects back into her sense of self and plays an integral part in the formation of her character .
In spotlighting a protagonist who ’ s a young black woman , Harris is also spotlighting a society in which young black women aren ’ t considered , or allowed to be , the protagonists in their own stories .
In lieu of a title card saying “ The End , ” Harris places one with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epigram that she signs in her own name : “ A Film Hollywood Dared Not Do.
” It turns out that even the independent-film community dared not do another film like it .

Many of the best black American filmmakers of recent times—including Julie Dash, Zeinabu irene Davis, Wendell B. Harris, Jr., and Leslie Harris—burst into the cinemasphere with a first film of startling originality and have been denied the chance to make a second feature ever since. This Saturday, Leslie Harris’s only feature to date, “Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.,” from 1992, will be screening at Film Forum, in the series “Black Women: Trailblazing African American Actresses & Images, 1920–2001,” introduced by the filmmaker. (It’s also available to stream on several sites, including Amazon and iTunes.) The film’s artistry opens new paths that the industry at large, both mainstream and independent, thought best to leave unpursued. This stopped Harris’s directorial career cold, depriving viewers of her further imaginative insights and stifling in advance the actors and collaborators who’d have been launched along the way.
From the start, “Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.,” an independent film made on a very low budget (reportedly a hundred and thirty thousand dollars), is a polyphonic work of multiple voices and consciousnesses. Its protagonist, Chantel (Ariyan A. Johnson), is a junior in a Brooklyn high school—a black student in a school and a neighborhood where all of her classmates and all of her friends and acquaintances are black. She lives in a housing project with her parents and two younger brothers. Chantel’s parents work long hours—her mother’s on the day shift, her father on the night shift—so she’s responsible for getting her brothers up and off to school in the morning. Chantel herself works part-time at a food store (the scenes were filmed at the famous Zabar’s), and, noting the absurd luxuries that a high-handed and contemptuous white woman takes for granted, she accepts no guff from this customer and risks her job to push back at her. Chantel’s parents fight over money and struggle bitterly for it; her mother is denied a long-awaited promotion. Chantel is also an excellent student whose plan to attend college and become a doctor—an ambition that’s depicted as atypical in her circle of peers—has two motivations: for her to be of service to the community, and to make a good living without a “boss.”
Chantel’s intense practicality and focus is still that of a high-school junior—one who’s in a hurry in all sorts of ways. She wants to graduate a year early and get to college (and leave the neighborhood) all the faster; she also wants a social life, and struggles against her wary and protective parents for a bit of freedom. The pressures of her conflicts with her parents and also the stresses of her daily life break into drama when Chantel begins a relationship with a suave young man named Tyrone (Kevin Thigpen). She becomes pregnant and must decide whether to have an abortion. She also has to face the crisis of letting her parents, her peers, and her school know that she’s pregnant—and how she does so is the dramatic crux of the movie.
In the span of just a few minutes, Harris evokes the myriad complexities of teen-age life, and of the specifics of Chantel’s own life and states of mind. Chantel is bold, courageous, boastful, fragile, lucid, bewildered, brash, funny, vulnerable, exuberant, playful, and earnest—all in a handful of scenes that are marked by her direct address, her punctuation of dramatic sequences with first-person monologues into the camera. Her intense and serious emotion and breezy comedy, freewheeling excitement and acerbic cruelty, self-awareness and self-delusion tumble upon one another with a hectic clash of tones that evokes the whirling spectrum of Chantel’s emotional world. So too does Johnson’s performance, which ranges from skitlike and comedic to sharp-edged and smooth and furiously dramatic.
Yet Harris boldly displaces Chantel’s psychology from explanations to displays that find their correlates not only in Chantel’s own actions but in her experiences and observations. Whether it’s in Chantel’s confrontations with a white teacher who responds with hostility to her challenge to an educational system that has little to say about the African-American experience, her sparring with a sympathetic clinic counsellor (Chequita Jackson) who’s legally barred from discussing abortion, her reckoning with violence in the streets, or her clash with the school’s principal (Wendell Moore), society at large is an active participant in the movie’s drama and, above all, in the formation of Chantel’s inner life.
The characters she encounters in her dealings with institutions small and large are themselves double presences, displaying personal authority while also equally representing and conveying the power of the institutions within which they work. Though they’re plausible characters in realistic situations, they’re above all emblematic—reflections of Chantel’s inner life, amplifications and ramifications of her conflicts and confusions. Chantel’s knowledge is inseparable from power, as seen in school scenes or another sequence, both comedic and painful, in which she and two female friends discuss sexual matters with a misguided, or, rather, unguided confidence that reflects hearsay rather than education; it reflects all that they aren’t being told by parents or teachers or the media.
In effect, “Just Another Girl on the I.R.T.” is a documentary of subjectivity, an outward view of the inner life of a young black woman—of a person who, by the sheer fact of those three descriptors, is subjected to relations of power and of control, and faces conflicts of a political nature in the course of her daily life. Harris brings to the fore a character who’s no abstraction but has abstraction forced upon her, who, with her very identity (rather, identities), is born into conflict, is thrust into a public life and a symbolic role that reflects back into her sense of self and plays an integral part in the formation of her character. In spotlighting a protagonist who’s a young black woman, Harris is also spotlighting a society in which young black women aren’t considered, or allowed to be, the protagonists in their own stories. In lieu of a title card saying “The End,” Harris places one with the title of the film and an epigram that she signs in her own name: “A Film Hollywood Dared Not Do.” It turns out that even the independent-film community dared not do another film like it.


newyorker--2020-01-24--Watch Live: Day 4 of Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial in the Senate

Friday is Day 4 of the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump , and it marks the Democratic House managers ’ final day of arguments .
On Thursday , the House managers both laid out their case against the President and attempted to preëmpt the response of Trump ’ s legal team , which is expected to begin its arguments on Saturday .
For the first hour , Jerrold Nadler , the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , dissected constitutional law as it relates to Presidential impeachment , laying down a theoretical foundation for how the House ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s removal from office and refuting the popular Republican claim that the President can not be impeached without having committed an actual crime .
To make his point , Nadler even cited comments made by current defenders of the President , including Attorney General William Barr ; Alan Dershowitz , a Harvard law professor and a member of Trump ’ s legal-defense team ; and Senator Lindsey Graham , who was shown , in video from the Clinton impeachment , saying , “ When you start using your office and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurts people , you ’ ve committed a high crime.
” Graham , who ’ d left the chamber minutes before , was not present for his onscreen appearance .
The managers also spoke extensively of the Bidens .
In the course of an hour , Sylvia Garcia , a first-term representative from Texas , sought to dismantle an allegation that Joe Biden had successfully removed a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma , the energy company on whose board Biden ’ s son Hunter served , a claim that Trump has consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garcia ’ s defense of Biden , Adam Schiff , the lead House manager , clarified that the managers are impartial to the results of the Democratic Presidential primary . )
The Times called the day ’ s Biden focus a “ calculated risk ” —although the managers were the first to establish a defining narrative surrounding the Bidens , who are sure to feature heavily in the Republican arguments , they also risked making the family appear material to the trial .
Jay Sekulow , Trump ’ s personal attorney , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and Republican senators began to call—outside of the chamber ’ s walls—for the Bidens to testify .
Shortly after 10 p.m. , Schiff returned to the dais for a closing argument .
After repeating salient facts of the House ’ s case , he implored Senate Republicans—of whom only four need to defect from the Party line next week in order to demand that the trial feature witnesses—to see Trump ’ s actions as posing a danger to American democracy .
“ You can ’ t trust this President to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can trust he will do what ’ s right for Donald Trump , ” he said .
“ He ’ ll do it now .
He ’ s done it before .
He ’ ll do it for the next several months .
He ’ ll do it in the election , if he ’ s allowed to.
” It echoed how Nadler had opened the day ’ s arguments .
“ The Constitution is not a suicide pact , ” he ’ d said .
“ It does not leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in unforeseen ways that threaten our security and democracy.
” Friday ’ s arguments are expected to focus on the second article of impeachment , obstruction of Congress .
You can watch the proceedings in the live stream above .

Friday’s arguments are expected to focus on the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.
Friday is Day 4 of the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, and it marks the Democratic House managers’ final day of arguments. On Thursday, the House managers both laid out their case against the President and attempted to preëmpt the response of Trump’s legal team, which is expected to begin its arguments on Saturday. For the first hour, Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, dissected constitutional law as it relates to Presidential impeachment, laying down a theoretical foundation for how the House’s two articles of impeachment could lead to Trump’s removal from office and refuting the popular Republican claim that the President cannot be impeached without having committed an actual crime. To make his point, Nadler even cited comments made by current defenders of the President, including Attorney General William Barr; Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and a member of Trump’s legal-defense team; and Senator Lindsey Graham, who was shown, in video from the Clinton impeachment, saying, “When you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.” Graham, who’d left the chamber minutes before, was not present for his onscreen appearance.
The managers also spoke extensively of the Bidens. In the course of an hour, Sylvia Garcia, a first-term representative from Texas, sought to dismantle an allegation that Joe Biden had successfully removed a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the energy company on whose board Biden’s son Hunter served, a claim that Trump has consistently put forward without evidence. (Following Garcia’s defense of Biden, Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, clarified that the managers are impartial to the results of the Democratic Presidential primary.) The Times called the day’s Biden focus a “calculated risk”—although the managers were the first to establish a defining narrative surrounding the Bidens, who are sure to feature heavily in the Republican arguments, they also risked making the family appear material to the trial. Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, said, “They have opened the door,” and Republican senators began to call—outside of the chamber’s walls—for the Bidens to testify.
Shortly after 10 p.m., Schiff returned to the dais for a closing argument. After repeating salient facts of the House’s case, he implored Senate Republicans—of whom only four need to defect from the Party line next week in order to demand that the trial feature witnesses—to see Trump’s actions as posing a danger to American democracy. “You can’t trust this President to do what’s right for this country. You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump,” he said. “He’ll do it now. He’s done it before. He’ll do it for the next several months. He’ll do it in the election, if he’s allowed to.” It echoed how Nadler had opened the day’s arguments. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” he’d said. “It does not leave us stuck with Presidents who abuse their power in unforeseen ways that threaten our security and democracy.”
Friday’s arguments are expected to focus on the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress. You can watch the proceedings in the live stream above.


newyorker--2020-01-24--There’s a Lot More to E. Jean Carroll’s Book than Trump

I first saw E. Jean Carroll , the longtime advice columnist for Elle and author of the book “ What Do We Need Men For ?
A Modest Proposal , ” onstage at Wordfest , in Calgary , this past October .
She was wearing a vintage flight suit , a garment that is not only stylish but practical : rather than carry a suitcase , she had used its multiple pockets to pack for the weekend—the author as human duffelbag .
The extra padding had , of course , aroused the suspicions of airport-security officials , which resulted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was the closest she ’ d come to sex in years .
When Carroll ’ s book came out , last July , it got swamped in the news cycle , because an excerpt , published in New York magazine , described a scene at Bergdorf Goodman , the luxury department store on Fifth Avenue , circa 1995-96 , in which a certain real-estate tycoon who lived in a nearby tower enlisted the advice columnist ’ s help in choosing a gift for a girl , and then allegedly steered her into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself on her without removing his overcoat .
( Carroll admits that there is no proof—only her memory , sometimes faulty , sometimes vivid—but , as has been said before , who would make up such a thing ? )
The accused , now President of the United States , denied the incident , saying that he had never met the author .
Then he insulted her and moved on , the news churning in his wake , as usual .
The sordid incident , though it takes up only about seven of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to define the book , and that is too bad , because there is much more to “ What Do We Need Men For ?
” than a single brutish act .
The book is a work of comic genius .
The “ modest proposal ” of the subtitle ( after Jonathan Swift ) grew out of the advice columnist ’ s observation that most problems—at least the ones that women write to Elle about—can be traced to one source : men .
Her proposal is that men be harvested for their component @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hydrogen , etc . )
, which could be sold on the open market , where each bloke ’ s essence would fetch about a dollar .
Lest this seem harsh , our advice columnist gives men a chance to be redeemed : she goes on the road , stopping only in places named for women—Elnora , Cynthiana , Anita , Bonnie—and wherever she goes she asks the people she meets the title question : What do we need men for ?
“ Yard work ” is one answer .
E. Jean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poodle named Lewis Carroll , in a Prius that she calls Miss Bingley ( after the mean girl in Jane Austen ’ s “ Pride and Prejudice ” ) .
The travelogue is enlivened by various lists , including “ The Most Hideous Men in My Life List , ” a subject that gives a girl a lot of material .
The current President , whom history will remember as No .
45 and No .
3—third to be impeached—comes in at No .
20 .
Carroll grew up in Indiana .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because she refers to her younger self once as Betty Jean , but she was mostly called Jeanie ; perhaps E. Jean is a twist on Jean E. ?
She was a cheerleader—in fact , she was Miss Cheerleader U.S.A. in 1964—and a sorority girl ( Pi Phi ) .
For the “ What Do We Need Men For ?
” road trip , with its feminist slant , she packed clothes designed by women , including a Donna Karan kilt and a Korean driving cap , and ate food associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burritos in the motel microwave , snacking on Girl Scout cookies , and stopping at Dairy Queen .
She addresses her audience the way she addresses regular readers of her column— “ Ladies !
” —and every chapter , every paragraph , every sentence contains some fresh , good-humored turn of phrase , such as “ Ladies , have you ever fallen for a heel ?
” In Calgary , at Wordfest , Carroll was asked to read the passage from her book documenting the alleged department-store rape , but she preferred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read it instead .
She said that she had never read the passage aloud in public and wasn ’ t sure how it would affect her .
Maybe she would cry , maybe she would be rendered speechless , or maybe she would be afflicted with helpless laughter , as sometimes happens when one is traumatized .
Laughter bubbled up during the incident itself and again afterward when she told a friend , who insisted that she go to the police ( “ He raped you ” ) : “ and this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not stop laughing.
” The passage ends , “ I ’ ve never had sex with anybody ever again.
” “ Do not be alarmed , Ladies , ” Carroll writes , early in the book .
“ I have been attacked by far , far better men than the president.
” She was in her early fifties that long-ago day in Bergdorf ’ s—she is now seventy-six—and the statute of limitations on charges of sexual abuse has passed .
But the President , in denying that he ever met her , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of character .
He then attempted to have that suit dismissed , on the ground that when he made his comments he was not physically present in New York .
( Carroll on Twitter : “ When you ’ ve sexually assaulted a woman , argue you can ’ t be sued in New York !
” ) This legal strategy was rejected by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan , of the State Supreme Court , a victory for Carroll and her lawyer , Roberta Kaplan .
Meanwhile , the President ’ s impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial of Harvey Weinstein ( “ who looks like he ’ s been stuffed by an inebriated taxidermist , ” Carroll writes in her book ) is starting up in New York , major legal proceedings in which our advice columnist takes a deep personal interest .
“ I wish there had been a third Article of Impeachment , ” she wrote on Twitter : “ The Abuse Of Women .
”

I first saw E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist for Elle and author of the book “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal,” onstage at Wordfest, in Calgary, this past October. She was wearing a vintage flight suit, a garment that is not only stylish but practical: rather than carry a suitcase, she had used its multiple pockets to pack for the weekend—the author as human duffelbag. The extra padding had, of course, aroused the suspicions of airport-security officials, which resulted in a vigorous pat-down. She joked that it was the closest she’d come to sex in years.
When Carroll’s book came out, last July, it got swamped in the news cycle, because an excerpt, published in New York magazine, described a scene at Bergdorf Goodman, the luxury department store on Fifth Avenue, circa 1995-96, in which a certain real-estate tycoon who lived in a nearby tower enlisted the advice columnist’s help in choosing a gift for a girl, and then allegedly steered her into the lingerie-department dressing room, and forced himself on her without removing his overcoat. (Carroll admits that there is no proof—only her memory, sometimes faulty, sometimes vivid—but, as has been said before, who would make up such a thing?) The accused, now President of the United States, denied the incident, saying that he had never met the author. Then he insulted her and moved on, the news churning in his wake, as usual. The sordid incident, though it takes up only about seven of two hundred and seventy-four pages, came to define the book, and that is too bad, because there is much more to “What Do We Need Men For?” than a single brutish act. The book is a work of comic genius.
The “modest proposal” of the subtitle (after Jonathan Swift) grew out of the advice columnist’s observation that most problems—at least the ones that women write to Elle about—can be traced to one source: men. Her proposal is that men be harvested for their component elements (iodine, phosphorous, carbon, hydrogen, etc.), which could be sold on the open market, where each bloke’s essence would fetch about a dollar. Lest this seem harsh, our advice columnist gives men a chance to be redeemed: she goes on the road, stopping only in places named for women—Elnora, Cynthiana, Anita, Bonnie—and wherever she goes she asks the people she meets the title question: What do we need men for? “Yard work” is one answer.
E. Jean travels with her dog, a standard poodle named Lewis Carroll, in a Prius that she calls Miss Bingley (after the mean girl in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”). The travelogue is enlivened by various lists, including “The Most Hideous Men in My Life List,” a subject that gives a girl a lot of material. The current President, whom history will remember as No. 45 and No. 3—third to be impeached—comes in at No. 20. Carroll grew up in Indiana. She must have originally been named Elizabeth Jean, because she refers to her younger self once as Betty Jean, but she was mostly called Jeanie; perhaps E. Jean is a twist on Jean E.? She was a cheerleader—in fact, she was Miss Cheerleader U.S.A. in 1964—and a sorority girl (Pi Phi). For the “What Do We Need Men For?” road trip, with its feminist slant, she packed clothes designed by women, including a Donna Karan kilt and a Korean driving cap, and ate food associated with women, heating up Amy’s burritos in the motel microwave, snacking on Girl Scout cookies, and stopping at Dairy Queen. She addresses her audience the way she addresses regular readers of her column—“Ladies!”—and every chapter, every paragraph, every sentence contains some fresh, good-humored turn of phrase, such as “Ladies, have you ever fallen for a heel?”
In Calgary, at Wordfest, Carroll was asked to read the passage from her book documenting the alleged department-store rape, but she preferred to have her interlocutor, Rita Sirignano, read it instead. She said that she had never read the passage aloud in public and wasn’t sure how it would affect her. Maybe she would cry, maybe she would be rendered speechless, or maybe she would be afflicted with helpless laughter, as sometimes happens when one is traumatized. Laughter bubbled up during the incident itself and again afterward when she told a friend, who insisted that she go to the police (“He raped you”): “and this is one of the strangest facts of all—I could not stop laughing.” The passage ends, “I’ve never had sex with anybody ever again.”
“Do not be alarmed, Ladies,” Carroll writes, early in the book. “I have been attacked by far, far better men than the president.” She was in her early fifties that long-ago day in Bergdorf’s—she is now seventy-six—and the statute of limitations on charges of sexual abuse has passed. But the President, in denying that he ever met her, gave her cause to sue for defamation of character. He then attempted to have that suit dismissed, on the ground that when he made his comments he was not physically present in New York. (Carroll on Twitter: “When you’ve sexually assaulted a woman, argue you can’t be sued in New York!”) This legal strategy was rejected by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, of the State Supreme Court, a victory for Carroll and her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. Meanwhile, the President’s impeachment trial is unfolding in Washington, and the trial of Harvey Weinstein (“who looks like he’s been stuffed by an inebriated taxidermist,” Carroll writes in her book) is starting up in New York, major legal proceedings in which our advice columnist takes a deep personal interest. “I wish there had been a third Article of Impeachment,” she wrote on Twitter: “The Abuse Of Women.”


newyorker--2020-01-24--Trump Defense Team Scrambling to Find Example of Law Trump Did Not Break

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Desperately trying to change the narrative after a week of damaging presentations , Donald J. Trump ’ s defense team is scrambling to find an example of one law that Trump did not break , sources confirmed on Friday .
In concert with two of Jeffrey Epstein ’ s most prominent defenders , Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr , Trump ’ s personal attorney Jay Sekulow has been scouring federal , state , and municipal law books in the hopes of finding one statute that Trump , for whatever reason , did not violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a source close to the defense team said .
If the attorneys do manage to find a law that Trump did not break , that information will be “ locked down ” in a secure server to which Trump himself will not have access .
“ They ’ re trying to prevent the worst-case scenario , where Trump discovers there ’ s a law he hasn ’ t broken yet and immediately goes and breaks it , ” the source said .
As the pressure on the defense team mounts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got involved with Trump ’ s case .
“ O.J .
was easier than this , ” he was overheard muttering .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Desperately trying to change the narrative after a week of damaging presentations, Donald J. Trump’s defense team is scrambling to find an example of one law that Trump did not break, sources confirmed on Friday.
In concert with two of Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent defenders, Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow has been scouring federal, state, and municipal law books in the hopes of finding one statute that Trump, for whatever reason, did not violate.
“So far, no luck,” a source close to the defense team said.
If the attorneys do manage to find a law that Trump did not break, that information will be “locked down” in a secure server to which Trump himself will not have access.
“They’re trying to prevent the worst-case scenario, where Trump discovers there’s a law he hasn’t broken yet and immediately goes and breaks it,” the source said.
As the pressure on the defense team mounts, Dershowitz has privately expressed regret that he got involved with Trump’s case.
“O.J. was easier than this,” he was overheard muttering.


newyorker--2020-01-24--How the Impeachment Trial Is Disrupting the Final Stretch of the Iowa Caucuses

Subscribers to The New Yorker ’ s new 2020 election newsletter , On the Trail , received this piece in their in-boxes .
Sign up to receive future installments .
“ As all of you know , tonight I ’ m going back to D.C. , ” Bernie Sanders told a crowd at a rally in Des Moines on Monday night .
“ Tomorrow , I ’ ll be in an impeachment trial.
” His tone was one of mild annoyance .
Throughout last year , the Democratic Presidential candidates insisted that the fight over America ’ s political future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than back in Washington .
Democrats couldn ’ t change the grim reality of Donald Trump ’ s Presidency—they could only debate who should replace him and his Administration .
Now , with less than two weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses , several of the race ’ s protagonists were being called back to the capital to participate in a process whose outcome is all but preordained .
The President ’ s impeachment was , in large part , greeted by the Democratic candidates not as a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s No .
1 enemy—or even as a chance to highlight the difference , say , between being a sitting U.S. senator and being a former mayor of a medium-sized Midwestern city—but as humdrum jury duty .
“ I ’ m not going to be able to be here as much as I would like , ” Sanders told the crowd in Des Moines .
“ So you guys are going to have to carry the ball.
” The early-voting states—Iowa , New Hampshire , and South Carolina , in particular—are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compete to make the most trips to these states , to host the most events , to knock on the most doors .
Defenders of the current primary system cite this as a positive : candidates can ’ t rely just on national media attention or big-donor-financed advertising to mount their campaigns , they have to show up and press some flesh .
Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Amy Klobuchar , the three senators still left in clear contention , have been investing time and effort in the early states for months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , too , given the number of diners he ’ s visited in New Hampshire , but he remains nowhere in the polls . )
Now they ’ ll have to find ways to run campaigns of absence .
Surrogates will fill some of the void .
On Tuesday , Warren announced that a small army of them—including Julián Castro , Ayanna Pressley , and the actress Ashley Judd—would fan out across the country on her behalf .
Klobuchar went a more intimate route : thirteen members of the Iowa legislature held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday to talk about why they had endorsed her , and her daughter hit the trail in the state on Wednesday .
Sanders , who has some practice in this , having been forced off the trail for a few days this fall , after a heart attack , is bringing in the ringers : Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in Iowa for him this week , while Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of ice-cream fame will be in New Hampshire .
Will this situation benefit the two leading candidates who aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sanders may be in D.C. , but he hasn ’ t ceded the trail entirely : he has successfully goaded Joe Biden into a fight over Social Security , a fight that involves questions of both Biden ’ s social-spending priorities and his electability .
( Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias wrote a good breakdown of the situation and Biden ’ s record . )
And it ’ s not clear how much the extra face time will really help the former Vice-President .
Biden , who is at or near the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a number of the early states , is a formidable candidate who was underrated for much of last year by pundits and opponents .
After a rough summer , he ’ s been much sharper on the trail lately .
But events and energy are just not what his campaign is about .
On Tuesday night , in Fort Dodge , I watched people nod politely as Biden meandered through his stump speech and then took a few questions .
( I thought back to Monday night , when Sanders had asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like crazy . )
On Wednesday , it snowed in Iowa , and an NBC News reporter snapped a photograph of a Biden event in Osage that was half empty .
Pete Buttigieg has been drawing larger , much more enthusiastic crowds in Iowa and elsewhere since the fall .
The actress Mandy Moore came and joined him on the trail earlier this month , and his organization in Iowa is widely considered as good as any in the field .
But competition on the ground isn ’ t his problem—he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Michael Bloomberg , the billionaire former New York City mayor , who is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire entirely .
It ’ s hard to say what he gains from not having Sanders or Warren around .
In some ways , this week is a reminder that presence and absence have been issues this entire campaign .
Trump has loomed over the race like a spectre , spooking voters , changing news environments with a tweet or a missile strike .
Barack Obama has been a different kind of ghost , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy .
Last month , when he gave a public statement about old men “ not getting out of the way , ” everyone strained to interpret which old man , exactly , he meant .
And then there ’ s the other figure from the Democratic Party ’ s recent past who popped up this week : Hillary Clinton , who gave an interview to The Hollywood Reporter in which she dismissed Sanders ’ s record in the Senate and criticized his campaign ’ s treatment of female opponents .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people should take into account when they make their decisions , ” she said .
As the 2020 Democratic primary reaches the end of the pre-voting season , all of these figures are there and not there .
In less than two weeks , the voters show up .

Subscribers to The New Yorker’s new 2020 election newsletter, On the Trail, received this piece in their in-boxes. Sign up to receive future installments.
“As all of you know, tonight I’m going back to D.C.,” Bernie Sanders told a crowd at a rally in Des Moines on Monday night. “Tomorrow, I’ll be in an impeachment trial.” His tone was one of mild annoyance. Throughout last year, the Democratic Presidential candidates insisted that the fight over America’s political future was out here, in the country, rather than back in Washington. Democrats couldn’t change the grim reality of Donald Trump’s Presidency—they could only debate who should replace him and his Administration. Now, with less than two weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, several of the race’s protagonists were being called back to the capital to participate in a process whose outcome is all but preordained. The President’s impeachment was, in large part, greeted by the Democratic candidates not as a chance to do high civic battle with their Party’s No. 1 enemy—or even as a chance to highlight the difference, say, between being a sitting U.S. senator and being a former mayor of a medium-sized Midwestern city—but as humdrum jury duty. “I’m not going to be able to be here as much as I would like,” Sanders told the crowd in Des Moines. “So you guys are going to have to carry the ball.”
The early-voting states—Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, in particular—are, supposedly, all about presence. Candidates compete to make the most trips to these states, to host the most events, to knock on the most doors. Defenders of the current primary system cite this as a positive: candidates can’t rely just on national media attention or big-donor-financed advertising to mount their campaigns, they have to show up and press some flesh. Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar, the three senators still left in clear contention, have been investing time and effort in the early states for months. (Michael Bennet could be mentioned here, too, given the number of diners he’s visited in New Hampshire, but he remains nowhere in the polls.) Now they’ll have to find ways to run campaigns of absence.
Surrogates will fill some of the void. On Tuesday, Warren announced that a small army of them—including Julián Castro, Ayanna Pressley, and the actress Ashley Judd—would fan out across the country on her behalf. Klobuchar went a more intimate route: thirteen members of the Iowa legislature held a press conference in Des Moines on Tuesday to talk about why they had endorsed her, and her daughter hit the trail in the state on Wednesday. Sanders, who has some practice in this, having been forced off the trail for a few days this fall, after a heart attack, is bringing in the ringers: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in Iowa for him this week, while Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of ice-cream fame will be in New Hampshire.
Will this situation benefit the two leading candidates who aren’t in the Senate? Hard to say. Sanders may be in D.C., but he hasn’t ceded the trail entirely: he has successfully goaded Joe Biden into a fight over Social Security, a fight that involves questions of both Biden’s social-spending priorities and his electability. (Vox’s Matthew Yglesias wrote a good breakdown of the situation and Biden’s record.) And it’s not clear how much the extra face time will really help the former Vice-President. Biden, who is at or near the top of the polls both nationally and in a number of the early states, is a formidable candidate who was underrated for much of last year by pundits and opponents. After a rough summer, he’s been much sharper on the trail lately. But events and energy are just not what his campaign is about. On Tuesday night, in Fort Dodge, I watched people nod politely as Biden meandered through his stump speech and then took a few questions. (I thought back to Monday night, when Sanders had asked his supporters to carry the ball—they cheered like crazy.) On Wednesday, it snowed in Iowa, and an NBC News reporter snapped a photograph of a Biden event in Osage that was half empty.
Pete Buttigieg has been drawing larger, much more enthusiastic crowds in Iowa and elsewhere since the fall. The actress Mandy Moore came and joined him on the trail earlier this month, and his organization in Iowa is widely considered as good as any in the field. But competition on the ground isn’t his problem—he’s started to feel heat in national polls from Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, who is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire entirely. It’s hard to say what he gains from not having Sanders or Warren around.
In some ways, this week is a reminder that presence and absence have been issues this entire campaign. Trump has loomed over the race like a spectre, spooking voters, changing news environments with a tweet or a missile strike. Barack Obama has been a different kind of ghost, the candidates alternating between invoking and critiquing his legacy. Last month, when he gave a public statement about old men “not getting out of the way,” everyone strained to interpret which old man, exactly, he meant. And then there’s the other figure from the Democratic Party’s recent past who popped up this week: Hillary Clinton, who gave an interview to The Hollywood Reporter in which she dismissed Sanders’s record in the Senate and criticized his campaign’s treatment of female opponents. “I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions,” she said. As the 2020 Democratic primary reaches the end of the pre-voting season, all of these figures are there and not there. In less than two weeks, the voters show up.


newyorker--2020-01-24--We Quit Our Jobs and Bought a Murder Van

Hi , guys !
Welcome to our travel and murder blog .
You might be wondering how two millennials plucked up the courage to jump off that corporate hamster wheel , cash in our savings , and buy a murder van .
Believe me , it wasn ’ t an easy decision .
But I ’ m getting ahead of myself .
Let me tell you a little more about me and my boyfriend , Kevin .
I was a pretty typical twentysomething when we met , two years ago .
You might say that I was somewhat impressionable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have the greatest childhood .
Anyway , that all changed when I met Kev .
Sure , some of my girlfriends didn ’ t get the best vibes from him , but Kevin showed me that they were never my true friends and that I was better off without them .
Since then , it ’ s basically been us against the world !
Kevin has a spotty record ( totally unfair , BTW ) , and has had a bunch of different jobs—but advertising ’ s a revolving door , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working at a startup .
It was a great job with amazing benefits , but , in meetings , I ’ d daydream about hitting the road and Instagramming all of the natural beauty this country has to offer .
Then I ’ d think about all the times Kevin ’ s told me that society is conspiring against us and that we only have each other and that we have to punish mankind for its sins .
As you can tell , Kevin doesn ’ t do anything halfway !
Finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to take the plunge and embrace that # MurderVanLife !
We sold everything we could , bought a van , and retrofitted it as a fully functional tiny murder house on wheels .
It even has a reading nook—so cozy .
Follow our blog to hear all about our adventures and our murders .
We had a blast wandering the city , trying a bunch of great local microbrews , and getting lost in the Tattered Cover bookstore .
I wanted to squeeze in a quick hike up Mt .
Falcon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdering .
Eventually , we found this guy named James who fit the bill perfectly !
After we murdered him , we cleaned up the van and got out of town on the quicker side , just in case .
Kevin says we ’ ll be able to work at a more relaxed pace once we ’ re out in nature .
Nothing could have prepared me for the beauty of Arches National Park , not even the thousands of photos I looked at while we were driving through the Rockies .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by yours truly on the little hot plate in our van .
While we were hiking , we met this nice student named Elle and dumped her on our way out of town .
If any of you are interested in embracing # MurderVanLife yourselves , I can ’ t recommend Utah enough !
There are miles of open desert right off Route 70 .
Who ’ s got four thumbs and paddled the Snake River ?
THESE GUYS !
Who ’ s got no thumbs and is currently drifting toward the Pacific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m telling you , a bright blue glacial lake nestled among mountains is unlike anything you ’ ve ever imagined .
This really nice couple named David and Marie helped us make our first-ever bear bag to keep our food away from hungry wildlife .
We ’ re hoping those bears find David and Marie before the Mounties do !
Real talk , guys .
Living together in close quarters can be tough .
I know blogs like this one sometimes make # MurderVanLife seem idyllic , but , if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges .
Sometimes I ’ ll want to chat , but Kevin just wants to stare at all our victims ’ drivers ’ licenses for hours .
Lately , he ’ s been really mad because he found out that I ’ ve been posting about each of our stops .
He doesn ’ t always get how much work it takes to parlay travel and murder into a personal brand .
He thinks the Feds are closing in .
There ’ s no going back to Canada , so we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico .
Kevin says if we go down , it ’ ll be in a blaze of glory .
I ’ ve always admired how passionate , mindful , and present in the moment he is .

About Us:
Hi, guys! Welcome to our travel and murder blog. You might be wondering how two millennials plucked up the courage to jump off that corporate hamster wheel, cash in our savings, and buy a murder van. Believe me, it wasn’t an easy decision.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me tell you a little more about me and my boyfriend, Kevin. I was a pretty typical twentysomething when we met, two years ago. You might say that I was somewhat impressionable, even a little vulnerable. I didn’t have the greatest childhood. Anyway, that all changed when I met Kev. Sure, some of my girlfriends didn’t get the best vibes from him, but Kevin showed me that they were never my true friends and that I was better off without them. Since then, it’s basically been us against the world!
Kevin has a spotty record (totally unfair, BTW), and has had a bunch of different jobs—but advertising’s a revolving door, you know? Meanwhile, I was working at a startup. It was a great job with amazing benefits, but, in meetings, I’d daydream about hitting the road and Instagramming all of the natural beauty this country has to offer. Then I’d think about all the times Kevin’s told me that society is conspiring against us and that we only have each other and that we have to punish mankind for its sins. As you can tell, Kevin doesn’t do anything halfway!
Finally, with enough money saved up, we decided to take the plunge and embrace that #MurderVanLife! We sold everything we could, bought a van, and retrofitted it as a fully functional tiny murder house on wheels. It even has a reading nook—so cozy. Follow our blog to hear all about our adventures and our murders.
Denver, Colorado
We had a blast wandering the city, trying a bunch of great local microbrews, and getting lost in the Tattered Cover bookstore. I wanted to squeeze in a quick hike up Mt. Falcon, but Kevin was pretty anxious to start murdering. Eventually, we found this guy named James who fit the bill perfectly! After we murdered him, we cleaned up the van and got out of town on the quicker side, just in case. Kevin says we’ll be able to work at a more relaxed pace once we’re out in nature.
Moab, Utah
Nothing could have prepared me for the beauty of Arches National Park, not even the thousands of photos I looked at while we were driving through the Rockies. We fuelled up with a hearty breakfast prepared by yours truly on the little hot plate in our van. While we were hiking, we met this nice student named Elle and dumped her on our way out of town. If any of you are interested in embracing #MurderVanLife yourselves, I can’t recommend Utah enough! There are miles of open desert right off Route 70.
Jackson, Wyoming
Who’s got four thumbs and paddled the Snake River? THESE GUYS! Who’s got no thumbs and is currently drifting toward the Pacific? Our rafting guide, Matthew!
Banff, Alberta
I’m telling you, a bright blue glacial lake nestled among mountains is unlike anything you’ve ever imagined. This really nice couple named David and Marie helped us make our first-ever bear bag to keep our food away from hungry wildlife. We’re hoping those bears find David and Marie before the Mounties do!
Seattle, Washington
Real talk, guys. Living together in close quarters can be tough. I know blogs like this one sometimes make #MurderVanLife seem idyllic, but, if I’m being honest, there are challenges. Sometimes I’ll want to chat, but Kevin just wants to stare at all our victims’ drivers’ licenses for hours. Lately, he’s been really mad because he found out that I’ve been posting about each of our stops. He doesn’t always get how much work it takes to parlay travel and murder into a personal brand. He thinks the Feds are closing in. There’s no going back to Canada, so we’re going to try to gun it to Mexico. Kevin says if we go down, it’ll be in a blaze of glory. I’ve always admired how passionate, mindful, and present in the moment he is.


newyorker--2020-01-25--The Trump Impeachment and the Closing of the Senatorial Mind

Each day this week , when the Senate impeachment trial of Donald John Trump has convened at 1 P.M. , the proceedings have opened with a prayer by the Senate chaplain , Barry Black , pitched to the tenor of the day .
On Wednesday , responding to the ill-tempered partisan exchanges that marked the trial ’ s contentious first afternoon and evening , Black urged senators to “ remember that patriots reside on both sides of the aisle.
” On Thursday , he practically begged senators to take their role seriously , cautioning them against “ fatigue or cynicism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often more than hearing.
” Black warned against jeopardizing friendships of many years in the heat of the impeachment moment , and , on Friday , he returned to the theme of “ civility and respect ” and implored senators to maintain their ability to “ distinguish between facts and opinions without lambasting the messengers.
” I came to look forward to these homilies , but only because they seemed like pleas to a country and a Senate that no longer exist .
If anything , the chaplain was pleading with senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we all know they are doing .
In Trump ’ s exhausted , jaded capital , there is some listening , but certainly no hearing .
Civility is as often as not a dirty word , a synonym for moral compromise and not a prescription for practical politics .
In days of watching the trial , I have observed only a handful of instances of Republicans and Democrats interacting with each other in any way .
The Senate of the United States in 2020 is not a place where meaningful talking across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a place where facts are mutually accepted and individuals of good will can look at them and come to opposite but equally valid conclusions .
The distance is too vast , the gulf unbridgeable .
We already knew this , of course , before Trump was impeached by the Democratic House of Representatives and put on trial by the Republican Senate , a trial that has been fast-tracked toward his inevitable acquittal .
But what a sad and powerful demonstration of the phenomenon we are witnessing .
On Thursday night , at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately partisan—speeches , the lead House manager , Adam Schiff , began by making an overture to the senators , going on at great length about their fairness and thanking them for keeping “ an open mind.
” To say this was aspirational would be a stretch .
Schiff knew there were few , if any , open minds in the Senate , where , in the course of twenty-four hours spread across three days , he and his fellow House managers made their opening arguments .
The House team ’ s approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpersuadable audience was to veer between lengthy and at times repetitive PowerPoint-enabled recitations of the evidence against Trump—which was plentiful—and impassioned appeals to the Senate to do something about it .
As the week built toward the House managers ’ Friday-evening close , the level of passion seemed to rise , along with every senatorial tweet and TV interview confirming that their eloquence was largely lost on their audience .
On Friday afternoon , Hakeem Jeffries , of New York , offered an impressive recap of the lengths to which the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure campaign secret .
He cited names and dates for the cover-up .
At the end of his presentation , his tone changed .
“ There ’ s a toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue , ” Jeffries , who is often pegged as a future Speaker of the House , said .
“ I humbly suggest that it ’ s our collective job on behalf of the American people to try to clean it up.
” A few hours later , Jerry Nadler , the House Judiciary Committee chairman and another of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlining Trump ’ s assertion of essentially unlimited executive privilege and pointing out that Trump is the first President to categorically refuse to provide a single witness or document in response to a congressional impeachment inquiry , Nadler compared Trump to a would-be king .
Trump is “ the first and only President ever to declare himself unaccountable , ” Nadler said .
If he is left unchecked by Congress , Nadler concluded , “ He is a dictator .
This must not stand.
” In his own closing , Schiff hit many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a litany of Trump ’ s obstructive acts .
“ That has been proved , ” he said , over and over again , as he checked off each item on his list .
His disdain for the President was palpable .
( “ For a man who loves to mock others , he does not like to be mocked , ” Schiff , a frequent target of Trump ’ s attacks , said . )
And then he ended with an homage to “ moral courage ” and the real political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends—and our party.
” It was a moving speech , as Schiff ’ s usually are , and it sought to acknowledge that Republicans would have to do something very brave indeed : listen to his case and truly hear it .
He even proposed that Republicans merely punt the remaining question of whether to call witnesses in the trial to Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the Senate proceeding .
“ Give America a fair trial , ” he implored .
“ She ’ s worth it.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be .
( Indeed , a riff in Schiff ’ s speech citing a CBS story that Trump associates had reportedly threatened that any Republican who dared to vote against Trump would end up with his or her “ head on a pike ” soon had G.O.P .
senators claiming to be offended and outraged by Schiff ’ s words . )
As Schiff was speaking , the Associated Press tweeted out a news story that captured the moment as much as his dazzling words had .
It said , “ Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 GOP votes needed for witnesses to appear in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial.
” The game is all but over .
Who , in the end , were they speaking to ?
And to what end ?
Jeffries and Nadler and Schiff spoke of Trump as a liar running a dangerously dysfunctional Administration—which counts as an incontrovertible truth in their world but clearly does not in that of the Republican senators .
Those senators , after all , have been Trump ’ s enablers and supporters for three years now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to back him .
They have voted almost entirely in lockstep with his priorities , even those that diverged from the Party ’ s previously held orthodoxies or the senators ’ own longstanding beliefs .
If Trump ’ s Washington is the toxic hot mess that Jeffries spoke of , these folks can not conduct the cleanup .
They voted for the pollution .
There are two observations from the Senate floor that stick with me after three long days of hearing the House present its case .
These observations speak to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jury was for Schiff and his fellow-prosecutors .
The Republican John Kennedy , a canny Rhodes Scholar from Louisiana who is nonetheless known for his folksy observations , told a reporter , as he headed into the arguments on Friday morning , that the managers had made a mistake in reading their audience .
“ Very few souls are saved after the first twenty minutes of the sermon , ” he said .
Less charitable was the view of Mazie Hirono , a Democrat from Hawaii , who said that she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their chairs and understood that nobody likes to be forced to listen to something that they disagree with .
“ Most of us get restless when we are presented with information we don ’ t want to hear , ” Hirono said , and of course she was right .
Imagine doing that for twelve hours or more a day , confined to a hard wooden seat , with no food and every bathroom break you take scrutinized by reporters as proof that you are not taking your job seriously .
That , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Republican members found themselves this week .
It is no surprise that they looked unhappy .

Each day this week, when the Senate impeachment trial of Donald John Trump has convened at 1 P.M., the proceedings have opened with a prayer by the Senate chaplain, Barry Black, pitched to the tenor of the day. On Wednesday, responding to the ill-tempered partisan exchanges that marked the trial’s contentious first afternoon and evening, Black urged senators to “remember that patriots reside on both sides of the aisle.” On Thursday, he practically begged senators to take their role seriously, cautioning them against “fatigue or cynicism,” and insisting that “listening is often more than hearing.” Black warned against jeopardizing friendships of many years in the heat of the impeachment moment, and, on Friday, he returned to the theme of “civility and respect” and implored senators to maintain their ability to “distinguish between facts and opinions without lambasting the messengers.”
I came to look forward to these homilies, but only because they seemed like pleas to a country and a Senate that no longer exist. If anything, the chaplain was pleading with senators to do the exact opposite of what we all know they are doing. In Trump’s exhausted, jaded capital, there is some listening, but certainly no hearing. Civility is as often as not a dirty word, a synonym for moral compromise and not a prescription for practical politics. In days of watching the trial, I have observed only a handful of instances of Republicans and Democrats interacting with each other in any way. The Senate of the United States in 2020 is not a place where meaningful talking across the aisle is possible. It is not a place where facts are mutually accepted and individuals of good will can look at them and come to opposite but equally valid conclusions. The distance is too vast, the gulf unbridgeable.
We already knew this, of course, before Trump was impeached by the Democratic House of Representatives and put on trial by the Republican Senate, a trial that has been fast-tracked toward his inevitable acquittal. But what a sad and powerful demonstration of the phenomenon we are witnessing. On Thursday night, at the start of one of his most passionate—and ultimately partisan—speeches, the lead House manager, Adam Schiff, began by making an overture to the senators, going on at great length about their fairness and thanking them for keeping “an open mind.” To say this was aspirational would be a stretch. Schiff knew there were few, if any, open minds in the Senate, where, in the course of twenty-four hours spread across three days, he and his fellow House managers made their opening arguments.
The House team’s approach to the problem of having an essentially unpersuadable audience was to veer between lengthy and at times repetitive PowerPoint-enabled recitations of the evidence against Trump—which was plentiful—and impassioned appeals to the Senate to do something about it. As the week built toward the House managers’ Friday-evening close, the level of passion seemed to rise, along with every senatorial tweet and TV interview confirming that their eloquence was largely lost on their audience.
On Friday afternoon, Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, offered an impressive recap of the lengths to which the White House went to keep Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign secret. He cited names and dates for the cover-up. At the end of his presentation, his tone changed. “There’s a toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” Jeffries, who is often pegged as a future Speaker of the House, said. “I humbly suggest that it’s our collective job on behalf of the American people to try to clean it up.” A few hours later, Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee chairman and another of the managers, went further. After outlining Trump’s assertion of essentially unlimited executive privilege and pointing out that Trump is the first President to categorically refuse to provide a single witness or document in response to a congressional impeachment inquiry, Nadler compared Trump to a would-be king. Trump is “the first and only President ever to declare himself unaccountable,” Nadler said. If he is left unchecked by Congress, Nadler concluded, “He is a dictator. This must not stand.”
In his own closing, Schiff hit many of the same themes. He ran through a litany of Trump’s obstructive acts. “That has been proved,” he said, over and over again, as he checked off each item on his list. His disdain for the President was palpable. (“For a man who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked,” Schiff, a frequent target of Trump’s attacks, said.) And then he ended with an homage to “moral courage” and the real political bravery needed in “disagreeing with our friends—and our party.” It was a moving speech, as Schiff’s usually are, and it sought to acknowledge that Republicans would have to do something very brave indeed: listen to his case and truly hear it. He even proposed that Republicans merely punt the remaining question of whether to call witnesses in the trial to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate proceeding. “Give America a fair trial,” he implored. “She’s worth it.” But, of course, it was not to be. Indeed, a riff in Schiff’s speech citing a CBS story that Trump associates had reportedly threatened that any Republican who dared to vote against Trump would end up with his or her “head on a pike” soon had G.O.P. senators claiming to be offended and outraged by Schiff’s words. As Schiff was speaking, the Associated Press tweeted out a news story that captured the moment. It said, “Democrats do not appear close to getting the 4 GOP votes needed for witnesses to appear in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.” The game is all but over.
Who, in the end, were they speaking to? And to what end? Jeffries and Nadler and Schiff spoke of Trump as a liar running a dangerously dysfunctional Administration—which counts as an incontrovertible truth in their world but clearly does not in that of the Republican senators. Those senators, after all, have been Trump’s enablers and supporters for three years now, no matter how initially reluctant they were to back him. They have voted almost entirely in lockstep with his priorities, even those that diverged from the Party’s previously held orthodoxies or the senators’ own longstanding beliefs. If Trump’s Washington is the toxic hot mess that Jeffries spoke of, these folks cannot conduct the cleanup. They voted for the pollution.
There are two observations from the Senate floor that stick with me after three long days of hearing the House present its case. These observations speak to how essentially impossible the task of addressing the jury was for Schiff and his fellow-prosecutors. The Republican John Kennedy, a canny Rhodes Scholar from Louisiana who is nonetheless known for his folksy observations, told a reporter, as he headed into the arguments on Friday morning, that the managers had made a mistake in reading their audience. “Very few souls are saved after the first twenty minutes of the sermon,” he said. Less charitable was the view of Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, who said that she had been watching her Republican colleagues squirm in their chairs and understood that nobody likes to be forced to listen to something that they disagree with. “Most of us get restless when we are presented with information we don’t want to hear,” Hirono said, and of course she was right. Imagine doing that for twelve hours or more a day, confined to a hard wooden seat, with no food and every bathroom break you take scrutinized by reporters as proof that you are not taking your job seriously. That, roughly, is the predicament in which the Senate Republican members found themselves this week. It is no surprise that they looked unhappy.
But, still, if the goal of the House managers was to sway any votes, then it is hard not to see their presentation of the case as a failure. On Thursday night, the Republican Rob Portman, of Ohio, spoke to CNN’s Manu Raju outside the chamber and made what counts these days as a concession of sorts to the Democrats. Portman acknowledged that Trump’s withholding of millions in military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine, as he sought politically motivated investigations, was problematic behavior. “Some of the things that were done were not appropriate,” Portman said. “I’ve used the word ‘wrong’ and ‘inappropriate.’ That’s a very different question than removing someone from office who was duly elected, in the middle of a Presidential election.”
This, in effect, is what I would have expected Republican senators to say in defense of Trump in a previous, less polarized era. It is a modified, updated, Trumpified version of the defense that Democratic senators used twenty-one years ago in voting to acquit Bill Clinton on charges of lying under oath about an extramarital affair: Wrong, bad, inexcusable, but does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office.
Had Senate Republicans adopted this argument en masse, the trial would still have the same partisan outcome, but at least it would have taken place in the world of shared facts and expectations. But Portman is no longer the mainstream of the G.O.P.; the center has not held. On Friday afternoon, Judy Woodruff, of PBS, asked Portman’s colleague Deb Fischer, of Nebraska, whether she at least accepted “their premise” that Trump had asked Ukraine to investigate his 2020 political rival, former Vice-President Joe Biden. “I don’t,” Fischer said. This is remarkable stuff. What must the Senate chaplain make of such willful defiance of the facts? The demand from Trump to investigate Biden—by name, no less!—is right in the summary of his July 25th call with the Ukrainian President—the “perfect” phone call, as Trump calls it. The President has tweeted dozens of times since September urging Americans to “READ THE TRANSCRIPT!” How is it possible that one of the hundred senators is so disdainful of her duty that she has not bothered to do so or, if she has, is so willing to ignore what it so plainly says?
This is not a serious defense of Trump, of course, but it is amazingly revealing. The Senate trial of twenty-one years ago was for the Rob Portmans; the Senate trial of today is for the Deb Fischers. There is no audience for Adam Schiff, or if there is it has shrunk to a small handful of Republicans who may or may not vote next week to keep the trial going with witnesses and further evidence. For the rest of the Republicans and the forty per cent or so of America that has unflinchingly supported Trump through his Presidency, there will be another show, produced personally by the showman-in-chief.
That starts on Saturday, when the Trump legal team begins its opening arguments. Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, a Harvard Law School graduate who was the solicitor general of Texas before he became a senator, told the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, in an interview on Friday morning, that he was actively advising the Trump legal team after hours of sitting on the Senate floor each day. He said that he told the President’s lawyers, “No. 1, focus on substance more and process less.”
Don’t expect much substance. On Thursday morning, Trump gave a clear indication of the kind of defense he wants and where his mind is as he directs his lawyers. After “having to endure hour after hour of lies, fraud & deception by Shifty Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer & their crew,” Trump tweeted, “looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.” Later, Trump’s private lawyer for the impeachment, Jay Sekulow, elaborated, in the language of show business preferred by the reality-TV star in the White House. Saturday’s presentation by the Trump legal team will be like a “trailer,” Sekulow told reporters, during a break on Friday—a preview of “coming attractions.” The show, for a few more days at least, will go on.